Vol. 314 No. 1
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the negotiations on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Britain and Ireland; and why the submission of the dispute to arbitration has been so long delayed.
20.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason for the continuing delay in setting up the arbitration between Ireland and Britain, as agreed in principle in 1975, on the division of the Continental Shelf.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 20 together.
As the Deputies are aware, when agreement on delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Ireland and Britain could not be reached between the two Governments following lengthy negotiations we proposed to the British that the dispute be submitted to an arbitration tribunal. The British, after some delay, agreed to submit the question of delimitation to an independent settlement of disputes procedure through some form of third party settlement of a judicial nature. We are still in negotiation with the British on the form which the procedure should take. Representatives of our two Governments met in London in July last year and the British indicated they were still considering our proposal but were not yet in a position to agree to an ad hoc arbitration. We have continued to urge them to agree to the procedure and as I stated in the House last March I again indicated to the Minister of State at the British Foreign Office when I met him in Brussels recently the urgency of the matter.
It will be appreciated that agreement on the form of the third party settlement procedure is a matter which is of vital concern to both sides and one to which very detailed consideration of all aspects must be given.
Do I understand from what the Minister has said that, in effect, the British Government have a de facto veto in allowing this matter to be processed any further by their refusal to agree to the proposed system of arbitration he outlined?
I am confident that they will agree to a settlement procedure. In principle there is no disagreement between the British authorities and ourselves on this matter. There has been delay on the part of the British—I am speculating here—largely on account of the British general election situation and the lead-up period into it. From now on we can take an immediate initiative to try to get the procedure moving.
I appreciate that the Minister is not directly involved. If the British refuse to agree to the details of an agreed procedure does that give them an effective de facto veto in the matter? If so, could the Minister outline to the House what action our Government propose to take?
That is the case in all matters of this kind. We are seeking to get agreement with them on the arbitration procedure. Of course, there must be agreement between the two parties on that. We have no reason to doubt that such agreement will be forthcoming. Discussions will be resumed immediately with the new British Government with a view to getting this arbitration procedure moving.
I have not been privy to this matter since a certain event in July 1977. Would the Minister agree that the tribunal which was to adjudicate on this dispute was agreed between our Government and the British Government in 1975, or at latest early 1976, and that tribunal was the International Court of Justice? The only matter still outstanding to be fixed was whether it would be the full court or a panel of the court. That agreement had been extracted from the British after very gross delay on their part only by the fact that the National Coalition Government authorised the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make very substantial designations in the disputed area. But for that, not even that much agreement would have been reached. Since that time, since the National Coalition Government left office, nothing has been done——
We cannot have this long statement.
——to press this matter to a conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the present state of international law after the arbitration between Britain and France involving the Scilly Isles makes it a peculiarly favourable moment from our point of view and the worst possible moment for us to drag our heels or let the British drag theirs.
I cannot permit long statements.
The British do nothing unless they are pushed. We pushed them and this Government should do the same.
The reality is that there is no binding agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom whereby one party can impose upon the other any dispute settlement procedure. That is the gist of what Deputy Quinn sought to obtain. We have to try to get some agreement on the procedure. It is not our fault that there has been no British Government operating for a number of months now, to be realistic about it.
There has been no Irish Government for two years.
In April or May 1977 the British had agreed to the International Court of Justice and it was only a purely procedural point which still remained to be established. That is two years ago now.
At any rate, immediate steps will now be taken to raise the matter with the new British Government.
There is only one way to do it and that is to push them.
No British Government has been functioning for the past six months in this and every other area.
The British Government for the past six months reminded me very much of the Coalition Government in their last six months.
The Minister did not say that while they were still in office. He is very courageous now when they are no longer in office.
We got action with a small majority and the Government are getting none with the seven dozen eggs they have stacked over there.
Deputy Kelly has not got a licence to ignore the Chair.
The Deputy is a marvellous entertainer.
I appreciate the Minister's concern for the apparent lack of Government across the water, but it would be nice if we could enjoy the facility which they have of being able to post a letter. I should like to return to the question. I asked the Minister, who is an experienced Minister, if the effective delay exercised by the British Government in bringing these negotiations to a satisfactory stage mean that they are pursuing a de facto veto in this matter; and, if so, if he would indicate the course of action open to this Government who purport to govern?
What I am saying is that in any two-way arbitration each side has a de facto veto on the other side. That applies in all bilateral negotiations. We are seeking to get the British Government around the table on a certain arbitration procedure. Agreement has been reached in principle between the British and Irish Governments that the dispute should be submitted to some form of arbitration. What we are seeking is the actual form of arbitration.
That was decided three years ago.
How long will the de facto veto be allowed to continue by the Government before the matter is taken a stage further?
Now that there is a functioning Government in Britain we should get action in this area.
