asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the effect of EEC membership on (a) the grants to new or expanding industries, (b) the tax exemption granted to existing firms up to 1990 on profits from exports and (c) the tax exemption on profits from exports by new firms established after joining the EEC.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
22.
As regards part (a) of the question it is our view that our scheme of grants is compatible with the EEC Treaty.
The question of our export tax reliefs referred to in parts (b) and (c) of the question is, of course, the subject of negotiations with the Community.
Would the Minister accept that, should the Community refuse to permit the continuation of these incentives in the post-transitional period, an extremely serious situation would arise for our future industrial development?
I made the case on this basis to the Community, that we find the tax incentives a very necessary part of our industrial development.
The Minister says it is his view that these grants to new and expanding industries should be continued. Is it the view of the Commissioners?
We have to find out.
When will it be decided?
I am hoping to get as much as possible done by way of negotiation before the summer recess, but it may be that we would not have final answers to some of the questions until the autumn. However, it is a matter for negotiation. I submitted a memorandum in detail on the lines Deputy Desmond mentioned and the Community will have to make some response before we negotiate.
There is no comment from them yet?
Not to date.
Is there a special case for these incentives for regional development purposes?
Yes. We have a case for seeking these incentives on their own merit because of the position of our economy in transition from agriculture to industry. From the point of view of regional development there certainly is a very strong case for having them.
Could the Minister say if we can look forward confidently to commitments already entered into in relation to industries established here, for instance, the commitment on tax exemption until 1990, being honoured by the EEC?
We have been dealing with prospective industrialists on the basis that these are commitments made by the Government. I have submitted a memorandum on our position and I am awaiting a response from the Community. I do not see any benefit in dealing with hypothetical questions.
Does the Minister expect any response from the next round of bilateral talks?
As I said, I am trying to get as much as possible completed before the recess. It may not be possible for the Community to give me their position before the recess.
Could the Minister say approximately when the full terms of admission will be published?
Certainly at the end of the year, but I see a possibility of getting many of these matters dealt with before the recess and I am pressing the Community to do this. If the Community are not in a position to negotiate on these questions with me before the end of July, then we shall have to do it in the autumn.
There has been no response as yet from the Commissioners in respect of any of the submissions the Minister has made on any particular matter?
I have referred to what has been done so far.
These are submissions?
No. Some important matters have been dealt with: the financing of our agricultural exports by the Community, the question of control of dumping, and the preservation of freedom of trade under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement during the transition to membership. These were done at the last meeting. We also did the transitional period for the reduction of tariff barriers and for our accession to the common agricultural policy. We also got a concession that the Community will now reconsider and discuss the fisheries policy of the Community.
The Minister did not get that concession.
As I said before, no matter who gets it it is of benefit to us and the Deputy should not be too happy——
The Minister is trying to give the impression that it was he personally who got it.
Question No. 23.
I did not do it. It is only that the Deputies are upset about it.
Are there any special negotiations in respect of any specified industries?
At the moment the one which is of real concern to me is the motor car assembly industry. I hope to have something on that at the meeting on the 12th July.
Are there any others?
This is the one we claimed deserves special treatment. The other one which I raised at the beginning of the negotiations has since been withdrawn.
The Minister, I am sure, has received representations from certain Fianna Fáil cumainn in the area who are fearful for industry in their own districts. Inevitably repreresentations are made to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the cumann is informed that these industries will be specially mentioned in negotiations at Brussels. Is this so or has the Minister only specified this industry?
Not to my knowledge.
I am calling Question No. 23.
Is the Minister serious?
I have no experience whatever of saying what Deputy Corish has now said.
I must say that in respect of at least two industries in my home town the local Fianna Fáil cumainn have been told by somebody in the Government that these will be specially mentioned in negotiation. I am not trying to make a political point out of it at all because I understand the concern of these people for their industries.
Does the Minister seriously suggest that a stay of only five years and the opening of our fisheries then to the competition which we know we cannot stand up against is satisfactory to this country?
I said it is not satisfactory.
The Minister said it is.
No, not at all. I have many more problems about what the Deputies say I said. In fact, there is an air of total unreality in this House about the Community.
The Minister may find some members of this House, perhaps, putting words in his mouth but there is one thing he will not find me doing and that is putting words in his mouth. Not two minutes ago, he said that a stay of five years as far as the fishing industry is concerned was satisfactory. I heard the Minister and the House heard him. If the Minister wishes to correct himself he can do so. I do not put words into the mouth of the Minister.
I will ask the Ceann Comhairle if he can say if it is on the record that five minutes ago I said that.
Two or three minutes ago.
Within the past couple of minutes. I cannot go on answering the same questions day after day and then have Deputies saying I said something I never said.
The Minister put it on the record of this House.
I am calling Question No. 23.
I must have the other thing dealt with. There is an air of total unreality. Either I said it or I did not. If it is on the record we should be able to find out.
We take the Minister's word.
If the Minister is now saying he did not say it that is all right.
No, this is not enough. This is something I am supposed to have said during Question Time today.
In this connection the House will have to wait until the Official Records are available.
Deputy Donegan has not been here for weeks.
Arising out of Question No. 22 to ask the Minister if his Department have taken legal advice on the matter of the tax exemptions up to 1990 if in the event of it being impossible to negotiate them into the Community is it the position that the Government will then be liable for compensation for promises explicitly entered into with firms when they were established in this country?
We accept those as contracts, as I said earlier.
Does this mean we will have to exhaust our public funds to compensate the companies who lose these tax reliefs if we are not able to negotiate them into the Community?
I do not think people who have already entered into those commitments should lose them.
