asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to submit specific proposals to the EEC to deal with the problems of the Irish inshore fishing industry within the EEC.
4.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
3.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has submitted to the EEC to secure the interests of the Irish inshore fishing industry after entry to the Community.
5.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to submit proposals to the EEC for fishery conservation policy to ensure that Irish fishing grounds are not damaged by over-fishing following Irish entry to the Community.
6.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has submitted regional policy proposals to the EEC for the preservation and development of fisheries on parts of the Irish coastline contiguous to areas where economic development is inadequate to provide full employment.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.
I have been pursuing actively in the negotiations the question of the problems which common access to our fishery waters would create for our fishing interests in the enlarged Communities. I shall be making specific proposals as to how our particular problems should be dealt with at an appropriate stage in the negotiations. The timing of this is a matter for my decision.
The Minister will appreciate that there is considerable apprehension among inshore fishermen. Would the Minister not like to indicate here what the proposals are? There should not be any secret about them.
I met the fishermen. I think yesterday we had a clear indication of my awareness and the awareness of other Members of the Dáil about the serious nature of the common access policy. In negotiations there is timing for everything you do and I think there is timing in this too.
The Deputy can take it that common access to our fishery waters is not acceptable to us because it is damaging. It is not acceptable to Norway or Britain and the three countries to date have had talks of a technical nature as to the effect on us, if the Communities enlarge, of this regulation. We are now seeking to have further discussions about it.
Can the Minister say why he thinks the time is not yet ripe? Am I not right in thinking that we have now submitted our position on all other matters and are awaiting the Community's response to our proposals? Why is he holding back our proposals on this matter?
The Deputy will have to accept that there is a timing in negotiations. We cannot have people reading in the papers what we are going to do. If the Deputy will undertake to treat in confidence what I tell him, I will meet him privately and tell him, but I do not intend to have published everything we are going to do when we are in a very serious negotiating position. This is not an academic exercise on which you give a lecture. This is an actual negotiation.
I appreciate that. I welcome the Minister's offer which I am happy to accept. My point was not that we are not being told what the proposals are—that is a separate issue. I wanted to understand why the Minister felt that when we have put forward our proposals on other matters we should not yet do so on this. There may well be good reasons for it and I should like to hear them.
The Deputy will remember that the opening of the negotiations with the applicants was made on the basis that the applicant countries would accept the Treaty of Rome and the decisions arising from it. Without that there would not be any negotiations. After the negotiations commenced, this regulation was introduced as a decision arising out of the Treaty of Rome and as such would be regarded by the Community as something that is not negotiable. We see it differently for the reason that it came in after the negotiations had started and because of its effect. I think the Deputy knows quite well that the applicant countries would have a much bigger share of fisheries in an enlarged Community than the others would have. At least two of the other applicants see it the same way, so I regard this matter as separate. By their judgment it is not negotiable. By our judgment it is something with a very marked effect on an important part of our economy and a social effect on an important section of our community. We should have discussions about it. It is different from the others.
I welcome that reply as being helpful towards clarifying something which I think is not widely understood. May I ask the Minister whether he is in consultation with the other applicant Governments concerned with a view to taking up a joint position on this matter?
We have discussions and we intend to keep in contact but the negotiations are separate for separate treaties. There will be multilateral discussions on certain points on which all are affected. It is important that it should be well known that this regulation is unacceptable not only in Ireland but in Norway and in Britain as well. There is a common position created by its existence.
Would the Minister not feel that this is a matter which preeminently could best be dealt with by multilateral discussions based on a joint position of the four applicants?
We are in contact. I assume there will be bilateral discussions first and then multilateral discussions on many aspects, and presumably on fisheries.
7.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has submitted to the EEC the Government's views on the powers and method of election of the European Parliament in an enlarged Community; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of these views.
The matters to which the Deputy refers do not come within the ambit of the negotiations for the enlargement of the Communities and the question of the Government presenting views in the context of Community discussion on these matters will not arise until after we enter the Communities.
