Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are linked and that amendment No. 2 is disallowed but I will happily deal with both amendments. My speaking note should cover both. Amendment No. 3 is overly prescriptive but I assure the Deputies it has always been the practice to attach an explanatory note to any order made under the Maritime Jurisdiction Acts as well as illustrative maps where appropriate. For instance, the recent Maritime Jurisdiction (Straight Baselines) Order 2016 included an illustrative chart as well as an explanatory note.

I assure Deputies that there is no intention to depart from that practice and for this reason I am unable to accept amendment No. 3.

The 2013 agreement between Ireland and the UK, which has been referred to by a number of Deputies, established exclusive economic zone, EEZ, boundaries and was signed on 28 March 2013. It was ratified on 31 March 2014 and entered into force on the same day. The boundaries established by that agreement were prescribed by the Maritime Jurisdiction (Boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zone) Order 2014 and this order was subject to the negative resolution procedure, that is, it was open to either House of the Oireachtas to annul it by resolution within 21 sitting days of it being laid before the Oireachtas. No such resolution was adopted. The 2013 agreement was then laid before Dáil Éireann in accordance with Article 29.5.1° of Bunreacht na hÉireann and published in the Irish Treaty Series. As the agreement did not involve a charge on public funds, its prior approval by Dáil Éireann in accordance with Article 29.5.2° was not required. This was not unconstitutional and it is important to set the record straight on that before the House .

The 2013 agreement between Ireland and the UK is an agreement the Government is satisfied achieves an equitable solution to the boundary issue and it is considerably to our benefit. A strict equidistance line, which some seem to have suggested we should have pursued, would have resulted in a far greater maritime area falling on the UK side of the boundaries. This outcome was successfully avoided at the time by the then Minister. The boundaries agreed were those that had been established in 1988 for the continental shelf on the seabed below. The 2013 agreement means the same boundaries are used for the continental shelf and the water column above it, out to the maximum distance of 200 nautical miles. The boundary that had been drawn on the seabed was simply replicated in terms of the sea above it as well.

I refer to Rockall because fishermen deserve to know the truth, rather than hear political spin on this issue. Believe me, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, and I have discussed Rockall on dozens of occasions in recent months. We continually look to talk to our colleagues in Scotland about trying to find a good fishing outcome in access and fishing rights around Rockall. Let me put the truth on the record for the fishing industry. Deputies should be clear that the limits claimed prior to agreement with the UK in 2013, which represented the maximum the Government in 1976 believed was likely to be permitted by international law, never extended as far as Rockall.

People keep misleading others on this issue. There was never a claim by Ireland that went as far as and beyond the rock of Rockall. That is the truth of the situation, despite what people keep saying to those in the fishing industry, which unfortunately misleads them and results in an awful lot of tension and anger around this issue. It is not accurate to suggest that the 2013 agreement in some way conceded Rockall. It is just not factually true. The consistent position of successive Governments has been that uninhabited rocks in the middle of the ocean should not be claimed by any state. For that reason, the UK's claim has not been accepted, nor has Ireland made such a claim either. We do not accept that British sovereignty extends to Rockall and we have never accepted that. That is why we also do not accept that Rockall can create a 12-mile limit around it in terms of an exclusive fishing zone, which is what the contention with the fleet in County Donegal is all about.

I am advised that the term "as soon as may be", which is referred to in the Bill, is intended to ensure that any order required to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas is laid as soon as possible and much sooner than the 12 months mentioned in amendment No. 2. It has always been the practice of my Department to arrange for the laying of such orders as soon as they are made and there is no intention to depart from that practice.

I understand the tensions on Rockall only too well. I am a former Minister for the Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I understand the Rockall issue intimately, as does the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. We have to be honest with the industry on what is possible and what is not. We have to avoid blaming Ministers or former Ministers who are not here to defend themselves. I mention people like Eamon Gilmore, who struck a deal that was consistent with international law and got the best result that was available at the time for the State. The deal has subsequently been endorsed as that. We have to be honest with people that this was not in some way a sell-out of Rockall. Even before then, the lines created a grey area and a crossover in the claims by the UK. Even at its most extensive, the area never stretched as far as the rock of Rockall, despite how some people have explained this issue to the industry over and over again, either by mistake or deliberately; I honestly do not know. It is important that we set the record straight on this issue in this debate.

We must also set the record straight that the Government continues to work on the Rockall issue to try to ensure that traditional fishing rights around that rock continue, whether it is a squid fishery, haddock or whatever. We can secure certainty for our industry over time, given the added complexity of Brexit and the licensing that is required for our fishing fleets to enter the UK EEZ. We need to be honest with our industry on what is possible and what is not. I will continue to work with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to try to get the best possible deal on Rockall interests for our fishermen.

See this speech in context