A statement is being made by the Taoiseach by permission.
Committee on Finance. - Membership of EEC: Statement by Taoiseach.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement on recent developments in relation to the European Communities.
The Government have today presented a request to the Council of the European Economic Community for the reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the Community made on 31st July, 1961. We have requested also the reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the European Coal and Steel Community made on 7th January, 1963, and have lodged an application for membership of the European Atomic Energy Community. Copies of the letters which I have addressed to the three Communities on the matter are being made available in the Library.
Deputies will recall that the question of entry to the EEC was debated at length on 5th July, 1961, and again in the course of the debate on the Vote for External Affairs on 11th July, 1961; further that the Government's decision to apply for membership of the EEC was fully discussed in the course of the debate on the adjournment on 2nd/3rd August, 1961, and received the support of the vast majority of Deputies. I have already announced that the Government will make an opportunity available at a later date for a further discussion of the issues involved. For the purpose of my statement today, I shall confine myself to a short account of events following our original application for membership of the EEC, a recapitulation of the reasons for seeking membership, a summary of the considerations underlying the Government's decision to reactivate our application for membership at the present time and a résumé in broad terms of the more important implications of membership.
The events which followed the presentation of our application of July, 1961, for membership of the EEC may be summarised briefly as follows.
At the invitation of the Council of the EEC, my predecessor made a comprehensive statement on Ireland's application at a meeting in Brussels on 18th January, 1962, with Ministers of the Governments of the member States. There followed in May, 1962, a meeting in Brussels between senior Irish Government officials and the Permanent representatives to the Community of the Governments of the member States for the purpose of clarifying certain points of an economic character arising from my predecessor's statement of 18th January, 1962.
Having considered the information furnished at these meetings, the Council of the Community, in the course of its session of 22nd/23rd October, 1962, agreed unanimously to the opening of negotiations on Ireland's application for membership on a date to be fixed by agreement.
As foreshadowed in my predecessor's statement of 18th January, 1962, application was made on 7th January, 1963, for membership of the European Coal and Steel Community and arrangements were put in train for the lodgment of a similar application for membership of the European Atomic Energy Community.
Before these various matters could be carried further and, in particular, before a date had been fixed for the opening of negotiations for membership of the EEC, there occurred in January, 1963, the breakdown of the British negotiations, following which further consideration of our application and those of other countries was suspended.
The approach we have now made to the Council of the EEC takes the form of a request for the fixing of an early date for the opening of negotiations on Ireland's application for membership in accordance with the decision taken by the Council in October, 1962.
I now turn to what the Community stands for and our reasons for seeking membership of it.
By establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating national economic policies, the parties to the Rome Treaty plan to create eventually an economic union embracing all the member States. The Community is also, of course, political in its origins and in the ultimate destination it has set itself. It sprang from the failure to achieve European union on the political plane, a union which many statesmen had sought to bring about during the difficult years following World War II and which was designed to secure for Europe the political security and economic advancement necessary for survival in a divided world. Though the means finally chosen are wholly economic, the ultimate objective is, as set out in the preamble to the Rome Treaty, an ever closer union among the European peoples. How long it will take for political unity to emerge is impossible to predict. I have no doubt, however, that the achievement of economic union in itself will carry Europe an appreciable distance along the road to political unity.
The process which I have attempted to describe in a few words is a momentous one in the history of Europe. It would be unthinkable that Ireland which, as my predecessor said to Ministers of the Governments of the Six in January, 1962, "belongs to Europe by history, tradition and sentiment no less than geography", should stand aside from this historical process. I am convinced that the Government in deciding to seek membership of the Community for Ireland, and Dáil Éireann in supporting that decision, have judged correctly the response of the Irish people to the challenge presented by the opportunity of participating in the fashioning of a new Europe in accordance with the ideals and objectives of the Rome Treaty.
