Recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs met a deputation from the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. That council produced a resolution stating the following:
We, the members of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, express our deep concern that in the event of this country joining the EEC all non-nationals should have the same right as Irish citizens to purchase agricultural land in this country. Having regard to the fact that agriculture is our main industry and that great congestion exists among smallholders, we call on the Minister for External Affairs so that in the negotiations for this country's entry the special and unusual background of land history will be fully dealt with and that this country might be exempt from any regulations which would put non-nationals on the same standards for the purchase of Irish land as those of Irish farmers and Irish landowners.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs met the deputation in a courteous fashion and listened to everything they said. He said that the Council of Ministers gave a directive in relation to fisheries and I think he went as far as saying that it was slipped across in a hurry and that a directive was not given by the Council of Ministers in relation to the purchase of land by aliens. I was present with the delegation when the Minister said this.
The deputation expressed anxiety that the same thing might happen in relation to land as had happened in regard to fisheries. The Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed that so far as Irish land was concerned he would ensure that before any decision was taken in this matter he would bear in mind the representations made to him by the General Council of Committees of Agriculture. He sympathised with the aims of the General Council and stated he would direct the attention of those responsible for the negotiations in Brussels to this matter.
I would appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make sure that the history of the land of Ireland is made known to all in order to ensure that what was done in the case of fisheries will not happen to our agricultural land. We welcome foreign industrial investment and development. It is much better that the Irish people should be engaged in employment as a result of foreign industrial development here than that they should work abroad for the same foreign interests. However, there is a difference between industrial development and foreign ownership of agricultural land on a large scale. The Irish landowners will not tolerate this. It is better that the Government should realise this so that it can be spelled out clearly that Ireland must be exempt from the free right of foreigners to compete against Irish landowners for the purchase of land. The national and historic background must be taken into account.
I should like to refer to those who are opposed to Ireland's entry into the EEC and who fear that we are throwing aside our policy of neutrality. During the 1939-1945 war we adopted a policy of neutrality. It was believed by the people to be the correct policy and we were ready to take on any invader who dared to put a foot on Irish soil. Whether we acted fully in accordance with this policy history alone will tell, but nevertheless we had the name of being a neutral country.
How neutral are we at this very moment? How can we be neutral if we enter the EEC? We are already a member of the United Nations Organisation. Neutrality in its purest state has been a thing of the past for the Republic for several years. We cannot possibly remain neutral in changing circumstances and circumstances have changed because we have entered the United Nations. To those who are foolish enough to think that membership of the EEC will interfere with our policy of neutrality, if there was ever such a thing as a policy of neutrality, I say let us face facts. We can only hope and trust that the peace which all peace-loving people desire will be achieved and that there will be no military conflict, no need to take one side or another. We as a nation have decided on our policy in regard to neutrality. We decided on that policy when we joined the UN. We are now on the side of all peace-loving countries. Let us hope that in Europe we can play our part to bring about not alone a lasting peace in Europe but by our contribution to European peace generously contribute to world peace.
I should like to refer to what can be called a great slip-up in relation to our fisheries vis-á-vis the EEC. A directive from the Council of Ministers stole through and the result of this stealing through, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs calls it, is that the right to fish our territorial waters by member countries is a reality. I agree that this directive affects Norway very seriously. It will perhaps have the same repercussions in Norway as matters relating to agriculture would have in Ireland. The time has come when some form of statement should be made to our fishermen whose livelihoods are in serious jeopardy as a result of foreign trawlers being given the right to fish what have always been regarded as our territorial waters. We have had a different type of fisherman. It is only in recent years that our fishermen have been encouraged to go well out to sea. Formerly they could not do this because they had not got the trawlers, the training or the equipment to go far out to sea. They fished mainly around the Irish coast and at certain times of the year went as far as the French coast.
