asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there have been any developments in recent discussions between this country and the EEC which will ensure that adequate safeguards exist to protect the livelihood of small farmers in this country and to prevent Irish land from falling into the hands of foreigners.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
27.
I would refer the Deputy to the leaflet entitled "Ireland and the EEC: The purchase of Land" issued by my Department and circulated to Members of the Oireachtas on 30th March. The position regarding the purchase of land by non-nationals remains as described in that leaflet.
Our attitude in this matter has already been made known in the negotiations and will continue to be pursued.
Can the Minister not give any definite guarantee as regards the safeguards without referring us to such and such a document? We do not have the Civil Service and others at our disposal and we cannot get this document and that document to read it up.
The simplest possible document was sent to the Deputy. What more does he want?
Over-simplified.
Can the Minister tell us if there are any safeguards? What is the Minister's own opinion?
I am quite happy about the situation.
The Minister is quite happy.
We will get the Minister off the tranquillity drug. There may be something on the card in front of the Minister to tell him what to say about this: have we had any discussions with the Danish authorities, who are concerned about a similar problem in relation to the purchase of their land in an enlarged Community, on this problem?
We have had discussions with the applicant countries and with members of the EEC in regard to these and a number of other matters.
If and when we become members of the EEC and when the transitional period expires according to the relations as they stand at the present time has not a German or a Frenchman the same right to come here and purchase any land on the market as an Irishman has? Is it not correct to say that we cannot put any limitations on the amount of land which can be owned by any particular individual whether he is from the Six or the Ten, as it may be then, or from Ireland?
From time to time we have complaints from Deputies on the opposite side that they are not getting sufficient information about what is happening in regard to EEC negotiations, but the Deputy was sent this in the post and it specifies quite clearly what the present position is and what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated our position to be in the negotiations and it bears no relation to what the Deputy is talking about.
(Interruptions.)
I shall read from the document which was circulated to the Deputy:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs who is responsible for Ireland's negotiations for membership has told the Community that the directives already adopted could be accepted by Ireland, i.e.,
(a) land left abandoned or uncultivated for two years, and
(b) purchase of land by non-nationals who had worked as farm workers for more than two years.
This is the present position and the Minister has stated to the Community and in this document that we accept it is all right from our point of view.
Is the Minister telling the House that, according to regulations laid down at the present time, a German cannot come in and buy land here if he so desires at any time after the expiry of the transitional period?
I have told the Deputy in brief what the position is in the Community at the moment. If the Deputy can reconcile that with his statement about a German coming in, I will leave it to him to do so.
28.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he received any representations to the effect that his approach in negotiations on the fisheries issue was considered damaging to the Norwegian case; and whether any further bilateral talks with the Norwegians are planned.
29.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will comment upon the criticism of the Irish submission to the EEC on fisheries policy voiced on 7th June last on television and radio by the Norwegian Prime Minister and the Minister for Fisheries; if he will state particularly what discussions took place with the Norwegian authorities before this country adopted a particular negotiating position; and if he will ensure that there are no further unnecessary clashes between this country and other applicants in matters of common concern.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 29 together.
Each of the four applicant countries put forward the proposals which it considered would best protect its own particular interests. Norway has not suggested that my proposals were considered damaging to the Norwegian case. What I am anxious to ensure is that there should be no change in our fishery access regime until such time as the enlarged Community agree on an equitable solution. We are in continuous contact with Norway and the other applicants on questions arising in the negotiations.
Mr. O'Leary
I have read some criticism by the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Mr. Cappalan, who was reflecting on our negotiating position on the fisheries issue; and having read that other Buntús Cainte production from the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Common Market, it appears to me he was criticising the manner in which the Irish Foreign Minister had conducted our negotiations on the fisheries issue.
I understand the comment from Norway was that our proposals were made by us and were not necessarily suitable for their problems.
Would the Minister agree there is a certain coincidence of interests between their problems and ours? The fish that inhabit Norwegian waters do not have a different nature from the fish that inhabit Irish waters and there is therefore a great similarity in the problems faced. By saying that our proposals did not suit their position the Norwegian Minister implied criticism of the defence we were putting up for a similar problem.
If a view were to be expressed here that the Norwegian proposals did not suit our problems I do not know whether this would be taken as criticism of their proposals, but I understand the position to be that the Norwegian Government in considering its problems put forward certain proposals. Our Government in considering our problems put forward certain proposals. It is our duty to concern ourselves with Irish problems and the duty of the Norwegian Government is to concern themselves with Norwegian problems.
Question No. 30.
Basically, their criticism was that we were accepting the rules and not asking for any change until we got in. The Norwegian position is that they were looking for changes before they got in. I would, therefore, think that the Norwegian position certainly affects us.
