This is the kind of general approach that I find rather amazing in terms of the general deficiencies of the EEC. There is one significant element missing in the structure of the Common Market and I would strongly urge the Irish negotiator, the Minister for External Affairs, to point out to the technocrats in Brussels during these negotiations that there is great need for greater democracy and greater parliamentary control, for the introduction of the missing element in the whole structure of the EEC because at this point of time, by and large, it is not very democratic.
The Community Parliament of 142 members in the EEC is almost purely advisory. I would underline that. In absurd theory it can sack the Commission and the whole edifice of the Common Market would collapse and its thousands of civil servants would qualify for international redundancy pay. I think that it is not practically possible and, certainly, in the Treaty of Rome it is not taken very seriously. The members are elected by national majorities. In the 1969 agreement in relation to the Parliament it is envisaged that the Parliament would have the last word but I would stress that the Governments generally have shown almost no enthusiasm for the idea that the European Parliament should in many respects be the deciding arena for the budget of the Common Market itself. The basic parliamentary institutions and framework of the Common Market are in many respects quite unbalanced and, if you like, distorted.
In The Economist which had a very fine series of articles, it is pointed out in the issue of May 16th, 1970 that the constitution of the Common Market rests on a tripod which itself rests on thin air. There is a Commission of European civil servants to propose measures and a Council of Ministers to dispose of them and there is a European Parliament to discuss things in vacuo. In so far as they have power anywhere in the Common Market it straddles between the Commission and the Council of Ministers rather more usually resting upon the latter. The Commission is not responsible to anybody but itself. I do not think I am being unduly discursive in referring to one of the most critical comments made, that of Anthony Sampson, in relation to the position of the Strasbourg minutes. He says that in theory they can sack the Commission by a two-thirds majority but since they cannot appoint a new Commission this power is meaningless. They cannot confront the Government of any Common Market country because they do not have a Government. Their real opponents are the Council of Ministers and the Council of Ministers is the body to which the Commission ultimately makes its proposals. The Council of Ministers are responsible not to the European Parliament but to their own national Parliaments. The Parliament is constantly confronted by people responsible to somebody else.
I think this is a fair analysis of the European Parliament. I think everybody who has been to Strasbourg— and many Labour Deputies have been there—will agree that there is a frantic effort to put Deputies on some kind of party basis instead of on the basis of their countries, an effort to try to transform the Parliament, one might say, into a conservative party and a socialist democratic party. I think the set-up within the EEC in relation to the European Parliament is a bit fanciful and if you carry it to its logical conclusion you will end up with a President of Europe. I do not suggest that the Taoiseach would be a candidate in a European Presidential election. His future may be decided on a more parochial level in another Presidential campaign but we might find ourselves in the position of supporting Mr. Ted Heath for election as President of Europe. That would be a rather excruciating exercise, perhaps, with the Opposition demanding implementation of PR and others demanding the straight vote system.
While I appear to be cynical and sceptical it is because I do not see the evolution of a European Parliament of the kind envisaged in the Treaty of Rome. I think the politicians of the early fifties indulged in a little Parliamentary drafting of a fanciful nature and put forward some fanciful approaches. While I was not sorry to see the end of the introverted patriotism of General De Gaulle in relation to the Common Market I subscribe to one of his more famous attacks on the structure of the Common Market when he described the European Commission as being nothing more than an embryonic technocracy, for the most part foreign. While I have no particular antipathy to foreigners as such I think this description was otherwise quite appropriate.
I have dealt with the Parliament and the Community and I am not terribly hopeful about the reform thereof unless Deputy FitzGerald, who has been in Brussels for the past week, manages to convince them of the need for it. I do not think even his persuasive powers will extend that far. I think it is necessary now to examine the role of the Commission itself. I believe this represents the greatest difficulty for the Irish people. Too many people in my opinion have concentrated excessively on the constitutional aspects of the Treaty without dealing with the situation as it now exists in the Common Market and the statutory, mandatory and regulatory powers of the Commission itself. This is where we must be very careful. Thousands of directions and regulations have emanated from the Commission and many of them are now sacrosanct and would not be changed even for Britain or Ireland or any of the applicant countries. It is true that the very nature of the Commission itself is quite undemocratic. I say this advisedly because in these days we are all talking of political rights, justice, democracy and so on.