The most courageous of all our fishermen are the fishermen from the Killybegs area and from the south west coast. It has been established beyond doubt that the main bulk of the catches by all our fishermen was found within ten miles of the shore. Frequently the profitable shoals were found within our territorial waters by fishermen from Killybegs, Arklow, Galway, Ballycotton, Castletownbere, Schull, all round the Kerry coast and up to Galway. These men always fished where the profitable shoals were, convenient to their landing points. For example, the Ballycotton fishermen have their own lobster ground convenient to Ballycotton and know where the profitable catches of lobsters are. They have their facilities available on shore and their market. What will happen in the case of the Ballycotton lobster fishermen, the Dunmore East herring fishermen and the Killybegs fishermen? I will say, in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries, Deputy Fahey, that the most experienced and courageous fishermen in Europe are the Killybegs fishermen. That was my experience many years ago when for a short time I was in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in charge of fisheries. My opinion of these fishermen has not changed. I feel sympathy for them and indeed I am agitated when I find that the livelihood of the Killybegs fishermen is in danger, like that of the lobster fishermen at Ballycotton and Schull and the herring fishermen at Dunmore East. If they see that the foreign trawlers or lobster boats can come in to the edge of our coast with more modernised equipment, greater gear and more wealth behind them than our fishermen can ever hope to have, they could be discouraged. Their earnings have never been sufficient to buy modern equipment such as the French and the Norwegians have. How can the Irish fisherman compete with them even in our own fishing grounds which are being invaded by foreign fishermen, our partners in friendship in the EEC?
Something happened in Brussels when this was rushed through and the Irish Government did not know about it until afterwards. Is not that a terrible commentary on our negotiating team? Is it possible that in Brussels there is such organisation with regard to EEC matters that a directive of this kind could be passed by the Council of Ministers without our knowledge? Ireland could not be represented on that Council yet. That is why it is so important to become a member. If we had been in the EEC before this directive was given the Irish point of view would have been heard at the Council of Ministers. Was an agenda circulated to accredited representatives from the EEC countries? Was it known that such a directive was likely to be given by the Council and that it would endanger the livelihood of many Irish fishermen? There should be sufficient safeguards for the following reasons: (1) regard should be had to the limited financial sources available for our fishermen who compete against the foreigners; (2) there is a lack of modern gear and boats; (3) there is lack of proper training for our fishermen as compared with European fishermen, and (4) very modern catching gear available to Europeans is not available to our fishermen.
If any responsible negotiator knew that there was a directive of this kind to be given and that it would have a detrimental effect on the livelihood of our fishermen some positive action should have been taken. Is it now too late to do anything? Can this matter be reopened? How can we get around this directive? If this directive can be given, what is to stop the members of the EEC from rushing through a similar directive in relation to the purchase of Irish land by foreigners? What is to stop them bringing in any regulation which might be detrimental to industry or agriculture?
There was a headline in the Irish Independent on the 27th November, 1970 which worried me. It probably worried Deputy Fahey also because he is paid to look after these people. I have a real regard for the fishermen because I know of their skill and industry and how dangerous their lives are and how much they must depend on the weather, the currents, the movement of shoals and the position of lobster beds. All these are uncertain. I became sympathetic to these men even though I represent an inland constituency. In the article I referred to it is said:
"Are they going to sacrifice the fishermen for the benefit of the farmers?" The question was put to me by 40-year old Joe Boyle, skipper of "Árd Croine" on the pier of Killybegs as we discussed the prospect of the future of the fishing industry.
Raymond Smyth interviewed Joe Boyle and a man called Hegarty and a number of other fishermen. The interview indicated the worries of the fishermen in relation to our entry into the EEC. Articles such as this direct attention to the serious plight of these people. There was a leading article in the Irish Independent on the 28th November, 1970 headed “The Fishing Future”, which read:
It is hard to see why a country like ours should have to import fish and fish products to the tune of nearly £2,000,000 annually. A lot still needs to be done in improving variety and distribution both in the home and foreign markets.