Would the Minister not agree that this approach of ours is causing some concern? It is, of course, true that this matter may not arise directly in the negotiations at this moment but the Minister is surely aware that one member of the Commission at a meeting in Dublin suggested the desirability of multilateral discussions on this matter and that an Irish initiative would be welcome. Does the Minister not agree that there is some concern among these countries as to whether we are really interested in this aspect of the whole problem of making the Community democratic? Does he not feel that it would be useful at this stage for this House to know what the Government's views are? Are they in favour of directly elected institutions and will they propose that at a later stage of these negotiations?
We have clearly indicated our willingness to work towards this. It is in the treaties and we are willing to join with other States in making progress in this matter. I made a speech in Miltown-Malbay about this.
The Minister must realise that words like "working towards" and "making progress" carry connotations of slow progress. These countries have not, in fact, as the Minister is aware, made any progress towards direct elections.
The Deputy will appreciate that I am negotiating our entry. That is my job. It is very important. The draft on direct elections to the parliamentary institutions is in since 1960. It is not a very live issue in the Community at the moment.
I disagree.
That is quite true. It is quite unlikely that anything will be done about it until we are a member. Unless we are invited to participate in their discussions as a Community we have no entrée whatever. Our business now is to negotiate entry. We would accept the provisions of the treaties and with the others we will work towards having this. We will play our part in it. We will be positive about it.
The Minister should appreciate that using words like "we would accept"——
We have accepted.
——implies a lack of enthusiasm.
There is no lack of enthusiasm.
There is concern as to whether we really are anxious to get a directly elected democratic Parliament in Europe. Should it not be made clear that one of the things we will press for——
I made a speech about this.
——is the urgency of its implementation?
Does the Minister feel that the Community has been moving too slowly on this matter?
Yes, it has been moving quite slowly.
Too slowly?
I think too slowly but, from the point of view——
I dragged it out of the Minister.
——of this country at the moment I think the method of decision-making is not adverse from our point of view. We are a small nation and we will be a member of a council in which, even though in theory there will be weighted voting, in actual practice we will have the same vote as everybody else. This has been the practice. I would not be too quick to throw over this position. We are quite committed to the development of the institutions and direct election. It is slow. What Deputy FitzGerald is dealing with now is the development of supranational institutions and the replacement of national ones. This is a difficult question. We are committed in the treaties and we do accept it.
Does the Minister not appreciate that what we are concerned with here is not supranational developments——
Question No. 8. We cannot have a debate on these questions. It is turning into a debate.
——but ensuring that we will be a member of a democratically elected Parliament?
That is the proposal of the Commission.
8.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has submitted the Government's views to the EEC on regional policy; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of these views.
At our Ministerial meeting with the Communities on 2nd March I made a statement outlining the Government's views on the question of regional policy. I am arranging to have a note circulated to Members of the House setting forth these views as presented to the Communities. The question of regional policy will be the subject of further discussions in the negotiations in the context of the Community proposals on economic and monetary union. I have given instructions for the circulation of this note.
I am grateful for that. Is the Minister aware that on this subject also a suggestion for multilateral discussions has been made from the same source?
The Deputy should be aware that it is expected that each nation will develop its own regional policies and that the Community's interest is to co-ordinate and help those policies. There is a draft, which I expect will be adopted, from the Commission suggesting that there should be an inspection of these policies of member States and if they fit in largely with what the Community want they will be aided out of Community funds. We should be quite clear that we are going ahead with our own regional policies and can expect support from the Community in so far as they fit into the Community plan. The Community regional policy has not been very far developed to date but it is moving faster now since the question of monetary union was raised and creates new problems.
Does the Minister appreciate the importance, particularly in the light of what has happened in regard to fisheries, of the Community having our views on what their regional policy should, in our view, be before they take final decisions rather than afterwards?
I have given our views twice in the Community context in the negotiations on regional policy.
Has the Minister given our views on the proposals before the Council of Ministers?
Our views on the broad principles and in regard to some of the principles referred to by the Commission which we accepted as good principles.
What line does the Minister's views, as submitted to the EEC Commission on regional policy, take on the material put forward in the Buchanan Report?
This would fit in with what I said, that each country will be expected to have its own regional policy and that the regional policies of the member States will be coordinated.
Have we got one and what account does it take of the Buchanan Report?
This is a question about our regional policy. I am talking about negotiating in Europe. The Deputy will have to put down a question to another Minister.
If the Minister submitted a report he must have got the information somewhere.
Question No. 9.
I do not go round showing off all the information I have.