I think it is quite fair to suggest that the Commission has a number of vices. It has the inbuilt stultifying effect of 5,000 civil servants, not necessarily a body of fresh European pioneers. Many of them have been in the ranks of the Commission for well over a decade. I heard one of them recently in Dublin speaking about Irish agriculture and his adamant and inflexible views sent a shiver down my spine. I felt that no Dáil Éireann would change his mind in relation to the changes he envisaged in the grand review of the economic structure of Europe. We must point out to the other European negotiators that as far as we are concerned the Commission was not democratically elected and that we shall view it with reservations when it comes to final acceptance. Time does not permit me to develop my comments any further in relation to the institutional aspects of the Common Market.
Another aspect with which I should like to deal is foreign policy. I do not propose to deal with this at length because it has been covered admirably by Dr. Cruise-O'Brien. However, it is necessary to point out to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald some of the inconsistencies of his reaction or over-reaction in relation to Ireland's foreign policy within the Common Market. At column 1933, volume 247, of the Official Report of 25th June, 1970, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald said:
It should be made clear to everybody——
I love that utter confidence of Deputy FitzGerald, the total act of faith. I wish I had such total fervour, but then I suppose there are none so fanatical as those who are newly converted, and he is a convert since the middle 1950s. Let me continue the quotation:
—the Government have done this in a shaky sort of way—that if we go into the Community, we are accepting an obligation to move towards a common foreign policy, and it must be clear that that is a moral obligation that would be imposed on us.
Then he says at column 1947:
The Treaty of Rome concerns itself with very important areas, certainly, of economic and social life. It does not concern itself with foreign policy, with political union, with cultural affairs. All these aspects are left over. They are matters to be settled by other means.
I should like to ask Deputy FitzGerald what does he mean. On the one hand, at column 1933 he says we shall have foreign policy of a completely undefined nature imposed on us, and on the other hand, at column 1947 he says the Treaty of Rome does not concern itself with foreign policy. There is an inherent contradiction there.
There is also an appalling double shuffling going on within the Government in relation to our policy of neutrality, and this approach is disturbing many of our people. There is a peculiar kind of perversion of the concept of neutrality on the part of the Government. Down through the years, even as an adolescent interested in politics, I admired the attitude on neutrality of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Éamon de Valera. His policy did not in any way imply that the Irish nation was wholly uncommitted in the event of a conflict breaking out in any part of the world, east or west, any more than it implied we were totally committed to neutrality. It was a very admirable determination to ensure that through this Parliament the Irish people would avoid involvement in the conflicts or confrontations between nations in Europe or in any other part of the world. Swedish neutrality and Irish neutrality are in many respects quite similar because they are not based on any treaty obligations like that of the Austrians or like that of the Finnish Government who are bound by a neutrality treaty with the USSR.
I find it very disturbing and I regard it as an abdication of Irish independence that the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, should so blandly state that Irish neutrality is an ad hoc affair. Whether it is ad hoc or not, it is now part of the political tradition of the Irish people, one which came under the most extreme pressure up to the commencement and during the second world war, when to his everlasting credit and with the respect of the Irish people, the then Taoiseach and Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party stood out against all those pressures which were much greater in their intensity than any pressure from the Common Market or any outmoded NATO pressure group would be. With the support of the then political Leaders of the Opposition he established that fundamental principle of Irish neutrality. That policy has stood the test of time and should remain our strategy vis-à-vis a united nations of Europe. vis-á-vis the east or the west and particularly in the context of our influence in the United Nations. Our policy can contribute towards stabilisation which is very necessary in Europe and in the United Nations today.
Therefore we in the Labour Party have devolving on us in this House the prime responsibility of ensuring that that policy of neutrality will be preserved and will once again command the respect of other countries and create confidence among our own people and among the other nations as well. I bitterly resent the snide allegations of many Members of the Fianna Fáil Party, some of whom have made very little contribution to the debate, that a policy of neutrality implies a policy of isolation or a policy of non-commitment in relation to any conflict which might break out in the world. As far as I am concerned it implies a challenge, an opportunity that in the event of international tension at least we can work on an open basis towards bringing about a solution. There are possibilities, on a wider international level, over and above our entry to the Common Market, which are very great indeed.
