asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have had discussions with the British Government as to the relative rights of Ireland and Britain to sovereignty over the island of Rockall; and, if so, the outcome of such discussions.
15.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rockall Sovereignty.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, which have been taken by the Government to establish a claim to sovereignty over the island of Rockall.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together. No steps have been taken by this or any previous Government to claim sovereignty over Rockall. As I told the Deputy on 1st November, we do not regard the ownership of Rockall as having any significance for jurisdiction over the adjoining waters. We have informed the British Government that we do not accept that they are entitled to enforce any prohibition on fishing in those seas. No further negotiations have taken place.
Does the Minister appreciate the fact that it is not just enough in our own interests to reject a claim by another Government to this or any other island? If we want to pursue our interests we must, in fact, formally present such claims as we may have. Does the Minister not appreciate that?
The fact is that over the last 16 years no such claim was prosecuted by the then Government and, in our view, the question of a claim to ownership is not crucial to the question of fishing rights and we are insisting on that position with the British authorities.
The Minister referred to fishing rights. One is not concerned with fishing rights. One is concerned with exploration rights. Does the Minister not accept that if one wants to have status at international arbitration one has to have a claim so that that status can, in fact, be tested and, until such time as we make a claim we do not have any local standing before any court?
The Deputy is entitled to the view that it would have helped had the previous Government during that 16 years made such a claim, but the reason I mention fishing at this stage is because this issue has arisen recently. We have informed the British of our position in relation to this. Of course, we do not accept that the ownership of Rockall, if it did exist in Britain's hands, would affect the position in regard to mineral rights either.
In that the Minister is at odds with all international legal view.
The Deputy should remember that this is Question Time.
If one has sovereignty over an area it does give one exclusive jurisdiction——
The Deputy is making a statement.
The Minister has made a statement.
The Minister is entitled to make a statement.
Does the Minister accept the widely held intertown national view that sovereignty over an island does give one exclusive jursidiction to exploration?
The Deputy is entitled to put forward the case that the failure of the previous Government to take any action in the matter for 16 years has in some way prejudiced our case. We do not accept that and we insist that our case in regard to fishing rights and mineral rights has not been prejudiced by that action. We could take another view but we have not done so.
Is the Minister aware that the first British claim to Rockall was made when a previous Coalition Government were in office? In view of that, is the Minister prepared now to withdraw the suggestion that it was our Government who failed? It was the Minister's predecessors who failed to take action at that time.
I am aware that at the time a Coalition Government were in power, but for the last 16 years the previous Government was in office—for a sight too long.
We cannot debate this matter and we must pass on to the next question.
Is the Minister aware that it was only in the last year or two that there has been an awareness of the significant natural resources around this island? It was for that reason that I put this question down and not to embarrass the Government in any way.
I am not aware that the awareness of the significance of the natural resources goes back a long way. It has been known for some years that fish existed in the sea around Rockall apart from anything else.
We deserve better than that from the Minister.
I am being serious about this. The suggestion that emerges now about the resources is that nothing could have been done in the 16 years the previous Government were in office to deal with it. It is not a serious suggestion and I will not take it as such.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling the next question.
The Deputy would do more for the national interest if he did not start now trying to pursue an argument that the fact that no action was taken over this period of time has in some way prejudiced our position. It is our position that, though no action was taken, our position has not been prejudiced and it does not give any right to prohibit fishing in the area or control of our natural resources. I hope the Deputies in Opposition support us in that claim rather than try to sabotage it.
Is the Minister aware that international agreement in regard to the exploration of the Continental Shelf had not taken place 16 years ago or, indeed, for many years afterwards? Furthermore, the Minister stated earlier that the case had been made by the Government here to the British Government in regard to this Government's view on the situation and I should like to ask the Minister what reply, if any, he received from the British Government.
The Deputy's party sat idly by for the past 16 years.
That is a seperate question and I would prefer if a separate question was put down about it.
It is not a separate question; it is directly related to the question before the House.
I do not wish, through any error of recollection on my part, to misinform the House but I can say that, in reply to the communication we made on this question of fishing, we had a reply from the British Government stating that they intended to enforce the British Fisheries Acts in those regions on 1st December, 1973. We do not, of course, accept their right to do so.
The Minister insists on talking about fishing when the real issue is oil and natural gas.
The immediate communication relates to fishing. I have made it clear that we do not accept this right in that regard.
Is the Minister saying that the view expressed by him to the British Government related only to fishing and nothing else?
No.
That is what the Minister said.
The difficulty I am in is that I have, perhaps wrongly, proceeded beyond the framework of the question. It would be better if a separate question were put down. I was trying to be helpful. The position is complicated by virtue of the fact that, apart from the general question of communications relating to a British claim to jurisdiction over Rockall, there was a special issue relating to fisheries in the immediate past—in fact, even within the last five weeks—under discussion. The question I was asked did not develop that theme and now as I am being pressed, in supplementaries, I am trying to answer as helpfully and as fully as I can within the limits possible.
We have given a lot of time to this matter and I am passing on to the next question.
The Minister is so evasive that he is making us suspicious.