asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent four-day visit to Norway, with particular reference to the EEC negotiations and to the future prospect of the Irish fishing industry.
4.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
3.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, following his visit to Norway, he has reached agreement with the Norwegian Government on joint action to safeguard the livelihood of Irish fishermen and to guarantee the future progress of Irish fishery interests within the framework of the EEC.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
During my visit to Norway, which was at the official invitation of the Foreign Minister, I had discussions with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other members of the Norwegian Government. These discussions covered matters relating to the applications of both our countries for membership of the European Communities and other international questions of common interest to the two countries. As regards the European Communities, I reviewed with the Norwegian Ministers the progress of the negotiations to date and the prospects for the coming months. We discussed those matters of common concern to both Ireland and Norway which have arisen in the negotiations, notably the Community's Common Fisheries Policy.
The Norwegian Minister confirmed to me that, as in the case of this country, the implementation of the provision on common access to fishery waters which is embodied in the Fisheries Policy would give rise to serious problems for Norwegian fisheries. The Norwegian Delegation has emphasised to the Community, as we have done, the major importance of this matter, and, like us, intends to pursue it in the negotiations.
It was agreed in the discussions that Ireland and Norway would maintain close contact during the negotiations on the question of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Can the Minister state if either the Irish Government or the Norwegian Government, who I take it are negotiating together on this problem, received any satisfaction whatsoever from the EEC? May I point out to the Minister, to clarify the position, that I gather that the Norwegian Government had originally protested against a joint fisheries policy being created in the EEC without their being consulted, and they were refused consultation. Does the same position apply to us? Have we been refused consultation as well?
I protested on behalf of Ireland immediately on the introduction of the common fisheries policy. This does not seem to have reached the Opposition benches.
We read it in the papers.
Did it reach the EEC?
(Interruptions.)
If you read the Clare Champion you would be better informed.
I can assure the Minister that the tension over there has reached the Opposition benches.
What tension?
It was a matter for protest because the introduction of the common fisheries policy came at a time when the applicant countries, who are more concerned with fisheries than the present member States are, were negotiating for the enlargement of the Community. The introduction of the common fisheries policy was in the context of the acceptance by the applicant countries of the decisions made arising out of the Treaty of Rome. The four applicant countries seemed to be held to abide by this regulation which is not at all suitable to us or to the Norwegians. So I protested and the Norwegians protested——
Not in that order.
Yes.
They protested first and the Minister got the message then.
It was a matter of the timing, a matter of being present. The Deputy will find that I am well ahead of the posse.
Which posse?
(Interruptions.)
I must say I am not getting much help from Opposition Deputies.
Or from your own party.
Do Deputies want to hear the whole story?
Is this Deputy Blaney's story?
I should like to make it clear that my discussion on this with the Community took place in the morning and that of the Norwegians took place in the afternoon, so I was ahead of them. If the Deputy wants the facts those are the facts, but if he wants to joke I will go along with him. Arising out of our protest and the Norwegian protest and the others, it was decided that the officials of the Community and the officials of the different delegations would examine on a technical level the implications of the application of the regulation if we become members. This has been done but, having done this, I am still not satisfied. I am certain that this regulation does not suit us.
Hear, hear.
I have indicated that I should like to and intend to pursue this in the negotiations. The Norwegians have reached exactly the same position.
Can the Minister say——
That is the position. In relation to what Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde said about joint negotiations may I say that there are four separate negotiations on the Treaty, so there are no joint activities between any two applicant countries.
How can the Minister possibly reconcile his statement to the House this afternoon with the glowing rosy prospect suggested by Deputy Fahey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who assured us last week that there were no problems and that Ireland's fishing industry had a glorious future? To help us in this matter perhaps the Minister would circulate to the Members of this House the memorandum which he gave to the Commission in furtherance of his protest so that we will know the truth of the situation as it exists today.
When you submit a memorandum or make a statement to the Community it becomes a Community document and a matter of confidence——
The Minister——
Does the Deputy mind if I speak?
He does actually.
Sorry.
With Deputy Desmond's permission I will circulate the contents of the document if they are satisfied to read it.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 5.
With regard to the speech made by Deputy Fahey, he made a speech outlining the effects of two regulations, one of which affects common access and which is certainly not to our benefit but operates in the other direction. Other regulations of the Community provide for marketing help and marketing arrangements which will be of benefit to us so far as the fisheries section is concerned, and also for aids for the structural development of fishery fleets which we could use. I do not think it was intended to suggest that everything in the garden was lovely because in Brussels we have repeatedly said that this regulation on common access does not suit us.
Despite the protest, and despite the fact that the member countries have not reacted specifically to it, can the Minister say whether our application still continues?
The House will have to leave the rest of it to the actual negotiations.
God help us.
That is about all the help you can expect now because you cannot help yourselves.
The Minister would need a new lifebelt to keep himself afloat.
I am doing all right. I could write to the Deputy.
In view of the fact that the Six are having multilateral discussions among themselves to co-ordinate their negotiating strategy, would the Minister consider that it would be beneficial for the four applicant countries to have multilateral discussions to co-ordinate their negotiating strategy?
Before the negotiations began I visited the capital of the Six and the capitals of the other applicant countries and set up a system of consultation——
Bilateral.
——between us and the other applicants. I also got a guarantee of information from the Six on the negotiations and multilateral meetings before final decisions are taken. I have made this statement somewhere. That has been done.
Is it not a fact that the Minister is only going through the motions of protest negotiations?
No, I am not a member of the Labour Party. I am down to serious business. This is no matter of form.
The Minister has said on various occasions that he accepts all the conditions of the Treaty of Rome. A couple of weeks ago he inferred that he would have to go through these motions but in the end would have to accept what was in the Treaty of Rome.
It is very hard to explain it to Deputies. There are certain things that are negotiable and certain things that are not negotiable.
This is turning into a debate on fisheries. I have called Question No. 5.
In fairness since I put down the question may I ask the Minister——
I have called Question No. 5.
——would it be possible to circulate the memorandum?
I will circulate the contents of the memorandum in some form but not the confidential document.
Thank you.
5.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what the policy is in regard to Ireland's application to join the EEC in the event of the United Kingdom deciding to postpone her application to a later date.
The question of Britain postponing her application for membership of the European Communities has not arisen and I do not think that a statement or comments by me on the basis of the Deputy's hypothesis would serve any useful purpose at this time.
So you will not go it alone.
May I ask the Minister one supplementary question? Am I to take it from his reply that our application to join the EEC is tied to the British application?
The decision to enlarge the Community was taken by the Community of Six. The four applicants are negotiating four separate treaties. If one applicant withdraws or if the negotiations break down for any reason, especially those the Deputy mentioned, the British ones, there could be a total change not alone for Britain but for the Community with which she is negotiating and there could be a completely new situation. To that extent the application of one country affects the others but there are four separate treaties being negotiated; no one is dependent on the other.
Would there be a new situation if the Minister could not get favourable terms for Irish fishermen?
Certainly this would have to be considered. There is no such thing as absolutely accepting a situation which would be grossly to the disadvantage of an important section of the community.