Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jun 1996

Vol. 466 No. 8

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982, and the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at New York on 28 July 1994, copies of which have been laid before the Dáil on 10 June 1996.

This is probably one of the most important motions to come before this House and which will have significance for Ireland long after many of us have departed this House.

It is my privilege to bring before the House this motion to approve the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annexes, which was done at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 and the agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, with Annex, which was adopted by the General Assembly at New York on 28 July 1994.

Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states that the State shall not be bound by an international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann. The convention establishes an International Seabed Authority through which the states parties to the convention shall organise and control the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The convention also establishes an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea which will have jurisdiction in relation to disputes between states in regard to the provisions of the convention. On becoming a party to the convention and implementing agreement Ireland will be obliged to make an annual contribution to these two bodies and consequently this motion is before the House today.

The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982 is the fruit of the labour of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea which ran from 1973 to 1982. However, the seeds of much of what was produced by the third conference were sown by two earlier conferences, the first held in 1958, the second in 1960. The convention was opened for signature at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982. Ireland was one of the original signatories of the convention and signed it subject to ratification.

As the law of the sea is one of the oldest branches of international law, the convention is essentially of a hybrid nature. It is in part a statement of customary international law, in part a statement of new law — progressive development — and in part the constituent instrument of new international bodies; the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The convention addresses issues such as the territorial sea, environmental protection, fisheries and the legal regime for the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources of the deep ocean floor beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

Following the adoption of the convention in 1982, concern was expressed in relation to the principles and regulations governing the exploitation of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and consultations were held in order to obtain general and universal acceptance of Part XI of the Convention which deals with these matters. The Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention was concluded on 28 July 1994. Ireland signed the Agreement subject to ratification. The provisions of the Implementing Agreement overhauls the decision making procedures of Part XI of the convention and restructures the seabed mining regime along free market principles.

The convention gives a near comprehensive statement of the current international law of the sea, and has in addition established some ground breaking concepts. It provides for the status and the organisation of the legal regime of the seas and sea-beds in the following categories: territorial seas, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf and the high seas. It also provides for universal standards in the areas of protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research, the development and transfer of marine technology and for the settlement of disputes concerning the law of the sea.

The principal benefits of the Convention include: the establishment and stabilisation of the breadth of the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles; the setting forth of navigation regimes of innocent passage in the territorial sea, transit passage in straits used for international navigation and sea lanes passage in archipelagic waters; the reaffirmation of the traditional freedoms of navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic zone and in the high seas; the preservation of the right to use the world's oceans by commercial vessels with seagoing cargoes; the provision of an exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles from baselines for fisheries and other marine resources — that is of enormous significance to us; the securing of our rights regarding exploration, development and exploitation of the mineral resources such as oil and gas over the full extent of our continental shelf and the provision of criteria and procedures for determining the outer limit of our continental margin.

Other benefits include: far-reaching rules of protection for the marine environment by addressing vessel source pollution, pollution from sea-bed activities, ocean dumping and land-based sources of marine pollution; the provision of a regime to conserve and manage the natural and living resources of the sea; the provision of special regimes of protection for certain species, for example the salmon, and for marine mammals, for example whales and the promotion of marine scientific research by the establishment of criteria and procedures for research activities. A State intending to carry out such research is required to obtain the prior consent of the coastal State in whose waters the research activities will take place. Under the convention there will be dispute settlement provisions by various mechanisms for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the convention, in particular, by the establishment of a new court entitled the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The procedures are flexible in that they provide for a choice of options as to the appropriate means for the resolution of the dispute. There will also be a regime for managing the development of mineral resources of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction for the benefit of mankind through the establishment of an international organisation, the International Seabed Authority, which will grant licences and establish rules for the exploitation of the resources of the deep seabed. The convention provides legal regimes for all uses of the sea.

As a State with a long coastline, Ireland has a natural interest in preserving its rights and resources in the marine environment. Ireland is entitled to a generous exclusive economic zone and is one of the comparatively few States whose geological continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. The importance of the fishing industry to Ireland's economy provides an additional major incentive for ratification.

