Vol. 254 No. 8
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there have been any developments in recent discussions between this country and the EEC which will ensure adequate safeguards for the livelihood of those engaged in Ireland's sea fisheries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
11.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the present position in regard to negotiations with the EEC concerning the common fisheries policy.
12.
andMr. G. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of his statement (details supplied) regarding the possible disruption of the fishing industry here by implementation of the EEC fishing policy, he will state what action the Government propose to take to counteract any such adverse developments.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 together.
At my meeting with the Community on Monday last I asked first of all: that the Community should give a positive indication that they recognise that serious problems would be created for this country by the free access provisions of the Common Fisheries' Policy and that it is necessary to find a solution for these problems. I proposed that we should maintain our present 12-mile fishery limit after accession and that the institutions of the enlarged Community should work out a new fisheries policy for the enlarged Community which would be equitable for all of the member States.
The Community, having considered the proposals put forward by Ireland and by the other applicant countries, agreed later on Monday that the Commission should now examine the fisheries question in consultation with the applicant countries and prepare proposals for submission to the Council of Ministers. This development represents the recognition which I had sought that the common access provision poses problems for Ireland and the other applicant countries and that it is necessary to find a solution for these problems. I consider that this is a major step towards a solution of this difficult question.
I am making available to Deputies the text of my statement on fisheries at the meeting with the Community on Monday.
Would the Minister say what steps he has taken to get a common approach by applicant countries on matters of common interest, so that the combined forces of the applicants will be directed towards achieving the common objective?
The way I saw the problem as a negotiating problem was that this, as the Deputy knows, was laid down a year ago on which, in common with the other regulations, the Six were not willing to negotiate. As I saw it, the first thing to do would be to get the Community to agree that this particular regulation was in a different class and should be a matter for negotiation. That being done, then the problems raised for the different countries could be put forward. I have, as the House knows, visited Norway and have also met the British Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the British negotiator, Mr. Rippon. There could be no question of ganging up on different problems if only for the reason that the problems are different and that the solution which might satisfy one would not be altogether to the satisfaction of another. The combined effort, in so far as we all represented that the regulation as it stands was not suitable, has been effective. From now on the question will be to try to find some way of satisfying the national needs of each country and the Community requirement of having a fishery policy.
Could the Minister say whether, in fact, in negotiating he has indicated that the Norwegian proposals most nearly meet our situation in relation to fisheries and could he say whether he has any hope, based on the statement made by the Commission, of any concrete change in the Community policy on fisheries over the next few months, in other words, that he could report back to the House something more than simply a resolution to re-examine the situation?
The Deputy can take it that the first progress would be the most difficult to get. The most difficult thing was that the Community should recognise the need to talk. I think that in the next few days we will be having the beginnings of meetings of the Commission with the applicant countries. I have refrained from commenting on the proposals made by the other applicant countries. They would be, perhaps, better than the Community rule as it stands, but I think that the Irish fishermen want me to continue to seek the protection we have at the moment for this industry. It is a very important industry even though it is a small one. It is very important potentially and for that reason I have sought the full 12 mile limit for Irish fishermen that we have at the moment. I do not think I would move from that without very strong reasons.
Has any actual indication been given to the Minister that a change will be forthcoming?
We have not had a meeting to discuss what changes we require. I have indicated that we would like the 12-mile zone for inshore fishing. We have no fishing fleet that can go in to the shores of other countries. The achievement so far as the negotiations were concerned was to get something considered which was regarded by the Community as non-negotiable.
The Minister is doing a very good job.
Thank you.
Was there fish at the dinner the other night?
Has the Minister seen the Norwegian criticism of his approach to the problem, that is, asking for reconsideration after we enter rather than before? Could the Minister tell the House why he sought negotiation after and not before entry?
