asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a comprehensive report on the present state of negotiations for accession by Spain and Portugal to the EC and in particular how our fisheries industry is being protected.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers - EC Accession by Spain and Portugal.
4.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community and whether he expects these to be completed by the end of 1984.
The enlargement negotiations with Spain and Portugal have now been continuing for some seven years. While progress to date has, therefore, been self-evidently slow, the negotiations are now entering their final decisive phase. Inevitably, therefore, the issues now under discussion are those which are most difficult for individual member states and for the applicant countries, especially Spain. The issues in question include Spanish fruit and vegetables, the dismantling of Spanish tariffs, including high tariffs, olive oil, social affairs, Portuguese sugar, wine and fisheries.
There are in reality, as Deputies will appreciate, two sets of negotiations — that between the existing member states in order to arrive at common positions to put to Spain and Portugal and, secondly, the actual negotiations proper with the applicant states. The position at present is that the Community has yet to reach internal agreement on a number of key chapters, including wine, olive oil and fisheries. The Presidency, in an effort to facilitate compromise and to politicise and shortcircuit the negotiations, has been putting before recent Councils a partial composite package in the hope that the obvious spread of compromise involved would be helpful to member states in reconsidering their attitudes to issues of sensitivity to them. This approach has helped speed up the negotiations significantly, even though it has not yet been possible to get the full agreement of the ten member states to all aspects of the package presented to them. I should add that neither has it be possible to include wine and fisheries in the package. Work on these two issues is, however, proceeding at an intensive pace, with a view to agreement being reached on them at an early date.
To sum up, the internal Community negotiations are now at their most difficult and delicate stage. I am confident, however, that they can be completed before the end of the year, in good time to allow for Spain and Portugal to join the Community, as envisaged, on 1 January 1986.
Finally, in response to the Deputy's question about the protection of the Irish fisheries industry in the enlargement context, I can assure him that this Government have always acted, and will always act, in the best interests of the fishermen and the fishing industry of this country. The fisheries chapter of the negotiations is currently under active consideration. I wish to state again that the particular requirements of the Irish fisheries industry in the enlargement context are being presented forcefully, and will continue to be so presented.
Arising from what the Minister has said, in particular having regard to his hope that the negotiations for the accession of Spain and Portugal will be completed by the end of 1984, can he give the House a firm, definite assurance that until the fisheries question as far as this country is concerned is resolved satisfactorily from our point of view those negotiations be not concluded and that nothing be left hanging over to be sorted out after entry by the countries in question? Would the Minister say also what arrangements have been made to ensure that this country's receipts from the Regional and Social Fund will not be affected by the admission of Spain and Portugal into the EEC?
Regarding the first part of the Deputy's supplementary question, of course I can give him the assurance that as far as this country's fisheries interests are concerned the negotiations in the Fisheries Council — at a present high-level working group and indeed in any other forum at which it may arise — will be protected. It is in the enlargement context that fisheries is the most important and sensitive aspect from Ireland's point of view. We will be entitled to protect our interests as aggressively and vigorously as other countries feel they must protect theirs in the parts of the negotiations where they are affected.
As regards the second part of the Deputy's question under the social affairs chapter, when negotiations are concluded with the accession of Spain and Portugal, because of conditions attaching to other countries when they join the Community there will be increased new resources available to the Community for financing in that context, and I would envisage that the contribution Ireland is receiving from the Social and Regional Funds will not be diminished.
Would the Minister accept that the deadline which he and the Government have set for themselves for completion of the accession negotiations for both these countries is an unrealistic one having regard to the size of the fisheries problem, its effects on this country and its fishing industry, bearing in mind that the proposals on fisheries by the Commission presented to Spain, I think, some time last July, have been totally rejected by Spain and that no further progress whatsoever has been made on this question since the Commission's proposals were flatly rejected by the Spaniards?