Ireland's continental shelf, which is some nine to ten times the size of the onshore, has potential as a location for rich and valuable natural resources which ought to be assessed, and, where feasible, developed. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to be established in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to the convention, will be elected in March from among the States parties to the convention. The Continental Shelf Commission has the important task of reacting to and making recommendations on the technical case made by each wide-margin state when the procedures for defining the outer limit in accordance with article 76 are being implemented.

It will be necessary to be party to the convention in order to have any outer limit claimed by Ireland established and accepted in international law. Ireland's claim will be for an area considerably beyond the 200 nautical mile limit and is particularly important because of the great extent and potential of the area. Part of the area being claimed by Ireland is also subject to counter claims by Iceland and by Denmark on behalf of the Faroe Islands. It is possible that either of these states could lodge a claim with the Continental Shelf Commission once it is established, so Ireland must be in a position to respond.

Ireland is somewhat protected from these counter claims as a result of its 1988 bilateral agreement with the UK establishing the line of division between the two countries across the entire continental shelf. As a result both the Faroese claim and the Islandic claim traverse the UK designated shelf before impinging on the Irish designated shelf. Another result of the 1988 agreement was to effectively sideline any dispute concerning Rockall itself. This point now lies within the UK designated area but has no effect in relation to the continental shelf claims of either country since under the terms of the convention it is a rock and not an island and, therefore, cannot have an associated continental shelf. Following the 1988 agreement, therefore, approximately two-thirds of the economically more important Rockall Trough is designated by Ireland and the remaining one-third is designated by the UK.

As a maritime nation, Ireland has had considerable interest in the post-war development of the law of the sea and has been particularly active in its development under the auspices of the United Nations. It is therefore appropriate for Ireland to proceed as soon as practicable to ratification.

Virtually all of the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958 are either repeated, modified or replaced by the provisions of the convention. Article 311 (1) of the convention provides that it will prevail, as between states parties. over the four Geneva Conventions.

In May 1996 there were 90 states parties to the convention and 50 to the agreement. The convention entered into force internationally on 16 November 1994 and thereafter for other states it will enter into force 30 days after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. In regard to the implementing agreement, Ireland joined 120 other states in voting for its adoption on 28 July 1994. There were no negative votes although there were seven abstentions.

I should add that the European Community intends to become a party to the convention and implementing agreement at an early date.

On becoming a party to the convention and agreement, the State will be liable to make an annual contribution to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Seabed Authority, two of the new institutions established by the convention. The approximate amount of the contribution of the State to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for 1996-97, is estimated to be £23,428. No figures are available in regard to the International Seabed Authority. At present the authority is being funded from the general budget of the United Nations and it is anticipated that the State will not be obliged to make a contribution until 1997.

I accordingly commend the convention and implementing agreement to the House for its approval.

Mr. R. Burke

I welcome this debate and obviously support the ratification of the convention. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which was concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica, in December 1982 and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982, was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in July 1994.

At the end of 1993 an event of significant importance took place in regard to law and order at sea. At the end of that year there was the sixtieth ratification by a signatory to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, an event which allowed the convention to be brought into force in November 1994. The sixtieth ratification brought an end to 25 years of negotiation.

In 1982 the countries convened in Jamaica for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive regime dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea, bearing in mind that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole.

The discussions and negotiations of these countries have found life in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The introduction of the text of the convention states that it is multifaceted and represents a monument to international co-operation in the treaty making process. The convention represents an attempt to establish true universality in an effort to achieve a just and equitable international economic order governing ocean space.

The convention is a complex and comprehensive framework for the regulation of ocean space. It is a mammoth tome, divided into 17 parts with nine annexes and contains provisions governing the limits of national jurisdictions over ocean space; access to the seas; navigation; protection and preservation of the marine environment; exploitation of living resources and conservation; scientific research; sea bed mining and other exploitation of non-living resources and the settlement of disputes. The convention also established new international bodies to carry out functions for the realisation of specific objectives.

One of the highlights of the convention's text is its grounding in the idea that the enjoyment of rights and benefits involved the concomitant undertaking of duties and obligations, so that an overall equitable order may be created. The paramount duty of all states is to respect the rights of others.

