asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate the most likely date of publication of the Government's White Paper containing the proposed terms for accession to the EEC.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
13.
A White Paper setting out the proposed terms of Ireland's accession to the Communities will be published when the negotiations are concluded. The present indications are that it will be possible to conclude the negotiations by the end of this year.
Could I ask the Minister in view of the fact that the British White Paper is expected out quite shortly—within ten days or a fortnight—is there no prospect of getting ours a bit earlier than the end of this year?
I will get out a report on the progress up to July. I have a meeting on 12th July and there is a meeting of officials next week. So, I think after the July 12th meeting I will circulate a position paper to Deputies but it may not be the final position because we have certain matters which concern us as negotiators which would not concern the British.
In view of the doubts that exist about the kind of status of these position papers and the uses they may be put to, would the Minister not consider an interim White Paper because I think previously when we received papers from the Minister there was some doubt as to whether they are free of confidentiality and can be freely used. The important thing is to get across to the public, not only to Deputies.
I think what we should have in July is a report to the Dáil on the progress to date.
Yes.
I think the main part of the negotiations should be covered by then but certain problems which arise only for Ireland perhaps, and the fishery problem, may not be settled by that time. These will have to be dealt with by us before accession. So that what can be reported to the Dáil I will report but there would be a Government White Paper at the end to put to the Dáil in the autumn.
Due to the fact that progress in the case of Britain seems to have been made much faster than anticipated—it is rumoured today that Britain is in—could the dates for your negotiations not be brought forward? Does the Minister not think that?
It is not a matter of the time. We have a meeting on the 29th at official level. I have a meeting on the 13th. There is another meeting now on fisheries. The Deputy will be aware, we have a multilateral meeting. So, it is a matter of getting times when the Six Foreign Ministers and the Minister of the applicant countries are all free to be in Brussels at the same time but, no matter what speed we do, I think you can take it that the negotiations will finish this year.
Would the Minister consider if there is a significant amount of progress to report by mid-July on a number of issues, actually producing an interim White Paper and not merely a verbal report to the Dáil from the point of view of the public having something to get their hands on, perhaps in conjunction with the assessment of the effects of membership, which we also expect from the Minister in July? It would be useful to have that to browse through during the hot summer months.
The Government would be prepared to make a paper which would be a firm situation as of July and if their is something to be completed we could say that.
An interim document?
An interim document. It will not be a verbal report to the Dáil; it will be written.
And available to the public?
Yes, I think we could do that too.
Could you try to make it a bit more informative than some of the ones published to date?
The trouble is that, as I suggested, the documents with information in them will not be read by Deputies and the documents that can be easily read are too simple and I have to find something in between.
We have read everything but some of them are not worth printing for the amount of information in them.
All the information that is available is out.
I think the Minister's remark is a little uncalled for.
I am not saying this to everyone but I said this yesterday to Deputy O'Leary. He asked about information. There is an enormous amount of information which obviously has not been read by a big number of Deputies. I am not condemning everybody.
The Minister is not suggesting that we are illiterates?
Not at all.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries regarding the retention of this country's 12 mile fishing limit as a member of the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, on his return from his recent EEC visit, that he believed the Republic would be successful in holding the present 12 mile fishery limit within the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks were, I understand, concerned with the proposals on fisheries which we have made to the Communities. As Deputies are aware, we have proposed that we should, after we join the Communities, continue our existing regime of access to fishery waters and that the ten member States of the enlarged Community should formulate a revised fisheries policy which would be equitable for all concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary did state quite confidently that we would retain our 12 mile limit. Is the Minister in agreement with this because in the interest of accurate up-to-date information being given to the people who will ultimately decide as to whether or not we will enter Europe, this is very important? I want to know if the Minister is in full agreement with the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Deputy will have to take it that I am in full agreement with what motivated the Parliamentary Secretary and that is to insist that the 12 mile limit should be retained. To move any degree from that at this time is to invite charges of weakening your position and I think the Parliamentary Secretary was very right to make a very strong positive statement that could not be misinterpreted by opponents of the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary had made, as we understood it, a rather important tour of Common Market countries and, allowing for a certain amount of exuberance on his return to native soil once more, his remarks were a trifle surprising and I put down this question because I took it he was the bearer of important news to the Minister for Foreign Affairs since he could make such an important and confident-sounding statement. Is the Minister, in fact, telling us that the Parliamentary Secretary was, in effect, talking through his hat?