It will be interesting to see what our fishery prospects are in the EEC. I presume the Government have examined this matter in great detail but the net result of any steps which they have taken is that the foreign trawlers can undoubtedly fish right up to the coastline to the detriment of our fishermen. The Europeans can dump fish here much cheaper than our fishermen can supply it. Is it not true that there is a gloomy future facing this industry? Are we not entitled to lament in advance their prospects on our entry into the EEC? Our negotiating team should do something practical for our fishing industry and arrange compensation for our fishermen in order to compensate officially for the faux pas that has taken place and see that we shall get sufficient funds from the Community to ensure that their livelihood will not be affected and that they will be put on the same level in regard to modern boats and gear as European fishermen. When the right of foreigners to fish in our territorial waters is recognised at least our fishermen should be put in a position to compete with the foreign trawlers that will be reaping the bountiful harvest of fish around our coasts. I hope this will be done. I am alarmed at the outcome of these negotiations so far as the fishing industry is concerned.
It is generally recognised that we have contributed very generously to supplying the British housewife with subsidised food at low prices and in this regard and in regard to levies and tariffs imposed by the British on our exports to them, I want to say that the only real agreement between ourselves and Britain was the 1948 Trade Agreement which put millions into the pockets of Irish farmers. Whenever it suited the British they imposed levies against us. Whenever it suited their economy they put themselves first, naturally: one could not expect them to put Ireland first but, as regards levies and tariffs, they showed no great consideration for us.
I should like to ask one question which I hope will be answered: what will happen to our Army and Army equipment if we enter the EEC? The Army at the moment has about the same number of officers as men. It is very difficult to meet a member of the Defence Forces who is not an officer. I do not know where the privates are; we never seem to meet them. I drive by The Curragh frequently and I am often around Collins Barracks in Cork but every member of the Defence Forces we meet seems to be an officer. I am told our Army equipment does not compare with military equipment of other European countries. What reorganisation will take place in the Army if we enter the EEC and what steps will be taken to see that we would have an Army which will not be merely for ceremonial purposes? Will it be used to make a serious contribution towards European defence and peace-keeping? If we are to have an Army we should have an Army fully trained, well paid and equipped and trained in the use of the most modern military weapons.
I should also like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say what will happen in industry if industrialists bring foreign workers here where we have displaced skilled Irish workers. We cannot close our eyes to this. If we enter the EEC, an industrialist from any member country who decides to invest money in an industry here will be entitled to bring over skilled workers on the pretence that they will train Irish workers. Will there be a limit to the number he can bring over? I hope the trade union movement will not have its eyes closed to this—they never have. One thing this country must thank God for is a trade union movement with the highest standards of integrity which is very much alert and alive to the interests of the workers. Where would our workers be if it were not for the trade union movement?
I wonder if the trade union movement has been called on by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to talks at Iveagh House with regard to this problem and if the Congress of Trade Unions have had any discussions on the number of foreign workers which a foreign industrialist may bring here to work in his own industry. There is nothing to stop him from bringing as many as he likes but would it not be wise to make it known, having discussed the matter with the trade unions, that the number of skilled workers which any of these foreigners may bring over here will be limited because Irish workers are very quickly and easily trained? They can adapt very quickly to practically every technique of an industrial process. I have heard this from various industrialists. It would be quite wrong to allow foreign industrialists to bring in as many skilled operatives from abroad as they like. That is why an effort should be made to ensure that Irish skilled workers will not be displaced in employment as a result of the arrival in this country of skilled industrial workers from abroad.
There has been a great deal of talk from time to time about the Mansholt Plan. I want to express my surprise that when Mr. Mansholt was in this country recently the Government did not avail of the opportunity to have a meeting arranged either in Leinster House or the Mansion House or elsewhere for Members of the Dáil and Seanad so that they would have the pleasure of querying Mr. Mansholt on the various aspects of his European plan for agriculture. Apparently Mr. Mansholt visited a number of Irish farms and was impressed by what he saw.
