This is a discussion with the chairman of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and the European Economic Area on the work of the delegation. I welcome Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, who has recently been appointed as chairman of the newly established EU-Iceland joint parliamentary committee in addition to his role as chairman of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and the European Economic Area. These are important issues and his role is important. The degree to which the EEA affects the European Union and vice versa is very significant. Recent developments with particular reference to Iceland are of great import at present. I do not think those of us within the European Union pay sufficient attention to the activities of those countries of the EEA. I invite Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher to make his presentation. The usual procedure applies with a short presentation and a response from members.
European Parliament Delegation: Discussion
Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP
Ar an gcéad dul síos, cuirim in iúl don Chathaoirleach mo bhuíochas as ucht an cuireadh a tugadh dom teacht anseo mar Chathaoirleach ar an gcoiste atá ag plé leis an EEA i bParlaimint na Eorpa. Is post tábhachtach é agus bímse agus mo chomhleacaithe sa choiste seo ag plé leis na tíortha éagsúla seo ar bonn rialta, is iad sin an Eilvéis, an Íoslainn, an Ioruaidh agus Liechtenstein. Dá bhrí sin, bhí an-áthas orm nuair a fuair mé an cuireadh teacht anseo chun cur síos a thabhairt ar an obair atá á dhéanamh againn sa choiste.
Needless to say I am very pleased to be back here again in the committee room with which I was very familiar for many years during my period as a Deputy and Minister of State. I am particularly delighted this visit is 12 months after my election or re-election to the European Parliament in 2009. I am here to discuss my role as chairman of the European Parliament delegation on relations with Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and the European Economic Area joint parliamentary committee. Following the recent decision of EU leaders to proceed with the accession to the EU of Iceland, I have been appointed as chairman of the recently established EU-Iceland joint parliamentary committee. This will comprise nine members of the existing EEA committee and nine members of the Icelandic parliament.
The European Free Trade Association was established in 1960 as an alternative to the European Economic Community, which was the predecessor of the European Union. The European Free Trade Area has had many members over the years, but today has just four member countries: Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. In 1994, three of the four EFTA countries joined the Single Market by signing the European Economic Area agreement. Switzerland declined to join the EEA following a referendum which was defeated by a very narrow margin, 50.3% to 49.7%. At one stage, EFTA rivalled the European Economic Community in size and scope. This has changed drastically following the exits of Denmark and the UK in 1972 and of Finland, Sweden and Austria in 1995.
The three EEA states are legally bound to implement into their domestic law EU regulations and directives which govern the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. As a result of this obligation, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein have implemented over 80% of EU legislation. The significant economic benefits of the Single Market can come at a political disadvantage to those countries, however. Their respective governments and parliaments must adhere to these directives and regulations, even though they make a minimal input and have a minimal political influence over the formation of such laws.
Iceland is the latest EFTA country to apply to join the EU. Iceland and Ireland have deep political, social and cultural links. I was a member of a parliamentary delegation, led by Tom Fitzpatrick, that visited Iceland many years ago. As a small country in the middle of an economic crisis, Iceland has much to gain from EU membership. In July 2009, Iceland presented its formal application for EU membership to the European Commission. In February of this year, the Commission issued a favourable opinion on the application and urged the European Council to open accession talks with Iceland. At the meeting of European Council in June, the leaders of the EU member states gave the green light to Iceland's application despite the Icesave issue not having been resolved. The committee of which I am a member recommended to the Council and the Commission that the matter should be dealt with on a bilateral basis and should be decoupled from Iceland's application for EU membership. That is exactly what happened.
Iceland is uniquely placed to proceed with negotiations quickly. It has adopted a significant part of the Community acquis owing to its membership of the European Economic Area. As a member of that organisation, Iceland already fulfils the requirement to have implemented the negotiating chapters in ten cases and has partially fulfilled that requirement in the case of 11 chapters. Therefore, just 12 chapters, which are outside the scope of the EEA, must be fully negotiated. Those 12 chapters relate to important issues such as competition, financial services, regional development, social affairs, agriculture, fisheries, transport, economic and monetary policy, judicial issues and foreign and defence policy. Along with the political negotiations that are about to commence, it is equally important that we improve the political and civil society dialogue between the EU and Iceland. Traditionally, the process of accession negotiations is open ended. Progress depends on good faith on both sides. This is why it is important that the Icesave issue continues to remain a bilateral affair. I hope the forthcoming negotiations will be conducted in a spirit of goodwill and friendship.