No. What we are seeking is that our present rating would remain until after accession when the whole matter would be renegotiated by the Ten. It has been a very considerable achievement to have reached the stage where the Community have now said they are prepared to examine the operation of the directive in conjunction with the applicants, a position which the Community refused to take up heretofore.
Is that not very kind of them? At least it is better than not answering at all.
You are considerably weakening the hand of all the applicants if you adopt a different strategy. Allowing that the interests of different countries will be somewhat different would the Minister not agree that you certainly weaken the hand of the applicants if you have conflict on strategy with the EEC? Will he say what steps will now be taken to ensure that strategy and tactics will not be in conflict because that is where the weakness has already arisen? It is on that level that the criticism has been correctly offered.
I would say, as far as strategy is concerned, the strategy being aimed at was to achieve a change in the position whereby the Community said "This is the directive, this is the position within the Community and you must accept it". That strategy has been achieved. Tactics are different. The tactics required by Norway and by us may be different.
Question No. 30.
Could the Minister say what is wrong with the Norwegian proposals from the Irish view-point?
That is a separate question.
I do not think I should be asked to comment except to point out that, as Deputies will appreciate, the proposals deal with two aspects, not only access to fisheries but also marketing. The Norwegians have proposed certain amendments to the marketing arrangements and those amendments might not necessarily be in our interests.
May I ask the Minister——
I am calling Question No. 30.
We are on Question No. 29 and I am entitled to ask a supplementary question on it.
I have called Question No. 30.
30.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has any plans for further talks with the EEC applicant countries on those areas of common interest in which a common negotiating strategy can beneficially be employed.
As I have indicated in reply to another question today we have continuing contacts with the other applicant countries on matters arising in the negotiations.
The answer to Question No. 30 has not reached this side of the House. It might have reached the Minister's side of the House but it has not reached this side.
The Minister whispered it. I did not hear it.
I was not whispering but the Deputy's colleague was not whispering either and that is why my reply could not be heard.
Question No. 31, to the Minister for Transport and Power.
May I ask a supplementary on Question No. 29?
Could we have the answer to Question No. 30 before you move on to Transport and Power? I do not want to intervene but the Minister lowered his voice when answering the question.
I have already called Question No. 30.
We are waiting to hear the answer.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
We are in order, in face of the interruption, in saying that we would like to hear the answer.
I understand the Minister has replied to Question No. 30.
We could not hear his reply. May he repeat it?
May I ask a supplementary on Question No. 29?
Will the Deputy please resume his seat? He is a question behind. Does the Minister wish to repeat the answer to Question No. 30?
I will do so. As I have indicated in reply to another question today we have continuing contacts with the other applicant countries on matters arising in the negotiations.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs recently visited Norway and shortly afterwards we saw a wide divergence in strategy in approaching the fisheries issue. Likewise, there are some common problems to be faced, such as the Danish people's concern and ours to ensure that the land policy will not mean that foreigners will purchase land. All I am seeking is that the Minister should concern himself with those areas of common interest. We have seen little evidence of this so far. Will the Minister agree that in our negotiating position we appreciate the importance of adopting a common approach with those countries who are in exactly the same position on particular questions as ourselves?
I would not agree. Actually none of the applicants is in exactly the same position on any question. There is a certain similarity in some matters and because of continuing contacts being maintained the greatest possible advantage that may be derived from common positions is so derived. I would repeat that none of the applicants has exactly the same position on any question.
Question No. 31.
I am entitled to ask a supplementary question as I am still a Member of this House. On the strategy adopted by the Government in the fishery negotiations, despite the press announcements and the pleasure of the Government, have we got anything definite from the Commission other than a statement that they are prepared to examine the position again?
That does not arise.
It arises on this question. Have we got anything definite other than an assurance from the Commission that they are prepared to have a look at this problem of ours again? Am I right in saying that is the sum total of the Minister's achievement that was so well publicised during the past week?
That is a separate question.
We have achieved a major breakthrough in this regard.
Would the Minister agree that our progress in the negotiations so far certainly puts us in the position of being probably the most gullible of the negotiators amongst the applicant countries because every defeat is turned into a victory for home consumption?
I do not know whether the knowledge of Deputies in the Labour Party of what is happening in the negotiations is the equivalent of their knowledge of the documents that are issued but it would appear to me that it is the same. They do not seem to know what is happening.
It is a bit more extensive than what was said a while ago.
Have they any conception of what has been achieved in the negotiations already? I do not know whether we should spell it out in words of one syllable or not but they do not seem to be able to understand it.
Neither does the Minister.