I am convinced also that as a member of the Community we would have an opportunity of realising our economic potential in an environment which, in the words of the second Article of the Rome Treaty, has shown that it is capable of promoting a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, and an accelerated raising of the standard of living. This is not to say that these benefits will follow automatically from membership of the Community. Much effort, indeed, will be required if we are to carry through the difficult task of adapting the economy to Community conditions in the early years of membership. This is another aspect of the challenge that entry to the Community presents: to show that we are capable of creating an expanding economy that will give us the standard of living, the level of social services and the opportunities for employment to which we aspire.
The economic realities of the situation cannot, of course, be overlooked. As a people whose economic well-being is substantially dependent on external trade, we could not contemplate remaining outside the Community once our principal trading partner, Britain, decided to seek entry. Conversely, it would be extremely difficult, however much we might be attracted by the objectives and the economic arrangements of the Community, to assume the obligations of membership so long as Britain remained outside.
This brings me to the third point on which I wish to touch, namely, the considerations underlying the Government's decision to reactivate out application for membership of the Community at the present time. The breakdown in the British negotiations in January, 1963, had the effect of putting our own application and those of other countries such as Denmark and Norway in suspense. At the time the Government declared their deep disappointment at the turn events had taken, expressed their determination to continue with the work of preparing for entry to the Community and announced their intention of re-activating Ireland's application at the first favourable opportunity.
In the interim various alternatives were canvassed inside and outside Dáil Éireann. The ideas put forward ranged from some form of temporary association pending membership to a trade agreement with the Community. These proposals were symptomatic of the widespread desire for some form of participation in or link with the Community and as such were commendable, since they showed the extent to which the country's aspirations had been oriented towards Europe. Exhaustive examinations, however, including discussions with the Community, showed that the possible content of any such interim link with the Community was negligible. Instead, the Government decided to work energetically towards the objective of membership in the belief that circumstances would permit of our becoming a member by 1970. In this task special prominence was given to the reshaping of our external trade policy with full regard to the requirements of membership. Thus unilateral tariff cuts amounting in all to 20 per cent were made in our protective tariffs and we concluded in December, 1965, a free trade area agreement with Britain which provides for the gradual elimination of protection on substantially all our imports from Britain by 1975.
The wisdom of the course followed by the Government has been demonstrated by the turn of events. The initiative undertaken by the British Government in recent months has shown that there is now a real possibility that in the course of the next few years the Community will be enlarged to include Ireland, Britain and other applicant countries. It is, of course, vital that Ireland's entry to the Community should take place simultaneously with that of Britain, as any time lag would seriously disrupt our close trading relations with that country. We are most anxious, therefore, and have so informed the President of the Council of the Community, that negotiations on our application should, so far as possible, take place concurrently with those of Britain; furthermore that arrangements should be made which would enable the views of both countries to be fully considered where questions having implications for Anglo-Irish trade arise.
For these reasons the Government considered it imperative that, as I announced last week, our request for the reactivation of our application should follow closely on Britain's approach to the Community.
Lest there be any at the present time who may be disposed to argue that we should stand back, I must point out that this attitude assumes that things can continue as they are, that the status quo can be maintained. In fact it cannot. All round us we see evidence that the world has entered a phase of extraordinarily rapid change in which countries are becoming increasingly interdependent. It would be suicidal to think that we could isolate ourselves from this process, that there is some comfortable panacea that would enable us to stand apart and at the same time avoid the consequences. The fact is that Ireland can make no progress to solve its basic problem of shortage of jobs except by way of industrialisation. Expansion of industry in turn depends both on access to external markets and on ability to compete in those markets. Nobody doubts that for many industries the attainment and maintenance of a competitive position will be most difficult, even if free access to the major European markets is opened up. It would be difficult to the point of being impossible if such access were denied to Ireland, and existing facilities in the British market were lost, through failure to accede to the EEC at the same time as Britain.