I was on to Brussels about the statement from the Norwegian official and he says this is not what he said. He spoke in terms of our proposal being more suitable to Irish needs than to Norwegian needs. I have refrained from commenting on the applications of other countries. My position about why I said I would rather negotiate afterwards had led to some misunderstanding but it is based on this: whatever the theory of the decision making in the European Community is, the actual practice is that the Ministers of each country meet and make decisions and, on matters which are regarded as of vital to any nation, they make no decision unless that nation agrees. So, as a member we would be in a very much more powerful position in contributing and voting on a new fisheries policy suitable to Ten than we would be as an applicant trying to change a regulation that is already there, made for Six. This has led to some misunderstanding.
We are burning our boats.
If we do not get what I want. The alternative that was there when I went in on Monday — what we were faced with — was that membership of the Community would bring complete access to our shores for all member countries and when we got in we would be trying to negotiate something out from that. I proposed that we go in with the full 12 miles limit and then negotiate a fisheries policy for the Community in a position in which we would have full voting strength and be able to take full care of our own interests. The people who thought this was an act of faith should reconsider that opinion because it is a much more powerful position to be there as a member than to be there as an applicant trying to change a regulation.
Am I right in thinking that in practice we have no right of veto on a matter of this sort as a member?
The word "veto" has not been used. The actual practice in the Community is that if the vital interests of a country are concerned in a decision and that country is against it, the decision is not taken. That has been the practice.
In relation to the other matters, important as this is, and it is very important, could it not be regarded in the context of the general position as a question of vital interest?
I think that is most undermining. This is of vital interest to us. I would regard fisheries as a vital interest and the maintenance of our 12-mile limit——
I said it was most important but in no sense would we be regarded as having a right to exercise a veto afterwards.
It is not a veto with a right under special circumstances. The Ministers meet and, as a matter of practice, arising out of a stalemate that arose before, they will not take a decision against the vital interests of any one country. I have told the Community at every meeting that the survival of our fisheries, the protection of our fish stock and the development of our fishing industry are of vital interest to this country.
That being so, would it not be stronger to insist on that before we go in rather than after we go in?
I have been insisting on it but what I want to point out is that if the Deputy insists on getting a negotiated statement which has to be negotiated before we go in, we are negotiating from a less strong position. This discussion is not very useful either. I have told the House what the position is. You know when you are strong and when you are weak.
Norway and Britain disagree with the Minister.
You are not in a position to insist before you go in.
Is it not fair to say that for any concession the fishermen get we can thank Britain and Norway and that the Minister completely dispensed with our bargaining power when he said he would go in with his eyes closed?
That is quite wrong. I have to negotiate as best I can. If the Opposition and other organisations want to give credit to the British negotiators that is their typical slave attitude and I can do nothing about it. I have had considerable influence on the decision of the Community but I would rather get the result than the credit. If the Deputy wants to give the credit to the British or the Norwegians he is very welcome to do that.
When the Minister says that a decision will not be taken unless it is agreed to by another nations, is he telling us that the other nine nations would not infringe on our rights and that, in fact, the policy of the Irish Government would be acceptable to the other nine?
I have spelled it out. The practice for the Six is—and it is intended for the Ten—not to take a decision which is against the vital interests of a nation without that nation acquiescing in it. Is that not clear?
Is the Minister telling us, therefore, that in the case of Irish fisheries the other nine would not infringe on our rights and that Government policy in relation to fisheries would be acceptable to the other nine?
I think that the Irish fishing industry, Irish fishermen and the protection of fishing stocks are of vital interest to the Irish people.
That is our policy.
It is not yours but it is ours.
We are talking as Irishmen, I take it.
Question No. 13.
May I just say that this proposal I made has not been accepted and it is being totally undermined by criticism of it here?
We are helping the Minister.
Question No. 13.
May I ask one last supplementary? If what the Minister says is so, then we can retain the 12-mile limit when we get in irrespective of what the Community say.
The Community will be very reluctant to accept our request to negotiate after admission if it is spelled out that way now.
Is that not what the Minister told us?