No. I have said what I wanted to say on it and I think I am quite clear. I referred to statements from Government benches because people very quickly attack us for weakening our position in regard to the 12 mile limit.
Surely the difference is between the 12 mile limit as being what we want and coming back exuberantly to say, in fact, we have achieved that?
Oh, I think that is, perhaps, an edging forward beyond what he said.
He edged forward a good deal beyond what has happened.
I would refer the Minister to the report in the Cork Examiner of the following morning according to which on two occasions during that interview the Parliamentary Secretary stated quite clearly that he was confident we would retain the 12 mile limit. What I would like to ask the Minister is if before statements are made by such people as the Parliamentary Secretary, he is consulted so that contradictory statements would not be issued on important matters such as entry into the EEC, or is the collective responsibility gone by the board?
There has not been a contradictory statement issued. He expressed a confidence and it is a confidence based on our very strong will to see that this comes into being.
Rubbish.
Order. I am calling Question No. 16.
16.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has conveyed this country's attitude to the latest six mile fishery limit proposal of the EEC Commission; and whether any meetings are envisaged on that particular proposal.
17.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the latest fishery proposals of the Six in the context of the policy of the Government that Ireland should be allowed to retain the 12 mile limit until the present Community arrangements are altered to the satisfaction of all ten members.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together.
The Commission proposals, which were unacceptable to us, have not been adopted by the Council of Ministers as the Community position and they have been overtaken by developments in the last 24 hours. The Community has now agreed that there should be a multilateral meeting on fisheries with all the applicant countries next month. At the same time the Community has formally presented to us the text of a declaration on fisheries which was agreed at the meeting with Britain. This declaration does not contain specific proposals but it does recognise the great importance, economically, socially and regionally, of the fisheries regime for the enlarged Community and recognises the need to reconsider the access provisions of the Community's fisheries regulations. The declaration is being studied here in the light of the proposals which we put to the Community on 7th June and which we still maintain.
Would the Minister not agree that it appears that the Norwegians at this stage have gained solid negotiating advantages and that it appears we are still awaiting a change of heart on the part of the Commission?
The Deputy has no reason to think that the Norwegians have gained any advantage up to now. What has happened is that the Communities have agreed to re-examine the fisheries common access proposal. They have agreed to have a multilateral meeting; that means the Norwegians, the British, the Danes and ourselves. I do not see how the Deputy can say the Norwegians have gained an advantage. They had negotiations on Monday and this explains why they made a statement but the same statement has been made by us through the diplomatic channels available because we did not have a meeting at which to make it.
Is the Minister not aware from repeated statements in the press in the last 48 hours that the change in the attitude of the Council of Ministers and their rejection of the Commission's proposals arises from the Norwegian position and the desire to make special concessions to Norway because of that country's indented coastline? There was no reference to Ireland——
There was a reference to Ireland.
Is it the case, as reported, that this led to an urgent telex message from him to Luxembourg or Brussels and what was the purport of that? Can the Minister state where we stand vis-à-vis Norway?
Immediately after the fisheries regulation was brought in we had negotiations and I protested about the regulation at the time. This means that Ireland, because it had negotiations on that day, were the first to speak on the matter. The Norwegians had negotiations after Ireland. There was then, and there has been since, newspaper speculation that because of the importance of the fishing industry to Norway that country would, or should —according to the commentator—get special treatment. The recent reports in the newspapers are not new. The initiatives I have taken have been taken on the basis of getting consideration for the Irish position as a separate negotiation, distinct from the British and Norwegians.