The convention allows, for example, for the establishment of a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles in breadth and provides various methods for determining baselines and distinguishing between territorial waters and internal waters. Beyond the 12 miles boundary, the convention allows for the creation of an exclusive economic zone of up to 200 nautical miles, an issue which led to contentious debate during negotiations on the convention.

Having laid down guidelines for the determination of the limits of national jurisdiction, the convention sets out the princples and regulations governing the seabed and ocean floor beyond those limits — limits which are the common heritage of mankind. Do the guidelines carry any weight? To copperfasten the convention guidelines, an International Seabed Authority was established, which has the power to administer the common heritage of mankind and to regulate its exploration and exploitation.

In addition to territorial boundaries and the laying down of principles and regulations, the convention also includes provisions for the purpose of fostering the development and facilitating the transfer of all varieties of marine technology and to encourage the conduct of marine scientific research.

In the event of disputes the convention obliges that if parties to them do not and cannot settle the disputes in a peaceful manner, a selection of methods can be employed for doing so in the event that they are unable to reach agreement, even with third party intervention.

The convention's system is compulsory and binding; a party has no choice but to submit to a settlement procedure if requested to do so by the other party involved in the dispute, except in limited circumstances. Equally important is the fact that a party is bound to abide by the findings of the body to which the dispute is submitted. States have the opportunity to use the facilities of the International Court of Justice, arbitration or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — a new and autonomous specialised tribunal established by the convention.

On the occasion of the final session of the Law of the Sea Conference in Montego Bay, the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar, stated that the international law had been irrevocably transformed and that the convention was like a breath of fresh air at a time of serious crisis in international co-operation and decline in the use of international machinery for the solution of world problems.

Following final ratification of the convention, Ireland will benefit from many aspects of its articles and annexes. For example, we will enjoy the benefit of a 12 mile territorial zone around our long coastline and the contiguous zone of 200 miles. The Minister of State referred to the agreement of 1988 with the UK. I had the honour at that time of being Minister for Energy and I was involved in the negotiations with the UK on the agreement.

For island nations, the convention should help to promote the maintenance of international peace and security, as it will replace a mind boggling array of conflicting claims by coastal states with accepted limits on the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Ireland will also benefit from the regime of innocent passage through territorial sea; the regime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation and from the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage.

The world community, including Ireland, should benefit from increased interest in and promotion of conservation and the optimum use of the sea's living resources. Fianna Fáil's policy document Our Place in the World has committed it to protecting and promoting all aspects of the global environment, an environment which includes the seas and oceans. The document indicates that most of today's political leaders will be dead before the planet suffers the full consequences of acid rain, ozone depletion, nuclear outfall and species loss. It also states that we have not inherited the earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.

The document recognises that our membership of the EU and particularly our forthcoming Presidency, allow us the opportunity to contribute to the environment as a global issue. The last six months of this year will provide us with the perfect opportunity to continue to promote the aspirations set out in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is the duty of the Government to use this opportunity to the full.

A convention of this complexity and comprehensiveness cannot ensure that all is a clear blue picture with regard to the oceans and seas of the world. A recent article in The Economist had as its by-line “Seas of Troubles”. These “troubles” lie in China's claims on what it views as national territory. About three weeks ago, China's official press, The People's Daily, reported that the Chinese Government had announced that the area of sea under China's jurisdiction had, in mid-May, grown from 370,000 square kilometres to some 3 million square kilometres. In one fell swoop China has claimed an expanse of sea and countless small islands and reefs in the South China Sea.

However, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei also lay some claim to these waters. These neighbouring countries are understandably concerned about the threat that such a newly assertive regime by China could bring an era of instability to the region. China's action is all the more surprising given that on 15 May this year it ratified this UN convention.

While it has quite legitimately claimed a 200 mile offshore zone down its mainland coast, it has also drawn a 200 mile zone around the Paracel archipelago, which Chinese soldiers occupy. As a result Vietnam is incensed. Clearly, the convention does not solve all sea or ocean based problems. However, China is not alone. There is also a stand-off in the Aegean Sea whereby Turkey has threatened war if Greece extends its territorial waters to 12 miles.