Are the Government now making a case to retain the 12-mile limit around the entire coastline and not just confining it to the western seaboard as was the case in our original application?
I made no case in our original application except to object to the rule of the Community which would give access right in to the shore except for limited derogation for three miles for five years. This was the Community rule. We objected to that and we made no application for anything except to retain the full 12 miles.
Did the Minister base his entire case on the western coastline?
The only proposal I made was that the 12-miles limit continues to exist all around Ireland— north, south, east and west.
Was the Minister not offered——
I am calling Question No. 13. We have had a long discussion on this question.
I was offered nothing. A rule of the Community provides for full access with a right of derogation on negotiation for a limited length of seaboard, for three miles out and for five years. I was offered nothing. I asked for the full 12 miles.
The Minister did so well the Opposition cannot stomach it.
He has told us he got nothing.
We do not mind him praising himself.
The Taoiseach had to stomach the dissidents. Did he do anything about them?
Order. I am calling Question No. 13.
13.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when and from whom he first learned of the proposal of the British Government to seek permission from the EEC to continue to operate in Northern Ireland the Safeguarding of Employment Act which has so effectively excluded citizens of this State from working in Northern Ireland.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to (a) the EEC and (b) the British Government with reference to the British Government's request to the EEC to permit the continuation of the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.
The British Government have requested a continuance of Safeguarding of Employment (NI) Act, 1947, during the transitional period of Britain's membership of the European Communities.
We were advised of this intention in advance and expressed our views on the subject.
The matter remains under consideration.
Would the Minister be good enough to tell us in more precise terms the date on which he first learned of this outrageous proposal by the British Government asking the European Community to maintain this piece of religious and political discrimination which was introduced with the avowed purpose not of safeguarding employment but of safeguarding a political situation in the North of Ireland?
I think the Deputy probably has a fuller appreciation of the implications of the Act itself than have most people outside. The protection of employment is something we sought ourselves in the nature of giving permits, but this is not to be equated in any way with the Act and its origins. I think the purpose, so far as the British Government were concerned, was on its face value. We are dealing with the British Government at the moment regarding the implications of this application for protection of employment in the North of Ireland during the transitional period.
Did the Minister draw the attention of the British Government to the fact that this obnoxious piece of legislation was introduced in 1947 in the North of Ireland at a time when the Westminster Government decided to repeal the Residence Permit Order which applied to Britain and to Northern Ireland? Further, is it not a fact that the purpose of the Safeguarding of Employment Act, so-called, was to negative the effect of repealing the Residence Permit Order because they wished to preclude Irish people from residing in the North of Ireland if their political beliefs and religious convictions were different from the Unionist Party?
The Deputy's appreciation of some of the meaning behind the Act is full but we will deal with the matter on the basis of the protection of employment in reality and what will be allowed during the transitional period. I am dealing with the British Government on this matter.
Does the Minister not agree that part of the background argument for EEC accession is the greater unity to be achieved in this island? Whatever about the underdevelopment of the Northern Ireland region in UK terms for the safeguarding of employment, would it not be an imaginative gesture on the part of the British Government to see that this measure is done away with? Could not mobility in the entire island be part and parcel of the EEC accession arrangements? Surely this would be a strong argument to use at this time with the British Government and it should not be ignored or neglected?
The House will be aware that so far as being members of the Community is concerned this would not stand up after the transitional period. The rules of the Community are such that this would not stand as a proposition after the transitional period.
In Question No. 14 I asked the Minister what representations he was making to the EEC. Would the Minister give the House an assurance that he will make specific representations to the EEC? Will he draw their attention to the fact that British Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament from the member nations of the EEC, including a Member from Stormont, subscribed to an Irish amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights which would preclude any discrimination in respect of employment? Indeed, to entertain this now would be to run in conflict with what Europe has agreed needs to be done, namely, to ensure that the European Convention on Human Rights does not permit discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of religious or political grounds.
It has been signed by 42 member countries.
I am calling Question No. 15.