I would like to speak about Norway's historical relations with the European Union. Norway rejected accession to the European Economic Community in 1972 and again in 1994, which was the year I was first elected to the European Parliament. Members will recall that Norway had a Commissioner-designate for fisheries in 1994, around the time the referendum took place and was rejected. Norway's relations with the European Union are mainly conducted in the framework of the European Economic Area. It participates in some EU education and research programmes, including the EU framework programme for research and development. Under the terms of the agreement, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein make a financial contribution to alleviating economic and social disparities in Europe by means of the EEA financial mechanism. The funds contributed by these countries are used in projects in areas like the environment, sustainable development and cultural heritage. Norway is the main contributor. The EEA financial mechanism will be worth almost €100 million in the period between 2009 and 2014. Under a separate fund, Norway will provide more than €800 million in the same period to support pilot research projects in the area of climate change, which has become important. The main beneficiaries of the EEA financial mechanism and the European financial mechanism are the member states which joined in 2004 and 2007.
The third member of the EEA is the principality of Liechtenstein, which is located between Switzerland and Austria. It has a population of 35,000 which is approximately one third that of my home county of Donegal. It is strongly integrated into the Swiss economy, even though Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. Liechtenstein has the highest gross domestic product per person in the world. Its diverse economy has a significant financial services sector. As we know, Switzerland is located in the heart of Europe. While it is geographically located inside the EU, Switzerland is neither a member of the Union nor of the EEA. The Swiss people have a high regard for the European project, which has brought peace, stability and prosperity to the continent of Europe for more than half a century.
Switzerland has decided to pursue its relations with the rest of Europe in a unique manner. Its approach is different from that of the EEA countries. There are approximately 120 bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU. The agreements cover the free movement of goods, the free movement of people, road transport, civil aviation, scientific research, technical barriers to trade, public procurement markets and agriculture. Switzerland is the EU's second largest economic partner. Swiss companies employ more than 1 million people throughout the EU. We have only to look at the recent announcement by the Zurich insurance company that it would create another 120 jobs in this country. The company's total workforce in Ireland now stands at more than 1,100. When the company made its decision I met some of its representatives who indicated that they had considered a number of options but chose this country as the location for its expansion for one important reason, namely, our long-standing membership of the European Union and the euro.
I refer to the Arctic region and the policies pursued by the European Union. Norway and Iceland are members of the Arctic region. I represent the European Parliament on the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. The 2008 communication by the European Commission on the Arctic region touches many topics, including climate change, energy, transport, the environment and fisheries as well as security and indigenous peoples.
When we think of Iceland we also think of global warming which is rapidly changing the Arctic region due to melting snow and ice. New shipping routes are opening up. New fishing grounds are now available and there are great opportunities for oil and gas exploration. It is estimated that 30% of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources lie within the Arctic region. It is important for the Union to play an active role in Arctic politics. I am pleased that I am the conduit between the Parliament and that region. The European Union can have a positive influence on introducing good policies for the region, as opposed to becoming involved in the race to exploit it. We should exploit the opportunities but it must be done on a sustainable basis.
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the committee. It is obvious from my previous mandates that the Lisbon treaty has afforded the European Parliament significant new powers, especially in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. As a result, political dialogue and communication between the Oireachtas and the Parliament must be improved. I welcome the report on the role of the Oireachtas in European affairs carried out by this committee and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. I was pleased that I and my colleagues were able to make a contribution towards it.
I thank Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher. He was correct in the interesting comment he made about the difference post-Lisbon. There will be competition between national parliaments and the European Parliament. It is important that there is regular contact between Members of the European Parliament and this and other committees.
I formally welcome Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP. I have known him for many years. When he was in the European Parliament, during my time as Minister he always made me feel very welcome when I visited. I thank him for that. I would like to reciprocate. I also welcome Mr. Farrell.