The Commission's proposals were put forward last May and they were, as the Deputy correctly said, rejected by Spain. Since then further proposals have been put forward by the Commission. They are at present being studied by the high-level working group, to which I referred earlier, and to the working party on enlargement. They are to report to COREPER who will, in turn, report to the Foreign Affairs Council on next Monday and Tuesday. At this stage it is impossible to say what will be the attitude of the Community.
In the first part of the Deputy's supplementary he referred to the deadline the Government had set themselves. I should say that the Government have not set any deadline. In this case our Government is one of ten. It is the Community that has set the deadline for the completion of the accession negotiations. The Irish Government happen to hold the Presidency at present. We cannot make progress until that Community, which has set this deadline co-operates with the Presidency in bringing about the kind of internal package that can be presented to the applicant countries. That is a very important point that should be realised, that it is not the Irish Government that is doing anything, it is the Community.
Would the Minister care to comment on the views of other Governments who have said that they want Spain and Portugal in the Community by Christmas, and would the Minister confirm that there are no political preconditions attached to Spain's EC membership such as membership of NATO or problems relating to Gibraltar and that these do not in any way influence our consideration of the question of admission of these two countries to the EEC?
No, I think every member Government and the Community acting collectively have said that they wish the Community to be enlarged by the inclusion of Spain and Portugal and I have no reason to believe that the other nine member states are not as sincere in saying that as we are because we do definitely want the enlargement. They have also said they would like those two countries to be members by 1 January 1986. The practicalities involved in getting the accession treaties ratified by national parliaments mean that the negotiations should be completed some 12 months before that. Hence the date of 30 September 1984 that was settled in that regard. That date has been over-shot now and I think in our heart of hearts we all knew when that date was made that it would be virtually impossible to adhere to. I think the possibility of the actual membership taking place on 1 January 1986 is still realistic.
Would the Minister like to comment on the worry that is in the minds of many people because of the fact that negotiations are being conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and that particularly in regard to fisheries there is an exclusion — perhaps that is too strong a word — of participation by the appropriate Department, namely the Department of Fisheries and Forestry? Can he give us an assurance that there will be full representation in the whole negotiating process of the Department of Fisheries, first of all, and secondly fishery industries, fishery interests, large trawler fishermen and smaller trawler fishermen and so on? Can he also give the House an assurance that the negotiations in this area and indeed in agriculture are not being exclusively handled by Foreign Affairs from a Foreign Affairs point of view but that there is full input from the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate interests in these areas particularly in the fishing area? Deputy Collins touched on this but I am not sure the Minister gave the sort of assurance we would like. We would like to be assured that there will be no question of Spain or Portugal being admitted with matters being left over, particularly fishery and agricultural matters, to be dealt with after admission, that the package or the arrangements will be concluded before entry?
There is a trace of innuendo at the beginning of what the Deputy said which, if I pursued it, I might object to but I think we should leave it aside at this stage. As regards the Department of Foreign Affairs conducting the negotiations, as it were, without any reference to Departments whose responsibility is in particular fields such as fisheries and agriculture, there is no question of that happening. The Deputy would know that. In the Permanent Representation in Brussels there are officials from both those Departments who are at present representing the interests of their Departments in the Permanent Representation. Likewise the high level group I referred to is at present examining the existing set of proposals from the Commission and that high level group in fact has the Secretary of the Department of Fisheries on it and he will be responsible for advising COREPER and subsequently the Department. As regards the last part of the Deputy's supplementary——
Fishery interests?
No, certainly not as far as Foreign Affairs are concerned. If the fishery interests want to make their point of view known to the appropriate Department it can then be passed on to the negotiating team but certainly I would not foresee them coming directly into negotiation level through my Department. They can do it through the Department to which they normally talk if they wish. I would not see them coming in directly at the level of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Is that not dangerous? I am not making a political point but they are once removed, as it were, from the direct negotiating process.