There may be others who feel that there is a possibility that this latest British initiative may fail and that consequently there is no great urgency about making the added effort needed to prepare ourselves for membership of the Community. I do not deny the possibility that hopes for an enlargement of the Community may be dashed, but, as the Government have constantly sought to hammer home, time lost now cannot be made good. We need to make the best use we can of the time at our disposal, since the conditions which would confront us in the event of failure of the present applications of Ireland and Britain to join the Community, would very likely be more difficult than any we might meet inside the Community.
Finally, I wish to offer some comment on the implications of membership of the Community. The White Paper recently published by the Government sets out in considerable detail the provisions of the Rome Treaty and the action that has been taken to implement those provisions. There is, therefore, available to the Dáil and the public a very full account of the structure of the Community, its method of operation and the obligations of membership. It is possible, too, from the provisions of the Rome Treaty and the progress made to date as reported in the White Paper, to form a fairly clear picture of the road the Community will be traversing over the next few years.
So far as our own position is concerned, areas of uncertainty must persist until the outcome of our negotiations can be determined. I would, however, like to use this opportunity to draw attention to the main heads of the implications of membership without going into the details of our negotiating position.
To take first the position of industry, the Common Market is expected to reach the full customs union stage by July, 1968. This means that for existing member countries all tariffs and quantitative restrictions on internal trade will have been abolished by that date and the common external tariffs will be fully operative. In terms of trading conditions, this is substantially the objective we have set ourselves in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement with the difference that for the freeing of Anglo-Irish trade, the limit date is mid-1975. There are as well, however, certain other important differences between the two sets of trading conditions. In an enlarged Community the tariff preferences which we at present enjoy in our principal export market, Britain, as against imports from the present Community area would disappear. This intensification of competition in the British market would be further sharpened according as British industry adapted itself to the new conditions. In the domestic market our industries would have to compete with, in addition to British imports, imports from the rest of the Community area. Changed conditions would also result from the application of the common external tariff, not so much by reason of its low average level, but because imports of raw materials and semi-manufactures on which a considerable proportion of industrial activity here is based and which can at present be imported free of duty would become dutiable under the common external tariff if imported from outside the Community area.
It is clear that these changes are of a kind and magnitude that demand transitional arrangements for our industrial sector. The settlement of satisfactory transitional arrangements will be one of the principal preoccupations of the Government in the negotiations that lie ahead.
The conditions under which our agriculture would have to operate in an enlarged Community are of an altogether different order. Thanks to the common organisation of agricultural markets under the common agricultural policy, which is expected to be fully operative by mid-1968, our agricultural sector would be assured of export outlets at stable and, in general, remunerative prices. Problems, however, would not be wholly absent from the agricultural scene. In the case of wheat and sugar beet, the prices aimed at in the Community are lower than those at present received by our farmers.
Problems would be presented also by an increase in the cost of imported feeding stuffs which are important in the production of processed agricultural products, such as bacon. We must also keep in mind the effect on our horticultural sector of increased competition from highly efficient continental producers. I mention these points simply to remind Deputies and the public that, despite the undeniable benefits of participation in the common agricultural policy, we would still have a number of difficult problems to cope with. It would, of course, be necessary for us to compete for our share of the market on the basis of quality as well as the highest efficiency at all stages of production, processing and marketing.
In the short-term any transitional arrangements agreed upon for British agriculture would of course be of vital importance to us and we shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that our views are taken into account before any decisions are taken on British transitional arrangements that are of concern to us.
One consequence of participation in the common agricultural policy to which I would like to draw attention is the higher cost of food which is an inevitable concomitant of a changeover from a State-aided to a market-supported agriculture. In looking at the effect on the cost of living, it is necessary to take account also of other factors such as the reduced cost of consumer goods and the tax reliefs it may be possible to provide as a result of the reduction in State aid to agriculture which the Exchequer has at present to bear. Any noteworthy increase in the cost of living would, of course, be reflected in time in production costs generally and would render even more urgent the need to increase competitive efficiency.
Examples of other areas in which we must be prepared for change are our taxation arrangements, our system of State aids, our social security arrangements.