I congratulate Mr. Gallagher on his appointment as Chair. It is great for this country that we have the Chair of the committee given the importance of the countries to which he referred in terms of the future of Europe. I am sure fisheries will be one of Iceland's key issues in terms of its application for membership of the European Union. Does Mr. Gallagher foresee that Iceland's application could lead to a review of the Common Fisheries Policy? If that were to happen we should be prepared for it because Mr. Gallagher is aware of how important the industry is to this country. I recall the situation that arose following our entry into the European Union when fisheries were sacrificed somewhat for agriculture.
Are there any indications that Norway might reconsider its application for membership of the EU? As Mr. Gallagher rightly stated, it is an important part of that region of Europe and its natural resources are important to all of us as well. I read recently that Norway had discovered a major new gas field. The United Kingdom sought an agreement on the supply of gas but that was refused, which surprised me somewhat. I would have imagined that good neighbours would have been the first to consider the supply of a natural resource such as that into this part of Europe. I would welcome a comment on that.
Up to recently I was Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. In the energy security area we discussed the concept of a super grid and this country's role in developing its natural resources so that we could export wind and wave power, for example, to the grid in the future. If electricity was produced through gas generation we could benefit if Norway were to become part of the super grid. The issue is vitally important for the future.
When does Mr. Gallagher foresee that a final decision will be made on Iceland's application? I thank him for his contribution.
I also welcome our colleague from Europe. Iceland's application was submitted on 17 July 2009. What are the next steps that must be reached for accession to take place and how soon could it happen? There is a strong positive mood towards Iceland in terms of assisting it in its current difficulties. Iceland would make a positive contribution to the European Union.
I welcome Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher and Mr. Farrell and thank them for their presentation. As Deputy Barrett indicated, it is useful and helpful that an Irish MEP chairs the committee considering the importance of those countries, many of which are our neighbours. Like other speakers I am somewhat concerned about fishing. I would welcome a response on the matter. Will Mr. Gallagher expand a little more on the ISAVE issue?
Mr. Gallagher, MEP, has received the responses of members. I compliment him on his presentation and on his clear knowledge of the situation. I agree with what members said about the issues that might affect this country, especially in terms of the accession of Iceland. It is a small country and it should not take forever to resolve any outstanding problems with the negotiations on membership of the European Union. The negotiations should be concluded in the shortest possible time with due regard to the need to comply with the acquis in the normal way. Exceptions can be made.
On the fishing industry, we have had the salutary experience in the past and mistakes made in that regard should not be visited on Iceland by the entire Union. This is an opportunity for the fishing industry in Iceland to set an example for the rest of Europe and at the same time it could be of significant benefit within the European Union.
Speakers referred to natural resources in Norway, especially energy reserves. There are approximately eight times the world's known coal reserves off the Norwegian coast. Norway, as a member of the European Economic Area, is powerful and has been growing economically in recent years. Switzerland, which was referred to, is in the centre of Europe and one virtually has to cross through it no matter which way one goes. It is in a unique trading position because of its location and it effectively has had its own agreement with the European Union for a number of years.
I thank Mr. Gallagher, MEP, for attending today. The point he made on the change in strength of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the national parliaments is correct. That was anticipated. It means we must be more alert and constructive. I must emphasise a point I repeated time and again at this committee, namely, that we need to enter into dialogue with the members of parliaments of the other member states much more regularly than we used to. There was a time when we had visits almost every week from members of virtually every European national parliament. This trend has declined in recent times. The theory that dialogue will occur through the European Parliament in future is not entirely acceptable. If we are to keep up to speed with the issues that affect other member states, we need to know what their members of parliament think. Similarly, if they are to keep up to speed with how the political and economic circumstances affect us in this Parliament, they need to be briefed by us regularly. There is no better way to proceed than the way I suggest.
Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP
I thank the members for their kind words. It does not surprise me that Deputy Barrett, a former Minister for Defence and the Marine, raised the fisheries issue. I will outline my perception of the changes that have taken place in my terms as a Member of the European Parliament, namely, between 1994 and 2002 and from 2009 to date. During the Presidency in the mid-1990s, during which time Deputy Barrett was Minister for Defence and the Marine, I was producing a report in the European Parliament on early retirement for fishermen. I was naive enough at that time to believe that once it was approved at committee, which was a microcosm of the European Parliament, there would be progress, only to be told when voting on the matter in the Parliament that it had already been decided upon by the Council and the Commission. This taught me a lesson and it will never happen again. The way the system worked in those days was such that we were not taken very seriously. If the Council and Commission did not want to take our views into consideration, they could have waited until such time as we expressed them in the European Parliament and voted.
I am now producing a report on mackerel in the north Atlantic and it encompasses a number of countries, including Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and the member states of the European Union right down to the Bay of Biscay. It did not get onto the wire before 1 December and it is now felt we possibly have powers we should not really have in terms of comitology. I am just making a comparison between 1994 and 2009.
The Common Fisheries Policy is being reviewed at present and it is coincidental that it is being reviewed at the same time that Iceland has applied for membership. We all had an opportunity until the end of December of last year to submit our views, which we did. The Government, having consulted the industry and the various organisations, made a submission as well. I hope that as a result of this and the statement by former Commissioner Joe Borg, whom I found to be very accessible, that everything was on the table, the role of the regional advisory committees, RACs, will be enhanced.
Deputy Seán Barrett will remember that when he was Minister there were reviews and mid-term reviews. Very little emerged from them except what I recall as a very important development, namely, the establishment of the regional advisory committees. These dealt with areas such as the pelagic fish. There was a western waters RAC and a Mediterranean RAC. I met the representatives of the RAC on pelagic fish ten days ago. The meeting was very beneficial and there was a good exchange of views. The RACs have an advisory role but I hope that, after the review, it will be enhanced. This is important. While the RACs' views can be taken into consideration, this is not necessarily done.
I hope regionalisation will be granted formal status on foot of the review. Commissioner Damanaki, who is from Greece, has indicated fairly clearly she would be supportive of this. With regard to fisheries, a one-size-fits-all solution is inadequate. If there is a problem in the south of Greece, Spain or Italy, it is not necessarily the same as one that might arise in the west of Ireland or west of Scotland. We hope there will be regionalisation. All MEPs, as representatives of their own countries, are anxious to ensure they can secure a better deal. It will be difficult because the total reliable catch is such that if we have to secure more, others will have less. Everything is on the table and I hope we will learn the Commission's view early next year, after which there will be further debate. Iceland will have to comply with the acquis that is in place.
If we consider the waters of Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and the European Union, we will note there is a straddling stock of fish, including Scandinavian herring. Mackerel is a stock available to all and it is important, therefore, that it be fished and exploited in a sustainable way. All countries must play a part in this sustainable fishery. Last year Iceland decided it would increase its total allowable catch of mackerel from 4,000 tonnes to 130,000 tonnes. If it does so, as it can bilaterally, all member states will have to reduce their total allowable catches, thus affecting our fishermen. I made our position very clear to the Norwegian Minister when we met recently and to the Icelandic ambassador. I met the Maritime Affairs Commissioner. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, has written to the Trade Commissioner. There are trade issues to be considered. We must watch this space very closely because changes to the total allowable catch could represent a disaster for EU fishermen, including Irish fishermen.
The issues associated with the Iceland's application for membership and the Common Fisheries Policy are not coupled. Iceland is depending very much on fisheries. Fishing produces much employment in its coastal areas and it is anxious to secure the best deal. Apart from the issue of mackerel and the straddling stocks, the aforesaid issue will comprise part of the negotiations.
Deputy Barrett referred to energy derived from coal, gas and oil. As far as the Union is concerned, Norway is a crucial, reliable energy partner. It is the second largest supplier of gas to the Union and accounts for one quarter of the Union's imports. Norway is the third largest exporter of oil and gas. The Union is developing policies to deal with the security of energy supply. We may seek to extend its internal energy market to include the European Economic Area countries and Norway in particular. Also included would be the European Neighbourhood Policy countries, such as the Ukraine and Algeria.
The Arctic is important with regard to energy and we must exploit it in a sustainable way. Europe is ready to play its part. That, I hope will answer the question raised by Deputy Dooley in regard to fisheries.