If the Mansholt Plan is to create larger farms at the expense of the disappearance of the smallest farms and the small farmers we should be very careful. During the emergency from 1939 to 1945 the small farmers were the backbone of this country. They produced wheat, oats, beet and barley and kept the people supplied with food when a ship could not land in any of our ports. The history of our small farmers could and should have been made known to Mr. Mansholt. I do not know whether his idea is co-operative farming or whether he stands for the very large farm which would put the small farmer completely out of business. Perhaps Mr. Mansholt's plan is to have greater production and greater efficiency than we can have from the small farm units. This may be all right for some of the large European countries but as a small country we must mould our agricultural policy to suit the conditions of our people with preference for our three branches of agriculture: milk, livestock and tillage.
Mr. Mansholt has had most unfavourable European publicity. He has been accused of planning to drive tens of thousands of farmers off the land. We in this country cannot accuse Mr. Mansholt of that. We can only accuse him of being very familiar for many years past with Fianna Fáil policy. It has been the policy of Fianna Fáil to drive the small man off the land. There are fewer farmers working on the land today than there were 10 years ago. Many small farmers have disappeared and Mr. Mansholt had no hand, act or part in it; it was Fianna Fáil.
Before I would readily condemn Mr. Mansholt's plan I would want to know more about it. There are people either praising or condemning his ideas without being familiar with what he really has in mind. I have read most of his speeches and the more I read of them the more mixed up I become. When I hear people repeating what Mr. Mansholt is supposed to have said the more I wish I had been there to hear exactly what he did say. However, when Mr. Mansholt arrived in this country some opportunity should have been given to the elected representatives of all parties in this House to discuss with him the serious implications for agriculture of Ireland's entry into the EEC.
Sometime last June the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hillery, spoke to the EEC on behalf of the Irish agricultural community. He told us certain assurances were given in relation to various aspects of our agricultural policy, particularly in relation to foot and mouth disease, the Colorado beetle pest, the quarantine regulations, TB and brucellosis tests, sugar quotas and so on and that the Common Market would hope to establish certain standard procedures for all participants. We have not heard since whether any progress has been made in that regard.
However, we do know that there is growing opposition in Britain and in this country to joining the EEC. We also know that the New Zealanders are doing their best to discourage entry into the EEC, particularly by Britain and Ireland. The French are terrified that Britain's entry will mean greater competition to French industry. The New Zealanders believe that if Britain joins the EEC they will lose a big section of their agricultural exports and that countries like Ireland will gain. We in Ireland should be able to understand the anxiety of the New Zealanders to wreck the Common Market prospects. Maybe we would do the same thing if we were in similar circumstances. New Zealand knows there is an excellent market in Britain and in European countries for what she produces and she is afraid for her future in these export markets. We in Ireland would have a greater share of the exports that New Zealand and even our fellow applicant Denmark are putting into Britain at the moment, but we are not capable of supplying a greater share of what New Zealand or even Denmark is sending. These questions are of primary importance to us and it is up to the Irish Government to look after them in every possible respect. In this country, whether it is to any great extent I cannot say, there are two branches of agriculture which do not appear to have a rosy future under EEC policy—horticulture and sugar beet production. I represent a constituency which is well known as a sugar beet producing area. On 15th July, 1970, the Evening Press published an article dealing with sugar problems in the EEC. It stated that the Common Market Commission had turned down a Dutch request for a conference in Geneva in relation to sugar production. It stated that Dr. Mansholt expressed the view that steps must be taken to reduce sugar production inside the Community. There had been a sugar surplus of 900,000 tons the previous year and it had become necessary to cut down on future surpluses in the Six.
I suggest that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should interest himself in our beet production, bearing in mind that we have got beet factories in Carlow, Thurles, Mallow and Tuam and that beet is a very profitable crop. I am particularly interested in this because the lands of Carlow, South Kildare, Laois and parts of Offaly are well known for the high standard of sugar beet they produce. In the event of our EEC entry I do not know what those beet producing farmers will turn to. Will they have to switch from beet to grass? What will become of the numerous workers in the four sugar beet factories? In short, what will be the overall position of sugar production from beet in this country?
