asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the submission to arbitration of the dispute between this country and Britain in regard to the delimitation of the continental shelf, the arbitration having been agreed in principle over three years ago; and, if so, the reason for the delay in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Continental Shelf Dispute.
19.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to a similar question on 8 May 1979—volume 314 columns 24 to 28 of the Official Report—in which I stated that 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 that the question of delimitation of the continental shelf be submitted to an independent settlement of disputes procedure under some form of third party settlement of a judicial nature. There was no agreement in principle or otherwise at any stage to submit the dispute to arbitration. I want to make this clear to Deputy Kelly.
We are still in negotiation with the British on the form which the settlement procedure should take. In the course of the negotiations both sides have considered the different options which might be appropriate in this case. Our view remains that ad hoc arbitration is the most appropriate form of procedure and we have so indicated to the British. Representatives of our two Governments met in Dublin last September and the British indicated they were still considering our proposal but were not yet in a position to agree to an ad hoc arbitration.
It will be appreciated that agreement on the form of the third party settlement procedure is a matter of vital concern to both sides which requires very detailed consideration and neither party can force the other to accept any particular procedure.
We continued to urge the British to agree on the procedure and I would reiterate that I have personally stressed the urgency of the matter to the Minister of State at the British Foreign Office.
Will the Minister believe me when I say I am very puzzled by the form which his reply has taken? I have the distinct recollection, both in the job which the Minister of State now holds and as Attorney General for the short time I was there, that we had got so far with the British as to agree that the International Court of Justice would arbitrate this question. The only outstanding issue between us then was whether it would be the full court or a chamber or panel of the court. We had formed a view at the stage when I left office, and that was the only matter as far as I can recall that was then outstanding.
Ceist.
We seem to have gone backwards from there. I put it to the Minister that, in the parliamentary reply given on 8 May last to which he referred the House, Deputy Lenihan, answering for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, speculated that the reason for the lack of action in the period coming up to 8 May was the British general election and that was why nothing much was happening. He hoped we could take an immediate initiative to try to get the procedure moving. He said discussions would be resumed immediately with the new British Government with a view to getting this arbitration procedure moving. That was six months ago.
The Deputy is correct in his recollection of the facts up to the point where he was the outgoing Attorney General. The situation has since changed. We are pressing on apace with continuing urgency to get the British to come across with agreement or otherwise on the ad hoc arbitration. We cannot do anything more. We are doing our bit, and we have performed well to date in this regard. It is now a matter for the British to come clean on this matter. That is as far as we can go.
There is only one way to get good out of the British and that is to push them unmercifully.
A question please, Deputy.
Would the Minister accept that we got the distance we got because after all the politeness in the world and umpteen official and ministerial meetings, we finally did something aggressive. We designated across their line into the area——
A supplementary question please, Deputy.
I suggest to the Minister that his Government should do the same thing and they will get results.
That is not a question.
This is an important matter and it is being treated as if it were a question about a telephone call.
I agree about the importance of the question but this is Question Time and I am trying to get Deputy Kelly to ask a supplementary question.
I agree that the matter requires a push. The sentiments expressed by Deputy Kelly are my own. We will get on with the job. I hope the Deputy will not have to raise the matter again.
I am putting a question mark in my diary and I will raise the matter again as soon as I can.