With regard to the agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the convention, which was adopted in July 1994, it is important that Ireland uses its influence at EU and UN level to ensure the benefits of the common heritage of mankind is not solely enjoyed by the developed world. The International Seabed Authority, established following the agreement, must ensure the common heritage is shared by all. As one would expect, many developing countries are concerned that implementation of the convention will not benefit them to any extent. The resources of the seas must not be claimed solely by the developed world. The history of the developed world ransacking the lands of the developing world must not be repeated. The Government must use all its powers and energies to ensure that exploitation of weaker and less developed nations does not occur.

In agreeing that Ireland should become a party to this UN convention and agreement on the Law of the Sea, I hope the Government will take on board some of the concerns I have expressed. We have a proud history with nations throughout the world, particularly developing nations. We have enjoyed a particular affinity and credibility with these nations and we must ensure our record continues and prospers. We must also strive to match our healthy overseas development record with a vigorous demand that the world environment is protected and enhanced.

We should use every opportunity to highlight the dangers of ships carrying nuclear waste for reprocessing through the Irish Sea to Sellafield. We must do everything possible to stop this trade in nuclear waste which threatens the Irish people each time a ship goes up the Irish Sea. The Government must achieve its goals and I support its intention to ratify the convention.

Mr. O'Malley

I support this motion to enable Ireland ratify this long standing convention from which we benefit greatly. Our position is a great deal stronger legally and economically than it was prior to the introduction of the convention. I am surprised to note that the main convention was signed in 1982 and various amendments have had to be made to it since. It is regrettable it has taken so long for the motion to ratify it to come before the House, particularly as we have an inherent interest in having it implemented internationally as quickly and as broadly as possible.

This is a very large document and only one copy has been placed in the Library. I cannot get a copy of it and I cannot spend my days in the Library studying it. To debate its contents without maps is somewhat meaningless. Will the Minister of State arrange for the Department of Foreign Affairs to send Deputy Burke and me complete copies of the convention, annexes and maps? This matter will arise on a regular basis in the months and years ahead and all parties should have a complete copy of those documents. This is the sort of topic that, if it is to be dealt with properly, requires a well researched and lengthy speech to take account of all matters that arise. However, under the rules for the debate I will not have an opportunity to do that.

Of all the international negotiations into which Ireland entered since independence, the least successful were our negotiations on fishing rights on accession to the European Community. As I was a member of the Government in 1972 I have some understanding of why those negotiations were not successful. There was a certain degree of anxiety on the part of many other economic and political interests to have matters completed in May 1972 so that we could hold a referendum on joining the Community, which the overwhelming majority of our people wanted. To some extent our fishing rights were sacrificed for the greater good of the country and we are now paying a fairly high price for that. While there is not much we can do about it, I want to use the opportunity of this debate to say that we should never again be so generous with our assets, particularly our marine resources. This is particularly important now in the light of the potential resources of our Continental Shelf.

Ireland benefits more than any other country from the provisions of this convention. We are in the unusual position of having a longer coastline and a greater area of Continental shelf in proportion to our land mass than any other country. As this convention is crucial for us, it is regrettable this debate is confined to ten minutes per Member.

The Minister of State estimated Ireland's Continental Shelf as nine to 12 times the size of the onshore. I believe it is greater than that. We have significant areas outside the 200 mile limit over which I hope and trust the Government will ensure we exercise our full rights under the convention. The Minister of State said that as a result of the 1988 agreement with the United Kingdom all matters between us and them regarding the Continental Shelf have been settled for all time. That is not my recollection. She spoke in particular about Rockall area and the Rockall Trough. From my recollection of my time in the Department of Energy and other posts I held in various Governments we did not finalise an agreement on the division in the St. George's Channel area as between Britain and Ireland. For the purposes of oil exploration, there are still doubtful areas down the middle of the Irish Sea and in St. George's Channel, in what we call the Celtic Sea and between France and Ireland in what the French call the Mer d'Iroise. These matters have not been finalised. The Rockall area to the north west is not the only place about which matters have not been finalised.

The settlement between the United Kingdom and Ireland relating to Rockall is probably satisfactory from our point of view if everybody accepts Rockall is a rock, not conferring any rights or jurisdictions in itself. It is worth noting that the nearest mainland to Rockall is Ireland and the nearest land comprises islands off the west coast of Scotland. As the matter could be argued ad infinitum, it made good sense to reach an agreement with Britain on the matter. However, it is important that we resist the slightly far-fetched claims of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which may not be pursued. Rockall is a valuable fishing area but, more importantly, if oil or gas were discovered there it would have great economic benefits. Even if we establish our rights as a nation over fishing there, we have given them away to the European Union. We must be very careful not to give away any more rights.