I do not know if the NFA have had discussions on this subject with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. My constituents are vitally interested in this because one of the most progressive beet factories is in Carlow, on the borders of my constituency. Am I to understand from Dr. Mansholt's comments that there is a very gloomy future facing beet growers in this country if we enter the EEC? Before this forecast disaster takes place, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries must have re-adaptation proposals for beet producing farms. Will he tell us if it is proposed to cut down on the acreage under beet; if the production of sugar is to be slashed; what the EEC want in this respect? I have not read anything in the newspapers on this problem and I have neither heard nor read a single utterance on it from any Minister. Beet producers have been a very hard-working section of the agricultural community and they are entitled to be told now whether the proposal is to bolt and lock the doors of the four beet factories. I hope to hear a statement on this from some Minister at the earliest possible date.
We have only small exports of horticultural produce and we are told that in the context of EEC membership we will have to take the rough with the smooth in this respect. Tomato imports, now controlled, will be open the whole year round. In order to find a market abroad for Irish tomatoes we will have to depend on a sense of taste. Irish tomatoes have a peculiar taste and this may favour them in European markets. However, we should be told what will be the position of Irish tomato producers. Apple producers here will have to face competition from France and I am afraid the future of this industry here is not rosy.
One would expect to have more frequent reports from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to this whole exercise. An EEC body has been drawn up of civil servants from the various countries to formulate a policy for the Council of Ministers to be finalised by the EEC Commission. I cannot say whether Irish civil servants have contributed to this body. I should think the organisation has been made up of civil servants from member countries. I understand that among the aspects they are considering is a European dole for farmers. This time, Fianna Fáil have headed Dr. Mansholt. We are not opposed to this because if a small farmer has not fulltime employment on his land he must be given something to live on. The only objection I have to it is that it is not enough.
My information is that within the Six there is already a group of civil servants representative of each of the six countries and that they are already working out a suitable scheme for harmonising regulations for all member countries to provide dole for farmers. It is not anything in the nature of assistance for farmers. They use the good old Irish word "dole". I hope that it will be a generous contribution for the small farmers and that the big farmers will not need it. All any farmer wants is fair prices and constant and regular markets for what he produces. If the farmer has these he is not interested in any form of dole.
I understand the same committee of civil servants in Brussels are considering a universal rates policy for member countries. I see the former Minister for Finance is contemplating the imposition of some form of additional tax on our farmers. Our farmers have to pay the severest and heaviest form of taxation in rates which has now gone beyond their capacity to pay. The bubble has now burst and they have reached the stage where they cannot pay the existing rates.
Let us hear what relief there will be in the EEC for our farmers. Will it be the same position as it is now? Will it be worse or will it be better? My information is that the six member countries are at present considering the aspect of taxation and rates in member countries and that they are also having a review of the position in countries who have applied for membership. Again, neither rates relief, tax relief nor income tax have been touched on as yet. Therefore, let us take a look at this give-away. If we are not entitled to membership of this committee let us make representations in the strongest form and explain that our rating system is imposing brutal hardship on our farming community and that as a result of the existing system based on valuation our rating system is a crushing blow to advancement and to progress. Within the EEC it would not be possible to continue the-payment of rates as presently designed. Therefore, before any submission has been made by this group of civil servants drawn up from member countries let us make some inquiries about it, if we have not done so already. Let us make known the heavy burden which rates are on production, both agricultural and industrial, in this country. Let us cash in on any benefits which are to be gained from membership of the EEC. I say to those who are critical of our desire to join the EEC if we do not join we put up with present conditions which are becoming harder and tougher every year. If we join we cannot be in any worse position than we are in at present.