Most immediately we face a fairly radical reshaping of our taxation arrangements. The Community has already agreed to the adoption of a common system of added value tax and plans to harmonise other indirect taxes and direct taxes which affect industrial and commercial enterprises. The economic consequences which could flow from changes of this kind could have an important bearing on production and trade.
These and other aspects of the implications of membership are under detailed examination in preparation for negotiations. I do not anticipate that they will present any intractable problems. It would be my wish so far as possible to keep the Dáil and the public informed of the conclusions reached by the Government. I must, however, emphasise that the disclosure of information of this kind must necessarily be limited if negotiations are not to be prejudiced.
It is my expectation that some months will elapse before the Governments of the member States complete their consideration of, and consultations on, the new situation created by the reactivation of the applications of Ireland, Britain and other countries. I intend in the interval to seek discussions with the Governments of the member States with a view to furthering our application so far as possible. As I said earlier, the Government will provide an opportunity for a discussion of the issues arising from the reactivation of our application. Such a discussion could perhaps best take place after my meetings with the Governments of the member States when clearer indications may be available of the likely course of events.
We support the decision to renew discussions on the application for membership of the Common Market, which were suspended in 1963. In saying that, I think it is important to emphasise the magnitude of the decision involved in applying for membership of the Common Market. A great deal of attention has been focussed in articles written and speeches made and various references from time to time on the question of membership of the Common Market, generally from the point of view of creating the impression that membership of that European Community will mean economic and social improvements, both dramatically and very rapidly. I think that is far too easy and facile an attitude to adopt and that, in fact, we have to realise that this particular decision presents us with a challenge to our whole future as an independent nation economically viable.
This challenge, I believe, if Britain becomes a member, is one which we cannot avoid or evade but it is one the full consequences of which we must realise in making the application. It is the beginning of the end of protection for inefficiency in any sphere of national activity, whether in industry, agriculture or elsewhere. While it is true that new members will be presented with new problems, some of the existing problems will become even more difficult of solution. I believe, therefore, the House and the country should be fully aware and completely informed on the challenge involved in membership of the European Economic Community. We are quite satisfied that if Britain becomes a member, because of our traditional trading ties, because of the close proximity of this country and Britain, because of all the consequential implications involved in membership of the sterling area and all the implications involved in our trading arrangements, we have no future outside the Community, if Britain is inside. This is not a question of sentiment; it is not a question of saying that because we feel it should be said. It is an economic fact of life which cannot be avoided or overlooked in some way or other.
It is true to say, as has been stated by the Taoiseach, that in present world conditions, small countries operating in isolation or in independence have very little future, and the realistic approach for this country is obviously to join, if we can, the Common Market. It will provide us with a bigger market even if competition is much keener. But there are, as well as the economic aspects of this question, a number of other matters which are involved in the Rome Treaty. I believe now is the time to advert to them, if we do not discuss them to a conclusion here this afternoon.
The Rome Treaty, in the last paragraph of the Preamble, states what in effect is the whole basis envisaged in the concept of European unity:
Resolve to strengthen the safeguards of peace and liberty by establishing this combination of resources, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideals to join in their efforts.
While it is true that the Rome Treaty makes no specific reference to defence, I think it would be less than frank if we imagined that defence was not in the forefront of the thinking behind the drafting of the Rome Treaty. While in recent times emphasis has been laid on the economic and social aspects of the Treaty, there are other implications of a political character which were discussed in the recent debate in the British House of Commons and which have figured in discussions of this matter over a period of time.
I mention this because there does not seem to be a sufficient awareness of the problems which the European Economic Community must take on in enlarging the Community. It may not be adequately appreciated how hard the existing Members of the Community have had to work to achieve what can only be regarded as still a very delicate equilibrium in the relations with one another. They have established and built up, over a number of years—not without considerable effort—institutions within which they resolve a highly complex relationship, a relationship which has proved beneficial to the member countries. There fore, it means that the more new members who have to be brought into the institutions, the greater the danger that what has been achieved with such considerable effort may be lost, jeopardised or, at the least, interfered with. Merely on the practical basis, the greater the membership, the more cumbersome, more difficult and obviously, the more protracted will be the negotiations in order to secure agreement.