The Minister of State said the European Community intends to become a party to the convention and implementing agreement. I take it she means the European Union, not just one of the communities, will become a party to the convention. If the Union becomes a party I presume that would not invalidate the ratification and the rights of individual member states because we have not given up those economic rights to the Union. We have given up only our fishing rights. That should be spelt out very clearly because it will be a matter of fundamental importance in the future. The position in the Irish Sea, the St. George's Channel, the Mer d'lroise and the Celtic Sea should be clarified. What is being done here in a great hurry today will have huge economic consequences for many years to come.

The sheer breadth of this convention and the number of areas it covers is almost mind-boggling and it is very important. Some of the elements of it, which may not appear today to be hugely important or central, are likely to become so in the future. It is interesting that the Minister referred to one of the benefits of the convention as the provision of special regimes of protection for the anadromous species — for example, the salmon — and for marine mammals. It is curious that we as a country will be able, under this convention, to enforce other states to protect salmon but we destroy it when it comes into our own territorial waters. That is absolutely deplorable.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

The Deputy's time has expired.

Mr. O'Malley

There is so much involved in this convention that it is a pity we are confined to a mere ten minutes.

Acting Chairman

Regretably that is the order of the day and I have no discretion in the matter.

Mr. O'Malley

I am aware of that. I would like a full copy of the convention with all its annexes and maps. There will not be any period in the years ahead when it will not be very relevant. In economic terms it is perhaps the most important agreement Ireland has ever entered into and we are very fortunate to have done so well from it. We are indebted to a succession of public servants who were engaged in work on it. The person I remember best is Mr. Mahon-Hayes who spent many years working on it. I do not know whether he is retired or is still in the Department, but he certainly struggled valiantly with it——

Mr. R. Burke

The world's greatest expert on the subject.

Mr. O'Malley

——for years and this country is greatly indebted to him for the very satisfactory outcome after many years of negotiation.

Mr. Deasy

This law of the sea convention is very complex. It is awesome to think that our Continental Shelf is nine to ten times greater than the land mass of this island, yet we know little about it and, most alarmingly, are unconcerned about it. With the exception of the four people present, interest in the debate is minute, which is worrying.

I was interested to hear of the progress made in 1988 in terms of the Rockall Trough, to which Deputy O'Malley referred, and that two-thirds of that area has been allocated to Ireland and one-third to the United Kingdom. I do not know if that is public knowledge. I am not sure of the position with regard to the rock called Rockall — it could not be described as an island. Where does ownership of that lie? The water around Rockall is particularly valuable because it is quite shallow and, apart from being a good fishery area, it is also very valuable for its natural resources. Statoil is on the point of drilling in the Porcupine Bank, which is 150 to 200 miles off Connemara. There will be quite an amount of exploration in deeper waters in years to come.

It is mind-boggling to think that not alone have we access to a Continental Shelf nine or ten times as great as the island of Ireland but the convention allows us extended rights — I presume the extended area is half way between Ireland and the United States and Canada. Nobody seems to be aware of that other than the Minister, her advisers and the few people here today. We have mineral rights to an incredible amount of territory — for all we know, it may be as large as the United States or China. Underwater mining and mineral exploration, whether for oil or metals, will become exceptionally important in the future. We are not aware of our wealth and do not have the expertise to exploit it. We depend on major multinational companies such as Statoil to use its expert knowledge to extract minerals under licence from this country.

I would like the Minister to elaborate on the extended areas to which we have rights under this convention. The areas involved must be huge and obviously spread westward to the Atlantic, but how far do they extend in a southerly direction? Deputy O'Malley referred to the line of demarcation between Britain and France, somewhere in the St. George's Channel. It would be very interesting to know the delineation involved.

That we literally gave away the bulk of our fishing rights in 1972 when negotiating our entry to the European Union was referred to. It is welcome that people who were in Government at the time admit to that, but regardless of what Government was in office the same thing would have happened. The lack of interest in nautical matters, particularly fishery matters, at higher levels is unbelievable. Our children and their children will look back in dismay at our neglect in this area.

