asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the agreed rights given under the London Convention of 1964 to six specified countries to fish in certain areas of the six- to 12-mile belt of the coastal waters for particular types of fish will continue under the ten-year arrangement arrived at with the EEC; and, if so, what the position will be when the fishing arrangements are reviewed at the end of the first ten years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Fishery Agreement.
39.
The agreement on access to fishery waters negotiated with the EEC does not affect the fishing rights enjoyed by certain countries under the London Fisheries Convention.
Does that not mean that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is giving away something in respect of fishing rights? In other words, six nations have the right now to fish in those waters, particularly affecting the area from which I come, and what the Minister is doing now is allowing ten nations to fish in that area? Under the London Agreement, six nations can fish between the six-and 12-mile limit but in the agreement now being signed the Minister is allowing ten nations to do that.
One of the countries with which we made the agreement has no fishing fleet. There are six nations fishing there and there will be access given to others in the outer six miles.
Am I not right in saying that the Minister is giving away our fishing rights between six and 12 miles to another five nations? One of the six nations included in the London Agreement, Spain, is outside the Common Market. Therefore, the Minister is giving these rights to another five countries.
Not all of these countries have fishing fleets.
On the assumption that we will become members of the Community there will be full access to our fishing waters by all ten countries, or is it the position that the Minister is telling the House he has some definite assurances as to what will happen on the expiration of the transitional period?
There is an open review clause whereby at the end of ten years the Community will do as we did during the negotiations: sit down and discuss the most appropriate way of dealing with the situation. Indeed, the matter should be less difficult then because we would have a member on the Council.
No doubt the Minister appreciates the importance of this matter, but he can hardly assert that after the transitional period we would be granted some special concessions?
In the case of fisheries the normal transitional position was changed and, instead of having a transitional period with the application then of the Community fishing regulations as envisaged, the decision reached was to have a review before the end of the ten-year period for the purpose of deciding what fisheries regulations would apply after that time, having regard to economic and social conditions and, at my request, was added "the state of development of the fishing industry". It is not a transitional period common to a country.
Common to all countries.
I think it would be easier for us to get what we need in the line of protection of our fish, fisheries and fish stock than it was when we were outside the Community negotiating.
Am I right in understanding that after the passage of approximately nine years, when the review comes up, if it proves impossible to obtain unanimity between the Ten, assuming our membership and Norway's membership, contracting countries that then the derogation for ten years will lapse and the full fisheries policy of the Community will apply to Ireland and we can only continue an exemption or a protection if it is agreed to by every member of the Ten and if it is not vetoed by any of them? Is that understanding correct?
No, no. There was an attempt to get the contrary which would mean fixing the Community to regulations which if applied to other regions aspects of the Community regulations could do damage to the development of the Community but it is quite clear that at the end of the period an examination will be made as to what will be the fishing regulation at that time.
By the Commission?
The decision will be made by the Council, as happened during negotiations. The Commission puts up proposals to the Council and it has been and is the practice in the Community that a decision is not taken by the Council which is against the national interest of any country. In other words, any serious matter is decided unanimously so it is a protection rather than the opposite.
I do not agree. The Minister may offer us a gloss on it that it is a protection rather than the opposite. We are concerned with facts in this matter. Is it not the case that if the Commission makes a proposal to the Council any one member of the Council can, in fact, veto that proposal in which case the Commission's proposal lapses and our derogation lapses and the full fisheries policy applies to Ireland? Is that not an accurate statement of the situation?
No.
Why is it not an accurate statement?
I do not think any member of the Community at present or any applicant would accept that explanation of it. The Community does not work that way.
Question No. 40.
We have just seen the Commission working that way in regard to sugar.
We got, in regard to sugar, 15,000 tons more than our average for the period on which the decision was made.
But we saw the ruthless insistence by one member of the Community, France, on no improved offer. The Minister can tell us how the Community works but there is no reason why, for example, France should behave any better in regard to fisheries in ten years than she has just behaved in regard to sugar.
It will be a totally different situation when we are members, not applicants. Whoever will be doing it in ten years time will have a much easier time than I had.