We are a small country and if we become Members of the Community, from the population point of view, or from the point of view of the size of our market, it is right to realise that we do not, or cannot, make a very great difference. At the same time, if we do become members, we will be another voice and another vote at the table. But I believe that we have—and this is, I think, an aspect we should consider—some contribution to make to a united and independent Europe. We often speak of the contribution which Irish men and women, scholars, missionaries and others, made in the past to the development of the Christian tradition and heritage which we all value as part of the European civilisation. This contribution can, I believe, be made again by Irish men and women in the concept of a united European organisation. I hope we still have something to contribute to present-day Europe and all that its civilisation stands for.
One particular area in which we have a contribution to make is in the field of foreign affairs. Our history has placed us in a position that enables us to discharge a special relationship with many of the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia. It is essential that, in making that contribution, we should realise that some of the attitudes—and we might as well admit it—we have adopted in the United Nations may conflict with the traditional attitudes which certain European countries have taken in these matters. Therefore, the role we play must be played cautiously and with adequate diplomatic regard for the niceties of the situation. At the same time, I believe this decision means we must ruthlessly assess all our national strengths and weaknesses. We will no longer be able to shelter securely in the make-believe world of self-delusion. We will have to fight for our place in Europe, not on our own terms but on Europe's terms, and the time is past when we would hope to get away with substituting an empty gesture for the substance of real action.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The clichés and the double-talk of yesterday will cut no ice in the Europe of tomorrow. Therefore, I believe that the House at an early date must be fully informed of certain fundamental questions involved in our application.
The transitional period is vital. Up to the present the provisions of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain have had little beneficial effect so far as industry is concerned and up to now agricultural advantages have been more apparent than real, but when the transitional period gets to the later stages, the full effect of the reduction or the elimination of tariffs and quotas will be felt by Irish industry. According to the Taoiseach's statement and according to the information published by the EEC, it would appear that the transitional period, if negotiations proceed at any sort of a reasonably fast pace, will go earlier than it would under the Free Trade Area Agreement. In that connection it is imperative that we should take, and take at a sufficiently early date, adequate steps against dumping. Already some firms have felt the effect of unfair trading as a result of the Free Trade Area Agreement. Some firms have felt over the past few years, even before it came into effect, the consequences of low cost imports. It is imperative, therefore, that action should be taken in respect of dumping to prevent the economic dislocation and disemployment of workers in advance and not after goods are landed here when the only remedy is to compensate, if that can be done, financially those who have suffered.
Taxation is another area in which we will have to change our system to comply with the terms of the Rome Treaty. In that regard I believe we should face up to the problem of dealing with the turnover tax and the wholesale tax. It is unnecessarily complicated to have two systems of taxation, applying in a great many cases to the same traders and the same commodities.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It means duplication of accounting and is bad for traders and business. Now that we have admitted and the Government have admitted, by the introduction of the wholesale tax, that it was possible to use that tax and possible to operate a tax in respect of some commodities that did not include food, the whole question of the turnover tax and wholesale tax should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The effect of this tax and the effect of membership of the European Economic Community on the cost of living has been referred to by the Taoiseach and has been adverted to in a number of statements recently. This is one of the big problems, one of the unanswered questions which will affect this country, and if we are to face up to the problem involved in that, we must also face up to the consequential increases necessary to compensate pensioners and others on fixed incomes. The whole social welfare provisions of the Rome Treaty will have to be considered and the changes necessary must be examined in order to see what compensation can be given in respect of pensions, not to mention the wage and salary adjustments necessary for those in employment. There is, of course, the other question involved in the social service provisions of the Treaty, the question of equal pay for men and women. I, therefore, want to urge the Taoiseach to avail of the first available opportunity to indicate to the House, in the transitional period, the changes necessary in respect of taxation, the alterations necessary in our social welfare and social service system.