We own 16 per cent of the Community's waters — they are within our territorial Continental Shelf area — but we have only 4 per cent of the fish quota. That is alarming and shows a tremendous degree of indifference. We have been hoodwinked all along the line, even as recently as last year by the Spaniards and other EC countries who supported them, and by the EC Commissioner for Fisheries. The Spaniards' quota might be reasonable if they abided by the law, but they do not; they buck the laws, the rules and regulations at every twist and turn. They catch much more fish than they should. They have little or no regard for quota systems or the preservation of various species of fish. Their only thought is to catch as much as possible — retention of stocks is secondary. They have raped seas and fishing grounds all over the world, in the south Atlantic off the South American coast or off both the Atlantic and Indian coasts of Africa. Last year they tried to do it off Canada but luckily Mr. Tobin, a Canadian Minister of Irish descent, stood up to them and stopped them in their tracks.

We have not done so — we have allowed them to fish here since time immemorial. The Irish Navy Service's fishery crews have done a wonderful job but, as pointed out, our coastline is so vast it is virtually impossible to supervise it all. They have been overwhelmed because at any given time there are dozens of Spanish fishery ships — they should be called ships rather than trawlers — fishing illegally in Irish waters. A percentage of them are caught but the bulk get away scot free.

They are destroying our fisheries because they have no concept of conservation. They will catch a fish which weighs a few ounces, even though it might grow to 20 pounds, and sell it openly on the Spanish market. Two years ago "The Cook Report", an investigative programme on ITV, demonstrated that the Spanish fishing fleet was unscrupulous in what it caught but no one in Spain or the European Commission was capable of standing up to them. The Basque terrorist organisation ETA intimidated fishery officers, saying that if officials prosecuted fishermen or examined the holds in which undersized fish were held, their lives would be in danger. These physical threats were shown on the programme; I wonder if the EU Commission saw it.

We are now expected to cut back our fishery fleet by 40 per cent because of the massive illegal tactics of the Spaniards. Two weeks ago, a senior member of the Norwegian Government told me that, although its referendum on joining the EU was lost by a close vote, it was not because the people wished to protect their fisheries because Norway was getting a good deal from the EU.

Mr. M. Smith

Exceptionally good.

Mr. Deasy

He said that if Ireland had a similar deal we would not have the problems we now face. The Norwegians made sure that the Spaniards would not go near their fisheries. He then told me something which is astounding to those who remember the last 30 years — Iceland was interested in joining the EU at that time, because when it saw the protection Norway was getting, it could see no reason its fisheries would not be protected in the same way. This shows that, as another Deputy said, we sold out our fishery rights, whereas the Norwegians and Icelandics were promised that they would hold what they had. This is not only interesting, it is tragic.

Mr. M. Smith

I am delighted to support this motion. We all too infrequently discuss the marine environment, marine resources and our area of ownership. It may be that for historical reasons we have not grasped the significance, riches and potential of the seas around our coast to the extent we should. As an occupied country, perhaps we saw the agressor as always coming from the seas. Even in the way we design our towns, we turn our backs to the sun and the sea. Pouring effluent into coastal waters is another indication that we do not understand the value of water and air and how we can develop our natural environment.

The convention is extremely progressive. We are extremely anxious to ratify it and we support the Government in so doing. A number of Governments were involved in progressing the detailed aspects of the convention along its tortuous route.

We have 16 per cent of EU waters, 4 per cent of the fish catch and an old and ageing fishing fleet. At present there are proposals to reduce still further our EU quota. Although we do not have the capacity to cause over-fishing problems. we are expected to accept this cut, with the disastrous consequences it would have for us. In this we are also expected to be in tune with all other countries, not least those who caused the problem. Our Casa aircraft have provided the Government with new information about how our waters are being raped, how the Spanish "vacuum cleaners" over-fish, fish illegally, give wrong logs, use secret holds, etc. When Spanish fishery ships are boarded by the Naval Service, 20 per cent are found to be fishing illegally.

