asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to reports (details supplied) indicating that, in so far as fisheries are concerned, this country will be treated with Britain and Denmark and not with Norway, in the EEC negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Fisheries Policy.
3.
I informed the Deputy here last week that no agreement in regard to fisheries had yet been reached in the negotiations between the Communities and any of the applicant countries. That was the position then and, Press reports notwithstanding, it still remains the position.
Do these reports not indicate that a statement will be made to Ireland and Britain on the 12th July and to Norway on the 25th July.
The Deputy is accurate but the suggestion was that some agreement had been reached. It was implied in the newspaper reports that Norway would get special treatment and that there would be less satisfactory treatment for the other applicant countries. This report is only speculation. No one of the applicant countries has been offered anything more than another.
It is a little odd that a statement should be made to two of the applicant countries on one date and to another on another date.
This has happened in many other situations during the negotiations because all of the countries do not meet at the same time. Norway have stated that they do not wish to participate in this multilateral situation but the Deputy can take it that any suggestion of special treatment for one applicant to the detriment of others is speculation for which there was no foundation in the actual exchanges that have taken place during the negotiations.
Is the Minister confident of that?
Yes.
Would the Minister not agree that newspaper speculation of this kind from Brussels is often well founded and has he made any inquiries to ascertain whether there is foundation for this particular report?
I accept that newspaper speculation not only in Brussels but in Dublin, too, is very often a way of ascertaining what is public reaction. I have made inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any foundation for these reports. I have made it clear in Brussels as well as in the capitals of the Six and of the other applicant countries that I do not consider it necessary that an unsatisfactory solution be given to us or to any other applicant country for the purpose of giving a satisfactory solution to any other. Each applicant country has its own problems and there is no need to give satisfactory treatment to one at the expense of another.
Would it not have been wiser that Ireland would follow and not precede the Norwegian discussions? It would seem undesirable that we should take part in multilateral discussions with other countries and that Norway should come back afterwards for another bite of the cherry. Could the order of events not be reversed?
The multilateral meeting is off. There is no question of my participating in multilateral discussions with any other applicant country. At a meeting to be held on Monday I hope to deal with fisheries as well as with other aspects. That is to be a bilateral meeting between us and the Community. The British are also having a bilateral meeting with the Community and so, too, are the Danes.
On the same date?
Yes. I am not prepared to reach a conclusion on fisheries without being certain that whatever policy is adopted is the best that can be obtained. I would not be prepared either next week or at any other time to take any definitive action that would preclude a better position later.
Is it possible——
I am calling Question No. 4.
——that different arrangements will be made in respect of different applicant countries?
I consider the best proposals to date to be my own.
Naturally.
That is that the present position in all the applicant countries should continue until the Community is enlarged and that the enlarged Community could then draw up a fisheries regulation that would be suitable to that enlarged Community. The existing regulation was intended for the Six and those Six control about 40 per cent of the fisheries of the ten countries involved. That regulation is not suitable to a community of ten. Other people have now realised that this is a rational and a logical argument. It may be that some countries or any one country may seek a definite solution before being admitted to the Community but it could take a long time and many different proposals before the applicant countries would accept.
Is there a possibility that different agreements in respect of fisheries would be reached in respect of the different countries?
I am standing over my proposal but at some stage, whether before or after membership, the different countries will have to get down to solving the fisheries problem. Our problems are different from those of our neighbour, for instance. We have no deep sea fleet from which to benefit and it might very well be that the solution that would be acceptable to us would not be the type of solution acceptable to another country. Our problems are met fully and I am not interested in interfering in the negotiations of other countries.
Will the proposals on the 12th July be final?
I am calling Question No. 4.
The Community have agreed to put forward proposals. Up to now there was a regulation that was not to be changed. It is up to the Community to say if these proposals are to be final.
Did the Minister get the impression that they would be final?
One cannot get an impression until one has met them. They are having their own meeting on Monday morning next so the commission's proposal to the Council of Ministers has not had a decision yet from the Council of Ministers. They will make a decision next Monday and they may at that time decide that it is a final decision for them.
Is it not very strange that their proposals will be made public on the 12th and Norway will not be told until later?
Has this been announced?
Well, when the other applicant countries are told——
They are given in confidence but they leak out. There is never an attempt to offend a country not there by making them public. They leak out.