Lastly, there is an aspect which I feel we must consider. It is this—and I know that we are not alone in this—— what is the alternative if this application does not succeed? Have we had any discussions with the British Government on this aspect of the matter? It would appear from recent reports that the attitude of the French Government is more receptive than it was and that may mean a change in the situation but have we considered the widening of EFTA to include agriculture or have we considered any possible alternatives in the event of this application not being proceeded with?
I again want to emphasise that today this country faces a challenge which is, perhaps, greater than we have ever faced since we got our independence. I believe that we can rise to the challenge and grasp the opportunities which it holds out, provided we have at every level—this was referred to recently in a document published from the Department of Finance with the authority of the Government which, I suppose, was partly designed to pass the buck to other hands—dynamic leadership and a real determination to see that in no sphere of activity will second-best be accepted as good enough.
I expressed the view after some discussions I had in Brussels that I thought the negotiations in respect of our application should proceed simultaneously with the British application so that any problems that would arise could be discussed and changes and attitudes decided before a final decision was given in respect of the British application. I am glad to see that in this regard the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I are not in disagreement. He expressed the same view after a recent visit to Brussels. I believe it is a vital aspect of the question that we should pursue, and pursue energetically, the questions likely to affect our interest while the British negotiations are still proceeding because the impression I got, and I think others who have been in Brussels got the same impression, that once a decision is taken by the EEC and by the Commission, it will be very hard to change it.
I want, therefore, to reiterate a view which we expressed, that in the conditions of the modern world, a small country trying to exist economically or regarding itself as economically viable in isolation is a thing of the past. We must face up to the implications, however severe they may be, of membership of the European Economic Community but these implications should be fully understood, adequately explained in all the details necessary to enable the people of this country to understand what the future obligations of membership are, and what the challenge is in every sphere of activity, which will be presented by membership of this body to this country and to our people.
I am grateful to the Taoiseach for having presented me with a copy of his statement an hour or two before his statement but I must confess to feeling some dissatisfaction with regard to the procedure on this occasion. As the Leader of a Party, I am one of those in a position to comment on what the Taoiseach said. This has devolved more or less into a minor debate between the Leaders of the Parties. We implement in many respects the system employed in Britain and there was a full and frank discussion on the proposal that Britain would apply for membership of the EEC. I assumed that the Taoiseach would not merely announce the fact that our application had been made. In any case, now that we find ourselves in this position, I should like to make a few comments.
I do not think we are any wiser than we were as a result of the statement the Taoiseach made with regard to Ireland's position on becoming a member of the EEC. It is still mere drab repetition of what we have been hearing over the past five or six years, a colourless re-assertion of our objectives, with the usual exhortations to the people that they should be prepared. For what they do not know. There is no use in throwing a White paper to the people or to Deputies merely stating what the objectives are and what the different provisions of the Treaty of Rome are, and saying they have to be applied. There is no indication in the Taoiseach's statement as to what membership of the EEC will mean to the people. It was not made clear whether we were going to negotiate with Britain or after Britain. I think that is a weakness on the part of the Taoiseach and the Government. The Taoiseach said:
In the short-term any transitional arrangements agreed upon for British agriculture will, of course, be of vital importance to us and we shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that our views are taken into account before any decisions are taken on British transitional arrangements that are of concern to us.
We are going to make our views known. I maintain that it may be necessary for us to participate in these negotiations alongside the British to ensure that the interests of the Irish farmers are safeguarded.
We view this application with concern and with little enthusiasm, as we certainly receive the Taoiseach's statement today. Britain has applied and it seems to be inevitable that what Britain does we do. This emphasises our ever-increasing dependency on Britain. I suppose we should be grateful to see the announcement made some time ago that we could go it alone being debunked. I have not very much enthusiasm about the Common Market or the EEC. The Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave and others have spoken about the noble and laudable sentiments in the Treaty of Rome. They may be all right in print, but they have to be translated into terms of men and women. We may talk about our missionaries and scholars in Europe and about our heritage and culture, but that is no good to the man who is unemployed, or the man who is starving.