Senator Hanafin and the Chairman referred to the next step in the accession process. The first three steps to be taken are application, recommendation from the Commission and the green light by the Council. The Commission is now actively preparing for the next stages of the accession process and has prepared a draft negotiating framework which will lay down the general guidelines for the conduct of the accession and point out reforms Iceland must undertake to join the Union.
Belgium holds the Presidency at present and it foresees the adoption of the negotiating framework by the General Affairs and External Relations Council later this month with a view to convening the first intergovernmental conference, or IGC, with Iceland on 27 July. The pace will very much depend on Iceland's progress in meeting the requirements as set out in the negotiating framework. The Commission will provide Iceland with all of the necessary technical support to facilitate the process of negotiation and it is now preparing for the assessment of Iceland's compliance with the acquis on a chapter by chapter basis — it already complies with ten chapters, partially complies with 11 and there are 12 for further negotiation. The full screening is expected to begin in the autumn of 2010 and could possibly continue until the middle of next year. The screening of chapters, particularly in the Icelandic context, will be in regard to financial services, fisheries, agriculture and the environment. I believe these will begin early in the process.
That is how the process will progress. Until such time as there is an offer on the table, it will be a matter for the Icelandic Government — there are divided views within that Government and within the parties — and, eventually, it will be a matter for the Icelandic people. I would respectfully suggest the referendum on Icesave does not reflect the opinion of Icelandic people in regard to access to Europe. We should look behind that result. A recent opinion poll suggests that 58% of the Icelandic people are in favour of withdrawing the application but, prior to that, approximately 50% were in favour rather than 42%. I have said to Icelandic parliamentarians and media that no one should take up entrenched positions until such time as they know what offer is on the table.
Iceland would be an important partner in a very important strategic location within the European Union and would progress the objectives of the founding fathers of the Union, namely, a peaceful Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. We will have to wait and see how this develops but Europe will give every assistance in regard to the accession and the technical advice that will be needed in regard to the various chapters.
I agree with the Chairman in this regard. Messrs. Tom Fitzpatrick, Des O'Malley, Mervyn Taylor and I visited Iceland in 1983. There should be more such visits. We have friends in every country in Europe and while I speak with a European hat on today, speaking with my Irish hat on, it is important to develop those relationships.
This committee has made a submission on CAP, on which we had a very animated discussion. One of the issues which came up repeatedly was the depletion of fish stocks in the commonly fished areas. We look forward to something positive emanating from the discussions now taking place. There should be concentration on more clearly identifying the contributory causes to the dramatic diminution which has resulted in restricted fishing for many of our fishermen.
I call Senator Dearey to conclude.
On a tangential question, I wonder how the whaling issue will play in the context of the negotiations with Iceland.
Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP
Before I deal with that, Deputy Seán Barrett raised the issue of when Norway might re-apply. We will be a few years older when that happens. There are parties in Norway who would wish to apply and who feel their home is within the EU but, given it was defeated in 1972 and 1994, it might be some time before they try again. Although I stand to be corrected, I understand its application is still active. The Norwegians have the advantages of EEA membership as part of the Union.
On the question of whaling, we had a vote on the Preda report in the European Parliament recently in the context of Icelandic accession. An amendment in regard to whaling was carried and I have to confess I voted against it. I did so because this is the stage when we talk about the framework and we should not go into the micro-aspects and write the script at this stage.
This will create some difficulties. Coming from a fishing background, I believe in the importance of catching, processing and adding value to fish, whatever the type of fish may be, on a sustainable basis. That would go for whaling as well. It is too early to be definitive but this will raise its head in the negotiations. However, it is timely that the Senator would raise the question because the vote was carried in the European Parliament, although I cannot remember which party raised it. Nonetheless, I felt it was wrong. It is not a matter for us, as parliamentarians, to write the script now and it is better to allow the negotiations to continue. The German Parliament in a resolution urged the German Government to ensure an end to whale hunting in the context of the accession and the European Parliament called for a ban. We will have to wait and see how it develops.
It is part of the committee's policy to encourage colleagues from the European Parliament to come to address us. I thank Mr. Gallagher for attending.