The assumption in that is that the Department of Fisheries do not represent their point of view and that I could not accept. The Deputy wanted an assurance that nothing be left over. Certainly as far as this country is concerned the negotiations will be completed. I am sure Spain and Portugal will insist on the same thing. They will not buy a pig in a poke. They will want to know precisely the terms on which they are joining. It would certainly be my intention that everything would be wrapped up — I think I am not saying anything that would prove impossible to fulfil — before the actual negotiation is concluded. Of course the Deputy will have another bite at this apple when it comes before the Dáil when the negotiations will have to be ratified.
It will be too late then.
Not necessarily. They cannot join unless the ratification process has been completed in ten separate Parliaments.
Would the Minister not agree that that would really put us in an isolated position, that we would have a debate here on the question of ratification——
It must be debated here.
I know it must be but does it not put us in an isolated position? Surely it would be more in our interest to totally safeguard our fishing interests as of now rather than at a later stage?
If this bleak scenario which the Deputies are painting comes upon us why would we not be in an isolated position a step earlier during the negotiation process and how do we avoid that?
I just want to ask the Minister——
This is turning into a debate.
It is a very healthy debate.
I ask the Minister to accept that if the Government agree to certain arrangements for entry it is most unlikely that this House will over-turn such arrangements in a debate on ratification. That is a very remote possibility if it has all been signed and sealed and agreed by the Government. What Deputy Collins and myself are concerned about is that all key areas should be settled before entry. I am sure the Minister would accept that it could be in the applicant countries' interests to leave certain matters over for settlement in discussion——
That is not a question.
I will put it differently for your sensibilities, a Cheann Comhairle. Would the Minister agree——
It is not a matter of sensibilities, it is a matter of practicalities.
I wish you would stay out of this, a Cheann Comhairle. It is a very good discussion.
The Standing Orders do not allow me to stay out of it, Deputy.
Will the Minister accept that it would, in some instances, suit the applicant countries to leave matters over for settlement after they were admitted at which time they would be at the conference table which would be settling the arrangements, so that from our point of view in some areas it is essential that agreement be reached before entry and ratification?
I accept what the Deputy says because I think it is in our interests, but one can look at this in two ways. First of all, in regard to the adoption of a position by the Ten, that is where our interests will have to be protected. At that stage the Spanish Government might say that they could not win on those terms and that they would have to be improved. They might reject the terms altogether. The scenario which Deputy Haughey paints could conceivably happen but I do not think, as Deputy Collins suggested earlier, that we would be isolated. After all, at all stages of the negotiations we are in danger of being isolated and we must remember that. It will be equally painful whenever it happens, in this House, in the negotiations between Spain and the Community or in the Community itself.
Deputy G. Collins rose.
I wish to bring in Deputy Power.
We must protect our interests.
If Deputy Collins wishes to exclude all other Deputies he can.
As negotiations are now at the wrapping up stage——
I wish they were.
Could the Minister give an assurance to the House that the measures at present in force within the Community to protect the Irish fishing industry and the fishing grounds in the immediate vicinity of our coasts from incursions by the Spanish fleet will not be dismantled when Spain joins the Community?
That question should really be addressed to somebody else. I cannot give any guarantee because at that stage there will be Community waters regarding which Spain and Portugal will have a say in respect of anything that might operate after the year 1999 when the present fishery agreement runs out. Spain and Portugal would have a say in the renegotiation of what would be Community waters and I do not think we can avoid that.
I am calling Deputy MacSharry. We have been discussing these questions for 15 minutes.
I do not think this question has received the attention it merits.
The Chair should not be ignored.
We are looking to the future and not just to the present.
The Minister is aware that there was a deadline set by the French Presidency on 30 September for the conclusion of these negotiations. Could the Minister explain what has happened since to put that date further on and why he is not convinced that it will be concluded before the end of the year? Can the Minister also give an assurance at this stage of the negotiations that when they are concluded he will be fully satisfied that the fisheries industry in Ireland will not be affected in any harmful way?
I do not think the Deputy was here when I answered those questions in my original reply.