Is it not a fact that the Council of Ministers decided to make special concessions to Norway and that is the reason the Commission's proposal was not accepted?
Unless they did it very secretively.
It has been in all the papers. How secret can it be? I want to know if it is correct.
As far as I know, and as far as those with whom I can communicate know, it is not correct that the Council made any such decision. The Council decided to issue a statement, from which I quoted. There will be a multilateral meeting in July. There have been persistent comments by certain commentators in Brussels from the beginning that Norway should, and would, get special treatment, and these comments have appeared again. That is the present position.
Can the Minister state if it was in response to all the applicant countries that the multilateral meeting was arranged?
I pressed for a multilateral meeting because our negotiations were due in July and the British and Norwegian negotiations were held last Monday. Through the channels available to me I pressed very hard for a multilateral meeting and this request was granted. It would lose sight of the main target to enter into competition with the other applicants as to who said what first or who was the loudest. The other applicant countries can be assured of praise from the Opposition in Dáil Éireann and, presumably, I will get praise from the Opposition parties in their Parliaments.
Surely the Minister will accept in the light of developments in the past 48 hours that prospects are remote for the Irish Government's proposals being accepted at meetings held at the end of this month or in July. Would the Minister not accept that this is so, particularly in the light of the special consideration which seems to be emanating in favour of the Norwegian proposals? The Minister should accept that it is high time we faced up to this fact.
The Community proposal comes nearer to mine than to any of the other proposals. I do not think it is helpful for Deputies to say we have not a chance.
Will the Minister not accept that the whole basis of his argument in relation to fisheries policy is the hope that once he gets into the EEC bed—if one might draw the analogy—he will then ask the bride whether he is going to be loved by her? In that context one might ask the Minister if he has any prospects whatever.
The Deputy should accept that we got the Communities to agree to reconsider their fisheries policy.
I am calling Question No. 18.
18.
Mr. O'Leary
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether any revised figures have been decided upon as this country's contribution to the EEC Budget; and, if so, if he will give details.
19.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the tentative estimate made in April 1970 that the Irish contribution to the EEC would be £19 million per annum in the post-transitional period has been revised on the basis of the Community system of own resources being fully applied.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together.
The estimate in the Government's White Paper of April 1970 was that Ireland's contribution to the financing of the Communities when the Community system of "own resources" was being fully applied by us could be as high as £19 million a year and might well be less. Given the qualifications emphasised in the White Paper to which this estimate is subject, it is not possible at this stage to make a more precise calculation.
In view of the percentage agreements reached yesterday between the British and the Council of Ministers, has any estimate been made of a revision of the figure of £19 million?
I have explained this before to the House. What is being negotiated has nothing to do with what a country pays in the "own resources" system. Each country would pay what it collects in levies, customs duties and a percentage of the value-added tax— not more than 1 per cent. This would be an automatic payment after the transitional period. What is being negotiated at the moment is how to phase in from the present position to payment of the full amount. It will be a graded sum; I have given the House the formula for this. The amount will gradually increase each year.
Can the Minister state what kind of phase-in arrangement is expected in our case?
I have told the House about this before. It is a formula related to the GNP and the proportion of the GNP of an applicant country related to the total GNP of the Ten. A percentage rebate is payable, the percentage reducing each year.
Can the Minister tell us the result of the calculation? Is the formula on the records of the House?
It is only a few weeks ago since I said this and I circulated the formula. It is possible to make a calculation on what has been offered to the British but we must wait to see what rebate percentages will be negotiated by us.
Question No. 20.
If our percentages were the same as the British percentages, could the Minister state what would be our starting figure in the first year?
I have made an estimate but I do not want to use it. It is quite low. I would rather not use it until we have something firm.
Is the Minister——
Deputy FitzGerald may not stand up and ask questions one after the other. I have called Question No. 20.
I thought that was what questions were for.
No. The Deputy is wrong.
20.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Ireland's EEC application involves any approach to the Western European Union and its role as a defence organisation; and if he will indicate the nature of this country's attitude to defence commitments in the light of her most recent talks with other applicant countries.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the negative.