If I were convinced—I have no evidence of it yet—that the EEC would be a good co-operative movement rather than a rich man's club, I would have more enthusiasm for it. We must admit that we have one of the weakest economies in Europe and we are trying to get into the club. I do not think we should buy a pig in a poke, or go in blindfolded with our hands up. I believe we should fight hard to get the necessary conditions for agriculture and industry to ensure that our people will be employed here and kept at home, and not have to travel to some European country for employment.
The Taoiseach and the former Taoiseach have not yet told us of the benefits that will accrue as a result of our membership, and they have not told us about the costs of entry, which are much more important. There is no White Paper telling us this, and there has been no recent debate. I do not think it fair to quote a debate of six years ago in which, the Taoiseach says, most Members of the House agreed that we should make this application. I do not think it sufficient to say that Britain is going in. The people should be clearly told the advantages and the disadvantages. We all remember the high hopes that were held out as to the benefits which would come from the Free Trade Agreement. I wonder will membership of the EEC prove to be the same disastrous pipe-dream as that treaty was so far as Irish agriculture and the Irish workers were concerned.
The Taoiseach said:
I must, however, emphasise that the disclosure of information of this kind must necessarily be limited if negotiations are not to be prejudiced.
Why did the Taoiseach say that? Does it mean that we will leave these negotiations to civil servants? Does it mean that all these secrets will be kept by the Government. All these things are of vital interest to the people. I cannot see, unless the Taoiseach can show me otherwise, how a disclosure of our needs would prejudice any negotiations carried out between this country and the Commission of the European Community.
The Taoiseach has not told us today whether we will seek concessions so far as the protection of industry is concerned, or whether we will seek a transitional period longer than that provided for in the Treaty of Rome in order to safeguard industry So far as I know, Britain has sought such concessions. As it is, we will be completely open to the harsh winds of competition by 1968. I am informed that Britain will seek a seven year period but I do not know whether from now or from 1968. Will we seek a ten or 15 year period? Would it be unreasonable to tell the Irish people that the Irish Government will fight to ensure that there will be protection for ten or 15 years and that there will be a breathing space in which industry generally and the economy generally can be geared to face the competition that will come at the end of that period? Under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, we have concessions until 1975. Surely we should try to negotiate in order to ensure that there will be at least similar concessions so far as the EEC is concerned?
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but I have already said these things.
Not today.
I said them several times in the past few days.
I do not think so. I do not think it is fair to be vague.
I said specifically when I came back from London that I hoped to procure the same transitional period for industry as in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.
Not in this House.
What is forgotten is that in this rich man's club we will have to compete with the agricultural and industrial giants of Europe. Have we forgotten the reports and warnings of the CIO that if we did not take certain precautions, the jobs of 30,000 people would be in jeopardy? I wonder are those reports forgotten? Various Ministers for Industry and Commerce would now have to say, if they were asked in the Dáil, that their exhortations to Irish industry did not bring the results they expected. We have had several warnings and in recent times the Minister for Industry and Commerce said he would have to take certain lines of action if industry did not gear itself for free trade.
I want to pose this question: what further action do the Government propose to take in respect of industries which refused to gear themselves for free trade, and in order to ensure that the Irish worker will still be employed in this country? We must remind ourselves that we lost 7,000 jobs last year. That is not a sign of a healthy industry. Therefore, let me emphasise, it is important that we should try to negotiate forcefully a favourable transitional stage for our industrial goods.