It is at least possible that they will.
We hold ourselves responsible for them.
Does this mean that if they lose public funds will have to recompense these companies?
Yes.
I am calling Question No. 23. We have been discussing this question for a considerable time.
Are we to take it from the Minister that any new firms coming into this country between 1978 and 1990, the 12-year period in question, will not get the benefit of the current export tax incentives?
The question deals with existing firms.
No. The Minister said firms already in production.
The Deputy is trying to catch me out.
That is what they are trying to do.
This is something to be negotiated. Firms which have already got a commitment from the Government have a full commitment and the Government hold themselves responsible. Our position is that we want to negotiate that these concessions will continue in the life of the legislation. Anyone who has entered into a commitment with the Government has a guarantee from the Government that we accept responsibility.
What about new industries coming in?
We are negotiating for them.
23.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in regard to the negotiations for entry to the EEC.
I circulated to Deputies in Febuary last a comprehensive report on the progress of the negotiations up to that date and, as I have already announced, I intend to circulate a further report after my meeting with the Communities on 12th July. In the circumstances I propose to limit my reply to the question to a brief summary of the present position. At my meeting with the Communities on 7th June, agreement was reached on a number of matters of major importance for us. These are the financing of our agricultural exports by the Community from the date of accession, the preservation of Anglo-Irish free trade, and control of dumping. Deputies were informed of the outcome of that meeting in a note circulated on 8th June. There have also been important developments in regard to fisheries. As I informed Deputies last week, the Community has agreed to discussions with all the applicant countries next month.
Other matters of major importance to us are in an advanced stage of examination by the Communities, including the questions of the motor assembly industry, export tax reliefs and animal and plant health.
A meeting is being held today with the Communities at Deputies' level. Following my Ministerial meeting on 12th July, there will be a further meeting at Deputies' level on 19th July.
Was it a great concession to have the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement continued particularly in view of the trade figures for the past five months which were published yesterday?
It was a very important concession to have the freedom of trade guaranteed.
We are losing by it.
Is the Minister in a position to say at this stage whether the further discussions on fisheries will be bilateral or multilateral?
The intention was to have a multilateral meeting but if it can be solved on a bilateral basis it can be done that way. I am quite open on it.
24.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the terms negotiated between Britain and the EEC in Luxembourg on 23rd June will affect this country as a potential member of the EEC; and, if so, what opportunity the Government will have of altering parts of the agreement which might be unfavourable to this country.
The Deputy has presumably in mind the agreements reached between Britain and the Communities on New Zealand dairy products and on financing. We expect that the Communities will make statements to the Irish delegation at a meeting in Brussels today arising from the agreements with Britain on these two matters and I think that it would be better to withhold comment until we have studied these statements and whatever proposals they contain.
Does not this negotiation procedure put us at a severe disadvantage in that we are presented with a fait accompli and really can do little or nothing about it? Is the Minister aware that the agreement in relation to New Zealand dairy produce will mean that we will be that much at a disadvantage on the British market for the five years because of the competition from outside the EEC for our dairy produce? Would the Minister comment on those points?
The House will accept that it is definitely to our advantage that a solution was found for the New Zealand problem because this meant the negotiations could go ahead. Far from being disadvantageous it is very much to our advantage.
Is it not the case that New Zealand are our competitors?
The Deputy has in mind that if the Community could be enlarged and New Zealand excluded——
Is it not the case——
I do not think that proposition was ever envisaged.
Would the Minister comment on the general negotiation procedure?
It is essential that the other negotiations make progress and the fact that they have made progress should be welcomed by those who are interested in having our own negotiations make progress and having an enlargement of the Community.
25.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to reports that a separate agreement on fisheries is being made between Norway and the EEC without reference to Ireland's problems in this regard; and, if so, if he is satisfied with the adequacy of Ireland's negotiations to date in relation to fisheries.
26.
andMr. Donegan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, since his replies of 23rd June, 1971, any changes have occurred in this country's position vis-à-vis the common fisheries policy of the EEC; if so, what the changes are; and their effect.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 25 and 26 together. We are seeking in the negotiations arrangements on fisheries which will best protect our own particular interests. So is each of the other applicant countries. The proposals which I put forward to the Communities on 7th June still stand.
Is it not so that since the question of 23rd June an agreement has been made regarding the efforts of Norway and that this was made without any reference to the problems of Ireland? Is it not so that there is some danger of our being bracketed with Denmark?
This is absolutely without foundation in any source of information, public or private. There have not been any arrangements about fisheries with any of the four applicants but there has been agreement that there will be meetings with the four applicants on this question. It is impossible to deal with repetitions of something that is simply not true.
I am glad to hear it.
Would the Minister like to indicate how it is that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Norway found it necessary to protest publicly about the position taken up on fisheries by the Minister?
I do not think so. I am interested only in what suits us.
Is it not so that you might get a worse arrangement than they get? Is that what we want?
Wait until the package is complete and see how bad the arrangement will be.
Is it not the case that this procedure may lead to different agreements and that this will be to our disadvantage as well as to the disadvantage of Norway?
Different applicants have different problems. The Irish solution to the Irish problem is what we should look for. The Norwegian solution would not suit us as well as our own. Neither would the British solution. This attitude of the Opposition is wrong: that if something originates in some other country it is better than if it originated here.
27.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the course of the present EEC negotiations, he has suggested the introduction of any forms of domestic food subsidies during the transitional period after entry.
If the Deputy has in mind general State subsidies on food the answer is "no". Such general subsidies would be contrary to EEC arrangements.
Question No. 28 postponed.