While we embrace whole-heartedly the contents of this convention and the rights it gives us, still we gaze almost helplessly at the destruction of a resource, and the EU will ultimately take a roasting for not protecting it. Millions of tons of immature fish, estimated at £1 billion to £2 billion per annum, are being taken from our seas by foreign trawlers. To put this in context, we enjoy considerable benefits from the EU in Structural and Cohesion Funds and in other ways, yet at the same time our membership means we are being deprived of rich resources. In enshrining in law methods of protection, new facilities for settling disputes, and measures to develop our marine environment and our ownership of it, we should take much more control of what is happening to these resources.

We must also concentrate on research. Some 70 per cent of the world consists of seas and oceans but we do not know enough about them. Our educational institutions, particularly Cork regional technical college and the Marine Institute, are doing work to establish our true resources. In determining our ownership and what to do with these resources, it is critically important to find the additional funds required to carry out intensive research and to link into universities and research institutes throughout the world in an effort to establish not only the living resources but the other resources which may be of enormous benefit to us in the future.

With these provisions, I am extremely happy to support this convention and urge the Government to ratify it as soon as possible.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I thank all the Deputies who participated in the debate on the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI.

The convention did not come into force until November 1994 and we will ratify it within two years of its entry into force at international level. Reference was made to Mr. Mahon Hayes who carried out outstanding work in this area. He has retired from the Department and is a member of the Constitutional Review Committee — having sorted out the laws of the sea he is now trying to sort out the Constitution.

On the question of the Continental Shelf, the territory of the 26 counties is 70,000 square kilometres and the current designated offshore area is 652,000 square kilometres. Under the convention we could have an additional designated area of 213,000 square kilometres, giving us a potential of 865,000 square kilometres which is nine to 12 times the land area of the Republic. It is a pity that in debates of this nature we do not have the benefit of audio visual facilities which would ensure a much more informative debate not only for us but for the general public. It is ironic that unlike county councils we cannot put maps on display during such debates. I will provide copies of the convention and agreement to members of the Opposition parties. No maps accompanied the documentation as some of them are the subject of contention. On Deputy Burke's point about China, we have been notified by it of its new designation order and we are in the process of examining the co-ordinates furnished to us.

On the points about the EU and the common fisheries policy, occasionally it is stated that we have a begging bowl mentality when looking for subsidies and Structural Funds. Regardless of what we have gained in terms of Structural Funds and agricultural price supports, we have contributed, and will continue to contribute, more than our fair share to the Union and certain member states as a consequence of the decisions made in 1972 to essentially cede competence for the common fisheries policy to the Union. Hindsight is a wonderful teacher and we have paid dearly for that decision. While we have 16 per cent of the area we have only 4 per cent of the quota and we will continue to press for a review of the allocation of quotas.

The areas of competence which have been ceded also include commercial and costoms policy. We have shared competence in regard to maritime transport, the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution. I understand the European Union intends to become a party to the convention in the near future. Work is at an advanced stage on the preparation of a declaration which concerns the competence of the European Union in regard to matters governed by the convention and the implementation agreement and it will be made pursuant to Article 5 (1) of Annex IX to the convention and Article 4 (4) of the implementing agreement.

Mr. O'Malley

Will it supersede our ratification of any of our economic interests?

Ms Burton

Only in the sense that there will be two structures, our membership of the EU and our ratification of the convention. In some areas it may be a matter for discussion but we ceded certain rights to the EU as far back as 1972.

Mr. O'Malley

My understanding is that they relate only to fishing. I do not want the European Union telling us where we can drill for oil and who owns the oil.

Ms Burton

The reality is that we ceded competence in the areas of commercial and customs policy and we share competence in other areas. That is a matter of fact.

Under Article 1 of the convention the deep seabed is alluded to as the common heritage of mankind and, therefore, the deep ocean floor belongs to the International Seabed Authority. Nonetheless, when the convention comes into force it will open for us — as a State we must pursue this — the possibility of using the resources, particularly those in the extraordinary area of the Continental Shelf, for our benefit. It will be important to devote substantial investment in ascertaining how best we can use these resources, having learnt from some of the unfortunate mistakes made in this area in the past. The convention gives us new opportunities which the Government, and I hope all other governments, are committed to exploiting.

Question put and agreed to.