As regards the second part of his question, we have had no discussions about defence commitments with other countries applying for membership of the European Communities.
Has the Minister in the round of discussions thought at any stage about defence commitments?
There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about defence.
I know that.
And there has been no mention of such commitments in our negotiations.
Would the Minister agree we ought not to think about entering into defence commitments until there is a common policy?
I have said many times that defence does not arise under the Treaty of Rome. Neither did it arise in the negotiations. It was raised years ago by journalists and we answered it then. If there is a defence requirement in an enlarged Europe then we will participate in that defence just as we defend our own territory now.
The Minister will agree that political attitudes are important in the EEC and would he not think it is important that this country should outline our approach on political developments in Europe?
Political developments in Europe have been very slow. In this House we have frequently stated our interest in the improved unification of the people of Europe, but no question of defence has ever been raised.
Does the Minister appreciate that we, on this side of the House, consider it unwise for him to make statements that we will enter into defence commitments without any reference to agreement on a common foreign policy and would he not agree that he should interpolate that, if and when there is a common policy agreeable to this country, we will then be prepared as a corollary to that policy to enter into defence commitments?
We have to establish our bona fides and we have answered frankly questions that have been put to us. If it ever comes to a question of the defence of Europe, and we are members of Europe, then we will be in Europe, but this has not arisen as yet.
There must be a common foreign policy first before there is a common defence policy. The Minister agrees with that statement.
Yes.
That is something achieved.
21.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in his recent discussions on EEC entry, any indication was given of this country's attitude (a) on the reduction of East-West tension and (b) on general European security; whether the present policy is a continuation of his predecessor's policy of mutual drawing back of NATO and Warsaw pact powers; if he will state the political response in the present negotiations to Ireland's negotiators on the creation of conditions of European security.
The matters referred to by the Deputy do not arise in the negotiations for Ireland's entry into the EEC.
The subject of European security was, however, amongst those discussed at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten in Paris on 18th May. On that occasion I indicated the Government's attitude which has been stated to the Dáil on many occasions, as in my statement of the 16th December.
This is a continuation of the Minister's predecessor's policy—is that the position—about withdrawal?
There is the question of a security council. That has been raised and I have made statements about that.
22.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, with reference to provisions designed to prevent the export to Ireland of goods from EEC countries at fob prices lower than those in the country of origin after the end of the transitional period, he will make a statement on any agreement reached at the recent Luxembourg meeting with the Council of Ministers of the EEC.
23.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, further to the agreement with the EEC on 7th June that Ireland be allowed to continue her national legislation against dumping during the transitional period, he will state the effects of this change in policy in the post-transitional period.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 and 23 together.
An agreement on dumping was reached at my meeting with the Communities on 7th June. This is summarised in the note on the outcome of the meeting which was circulated to Deputies immediately after the meeting and, as will be seen, it relates to dumping during the transitional period.
The question of dumping or practices of a dumping nature after the transitional period was dealt with earlier in our negotiations.
The Minister says this matter was dealt with earlier but I have failed to elicit from him what conclusion was reached. Have we a reasonably firm assurance on this matter? Have we a reasonably firm assurance that, when the transitional period is over, goods cannot be sold below cost to this country, a practice which would constitute dumping in real terms, though it will not be called dumping really? Have we some provision under which we can take action to deal with that kind of situation?
We have had this before. When we are full members there will be a common market and dumping will not arise. Unfair trading could arise or the use of a monopoly or discrimination. There are articles in the Treaty of Rome, Articles 7, 85, 86 and 92, under which action can be taken. We have been assured by the Community that protection against such practices will be given after accession. During the transitional period we sought to get our own control over anti-dumping measures and we succeeded in getting those. It was a precedent, but the Community agreed to give us this on the basis of the arguments we put up
The Community have made it quite clear that after 1978 we will have to repeal our current legislation on dumping. Will the Minister confirm whether, in fact, we will have to do this?