Much was promised in regard to agriculture in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. Again, we want to ask the Taoiseach to tell us, for example, how tillage will fare in the EEC, particularly cereals and the sugar beet crop? What is the future for the dairy farmer? All these questions have been posed in the past five or six years and still we have vague talk about how well the Irish farmer will do in the EEC. I wonder if there is any future for the farmer below 40 acres or will he disappear altogether? Yesterday I asked in this House—and this demonstrates the lack of information from the Government—what would be the payments to and receipts from the EEC Agricultural Fund. The Parliamentary Secretary said he could not tell us. Britain knows what she will have to pay in this period. The British know they will pay eventually £200 million after the transitional period of seven years. But we cannot put a finger on it. Yet we can say that membership of the EEC will be beneficial to agriculture, although we have not the slightest information on this very elementary matter.
The Taoiseach talked vaguely about higher food prices and an increase in the cost of living. The British Prime Minister told the British House of Commons that food would go up by approximately 14 per cent and the cost of living by three per cent. But we are left in the dark. Nobody attempts to put a finger on these things. If the British Government can assess them, it would not be unreasonable to expect the Irish Government could do so as well.
We have lost a lot of time as far as social services are concerned. Five or six months ago, we had a vague speech from the Minister for Social Welfare, who told us he was contemplating changes in the social welfare code. Since the establishment of the EEC, it has been known what the social welfare code would be for the countries participating. In the past five or six years, since we made our first application, a move should have been made to ensure that our social welfare code would conform not alone in the amount paid but also with the general structure of the social welfare code the EEC countries are aiming at.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach can make any comment on this or not, but we also want to know if our participation as full members will mean any constitutional changes. These again have been referred to in a vague sort of way from time to time, but there has been no definite statement to the effect that alterations will or will not have to be made in the Constitution.
The Government's approach to this whole problem is too naive. You could couple the Fine Gael Party in this as well. It is the expectation of the crock of gold at the end of the EEC rainbow. The Government, and again the Fine Gael Party, seem to have no special policy, only that we have got to get in. We know we have to go in if the British go in. We know we have only Hobson's Choice. But we have to ask what the implications are. We have to ask what we should now be doing, even at this late stage to ensure that our economy will be protected.
We have not been told by the Taoiseach what our position will be in regard to the investment development fund of the EEC. This fund is reputed to have given something like £10 million for the development of the economy of Southern Italy. Is there any hope that this will be a co-operative movement, that the sentiments of the Treaty of Rome will be put into effect and that these countries will be prepared to aid what we must admit to be a weaker economy than the others? Will we get help and what sort of help will we get?
The past six years have been wasted years. There has been considerable talk inside and outside the Dáil by various Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries about a manpower policy in preparation for the EEC and about a retraining policy and redundancy schemes. Still there is no indication that these are going to be implemented in the immediate future. I expressed our concern about this.
I accept the inevitability of having to make this application because Britain is making an application, but we cannot hide our concern or our lack of enthusiasm for this, particularly in view of the lack of preparation on the part of the Government over such a long period. I do not know when this Dáil debate will be held. In our view, it should have taken place before we made this application. I do not think it should be done when the Taoiseach comes back after visiting the various Heads of State of the Member countries. What effect that is going to have I cannot say now. At the earliest opportunity, every Deputy should be given an opportunity to express his or her view not so much on whether we should go in or not, but on what should be done and on what terms we should try to gain admittance. I do not say we can gain a lot but at least we can see. If we want to see a united Europe and if we explain our desire to become part of Europe, they should try to make the path a little easier than they appear to be making it at present.
In the coming weeks, we will be vigilant in questioning the Taoiseach, not to deliberately embarrass him or to do harm to the country, but to ensure that as far as possible in these negotiations the people of this country will be safeguarded, if and when we get in.
Would the Taoiseach say when will we have the opportunity for a full debate in the House on this matter and not just a three-leader discussion as we have had today?
I will be in touch with the leaders soon.
Surely we are entitled to know?
I cannot allow this to proceed. This is quite unusual. It is not an argument.
I understand it is not an argument. It is a civil inquiry. Would the Taoiseach not say when?
I cannot say when the debate will take place. I will be in touch with the Deputy's leader and the leader of the Fine Gael Party soon.