There is one final point I want to touch on and that is the constitutional changes. If we join the EEC certain changes must be made in our Constitution. I hope that what those changes mean will be spelled out loudly and clearly. Let us not sacrifice something in our Constitution at the expense of getting into the EEC. Changes can be made only by referendum. When such a referendum takes place let the implications of the Constitutional changes to enable our entering into the EEC be precise and clear.
There has been a good deal of discussion in relation to Article 44 of the Constitution. I cannot say whether reference has been made to this Article in relation to the Six Counties or in relation to our position in Europe. I cannot see where Article 44 of the Constitution can affect us in relation to our application for membership of the EEC. We should be extremely careful that whatever rights and privileges we have, particularly in relation to our national culture, traditions and heritage, should be safeguarded and protected. I am sure whatever changes have to be made in the Constitution will be spelled out very clearly.
A number of targets were set by the EEC but strange as it may seem very few of those targets have been met and achieved. Let us ask ourselves one question: Is the EEC in relation to the Six who are at present members a success? Is everything going well and smoothly? Has it gone beyond the stage of teething pains and growing pains?
If we review the results we see that very few of the aims and targets set out have been fully achieved. For example, there is only one target which has been fully achieved and that was in relation to the abolition of an internal customs union and the creation of common external tariffs applied to nonmember imports. The abolition of restriction on movement of workers and on the right to establish business anywhere in the Community has not met with 100 per cent success but only near success. The elimination of quantitative restrictions on other non-tariff barriers to trade has met with only partial success. In relation to the standardisation of national policies and export assistance and establishment of common trade agreement with third countries, the action programme priority has been a failure; each of the members have separate treaties with third countries, such as Japan and Eastern Europe. They have also failed to agree in regard to the adoption of uniform company law. The adoption of measures to harmonise national energy policies has also had a measure of failure in regard to the action programme priority. The adoption of common policies for transportation services so that road, rail and waterways are competing on equal footing throughout the area has also failed.
Is it not appropriate for us, as applicants for membership, to point out to the Community that they should make an effort to put their own house in order? The Community as they stand, with so many of their targets only half achieved, partly achieved, or failures, should make a serious effort to look again at these targets and try again to achieve them. I wonder if it is really healthy to extend the Community. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it may be easier for the Community to rectify their failures when they are enlarged. Perhaps the magnitude of the failures does not match the magnitude of the successes they have achieved. However, the establishment of the EEC, its co-operation and unity, is good and sound and should be encouraged. We have millions of people to be fed and we have tens of thousands of acres from which to feed them; we have millions to be clothed and we have tens of thousands of workers to produce the clothes; we have workers to be housed and we have millions of workers to provide the houses. It is difficult to understand why this cannot be done in a more efficient and determined manner.
I hope that the Community is a genuine effort to eliminate from modern society that great disgrace, poverty and distress. Whatever else may be said about the powerful countries of Europe who are growing fatter and fatter from power and authority, prosperity and growth, there are poorer countries in which to the great shame of society there is still a vast amount of concealed poverty. Let us hope that the member States of the Community, with the three applicants for membership, will jointly play their part of the common good of Europe and for the good of each country within the Community. I hope their target will be to raise the standard of living of all within the Community and that after a very short period, when there has been a division of European wealth, the weak and the small may prosper with the mighty and strong and that the mighty and strong will make an effort to eliminate distress and the disgrace of having in modern society so much hunger, hardship and poverty. Perhaps the great step which Ireland is taking will be a step towards the removal of all the blotches caused by poverty in our society.
May I say to those who are against our entry that they should be consoled with the thought that if we do not enter we do not stand to gain but we do stand to lose? If we enter we cannot be any worse than we are now but we do stand to gain. The Fine Gael Party and their Leader are putting the country and its future first in an effort to put agriculture back into its rightful place as the main industry in the country, to provide substantial facilities for all branches of the economy. We hope that this great decision will lead to an Ireland in which we will have food, work, clothing and shelter for all and emigration and poverty for none.