Against third countries —the Communities second and ourselves first—we would have power to take action. As regards dumping from member countries, that would not be regarded as dumping actually, but it can be protected against under some other articles of the Treaty of Rome and we would have the assistance of the Community in taking steps to stop that. It will be the Community's business to make sure such a practice does not succeed. We will have, of course, the experience of the transitional period.
Does the Minister accept that, in the event of accession, we will have to repeal by 1978 our legislation relating to dumping?
I am not denying that. That is quite clear. Protection against dumping would be a function normally taken over by the Community on the day of the signing of the Treaty, but we have agreed with the Community that we can continue our own legislation during the transitional period. After that it will be Community protection and Community action.
Does the Minister appreciate that these articles are not articles normally used to deal with this kind of practice? Some were intended for a different purpose. Can he assure us that we will be able to use these articles in such a way as to provide prompt protection against this type of activity? Will we have some special agreement to cover this situation and will it provide the equivalent protection our anti-dumping legislation now provides?
I have dealt with this before. As I told Deputy Ryan, one would need to know the precise nature of the case in order to know what kind of action could be taken. We have been assured by the Community in our search for a solution of this remaining problem that these articles can and will be used to prevent that kind of practice.
I am calling Question No. 24. We cannot discuss these questions all day. There are 111 questions on the Order Paper. Question No. 24.
The Treaty articles are in many respects rather vague in terms of protection against dumping into this country. Surely the Minister accepts that this issue is very serious and relatively more serious, for example, than that of fisheries in view of the peculiar sensitiveness of many Irish industries to dumping. Will he, therefore, not accept that there is grave need to mount an even stronger campaign than is being attempted on the fisheries issue to ensure that our industries are protected?
I cannot say any more other than that there is nothing vague in the action the Community have assured me that they will take to prevent this type of activity. Although it may seem vague in the Article, there is nothing vague about it.
I wish I had the Minister's confidence.
The Deputy is obviously thinking in the opposite way because of his attitude to membership.
24.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, following his recent meeting with the President of the EEC Commission, he has any reason to hope for the development of a regional policy suited to Irish conditions; and whether any decision has been made by the Government on naming specific areas in need of special treatment under an EEC regional development plan.
I have impressed upon the Community in the negotiations the need for Community action to supplement and reinforce national measures to bring about a more even distribution of production and employment throughout the Community. Recent developments within the Community indicate that more rapid progress than heretofore may be expected on regional policy. The Community has been made aware of this country's special development needs in the context of a Community regional policy. Specific areas have not been named for this purpose.
Does the Minister visualise specific areas being named for this purpose at any stage in the negotiations? Is any work proceeding on this kind of investigation at present?
Work is proceeding and reports involving local people are expected later in the year. I shall be proceeding with the memorandum which will be prepared in advance of the reports. At the stage when I hope to be completing the negotiations I imagine we shall have general outlines but, perhaps, not with named places.
Would the requirements for regional areas follow generally what we have known conventionally up to now as under-developed areas or areas needing subsidies and so on? Would this be the rough picture of areas for which you would be seeking special development terms?
There is a broader concept of general economic policy but, generally speaking, the purpose of regional policy is to prevent the centripetal movement of economic forces.
Would the Minister not agree that the whole of this country outside, perhaps, Dublin, Cork and Limerick is, in fact, under-developed by the standards of the Community and there is no question of confining regional policy here to the west of Ireland?
But there is no regional policy. This thing has been trotted out too often.
May I also ask the Minister whether he has made or proposes to make representations with a view to having a multilateral conference on regional policy as in the case of fisheries and as was suggested here by a member of the Commission some time ago?
Yes, we hope to have several multilateral meetings but, as I explained before, it is sometimes possible to get a decision at a series of bilateral meetings. I shall be trying to secure policies that suit this country. Obviously, I cannot say what I shall be seeking at this stage.
Would he Minister agree that this is probably one of the most important questions of all?
I think it is the most important question.
Hear, hear.