I accept that we are not by any means a great power and that we are not in a position decisively to influence the fate of the world at any given time. I also accept that any contribution we can make unilaterally or bilaterally within the United Nations, of a military or a peace-keeping nature, must of necessity be modest and limited. Ireland having accepted the position that we will work within the framework of the United Nations, then in relation to disarmament, the proliferation of arms in any part of the world, or in this country, in relation to human environmental problems and more particularly in relation to peace-keeping operations, these are all problems of assisting the developing nations on an international basis. I would go so far as to say that it is a question of assisting the liberation of suppressed people in many parts of the world. Ireland may yet be called through the United Nations to make a contribution in this direction. These are problems in regard to which we can exert very considerable influence and adopt a consistent line of peaceful action. If we are to participate in the creation of international public opinion, and to elevate our people from mundane political routine then a policy of normal neutrality is a policy of profound importance.
If Ireland enters the Common Market and if we become deeply involved in the machinations of NATO —which I regard in many respects as being militarily obsolete—then in our relations with the many millions of people in the African states our prospects of exerting influence will be considerably mitigated.
I do not share the kind of apologia offered by Deputy FitzGerald when he made this kind of blanket proposal in relation to Irish relations or EEC relations with countries in eastern Europe. He said that it is made clear that the political objective of the community should be the creation of a democratic united states of Europe embracing all of Europe, including eastern Europe, and that this enlarged community should remain open to any other European country sharing its objectives. I think Deputy FitzGerald is alone in the Fine Gael Party in that view. Although, perhaps, Deputy Fitzpatrick now in the front bench, would probably share his views, certainly Deputy Cosgrave would not. Deputy Cosgrave has no conception of an enlarged EEC or an enlarged Europe as Deputy FitzGerald stated, including eastern Europe and that this enlarged community should remain open to any other European country sharing its objectives. Certainly that is not in the mind of the Government or in the minds of the majority of the Fine Gael Deputies nor is it in the minds of the politicians within the EEC. It is important to put this on record because otherwise we in the Labour Party feel that it would be ignored by the Minister for External Affairs when he returns to Brussels at a later date.
I was concerned to note a comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Kennedy, in relation to the very fine contribution made by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien. He made the carping comment that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien had treated the House to a dissertation of lengthy nonsense, a reference to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's fears regarding our international involvement within the EEC in the context of NATO. I certainly refute that comment because Deputy Cruise-O'Brien was not present at the time it was made. I suggest that in the international sense the alternative to the EEC is a Europe which is united and which in many respects is united with the whole world.
I should like to advise the Chair that the remarks I am now about to make are not intended to be unduly partisan. I want to refer to the North of Ireland in relation to the Common Market negotiations. The Minister for Health, Deputy Childers, stated that Ireland's entry into the Common Market would bring about a fusion of thought between Irishmen in Northern Ireland and Irishmen in the Republic. It is a matter of great concern that in the Taoiseach's opening statement and in the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs in Luxembourg on the 30th June there was no reference to the British application inevitably involving Northern Ireland. I find the omission quite extraordinary. There does devolve on the Minister for External Affairs and on Dáil Éireann the duty to be mindful of the position of Northern Ireland in relation to the Common Market particularly because of its constitutional position and its immense economic integration with Britain. There is a moral and a political obligation on us to bring to the negotiating table a sense of identity of interests, and an appreciation of the difficulties which would undoubtedly arise for many sectors of the Northern Ireland economy, particularly for industry and, for that matter, for farmers, in the event of this island entering the Common Market. There is a profound obligation devolving on our negotiators to speak for the farmers and workers of Northern Ireland and to protect their interests on entry into the Common Market. We should keep a watchful eye on the negotiations to ensure that the special problems of that area of our country are not overlooked in the setting up of an enlarged Community. I consider the omission in this regard in the Taoiseach's statement as amazing because it is essential that we should extend that elementary aspect of support to our fellow-Irishmen in the north.
Irrespective of EEC entry, one would hope to see the removal of all restrictions of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic. This is a basic pre-condition to the evolution of a normal political society and I consider it has a direct relevance to Ireland and the EEC. There has been much nonsense spoken in this House about the unilateral entry of the Irish Republic into the Common Market and the assumption has been that overnight the problem of Partition would be resolved.
In the matter of removal of restrictions of trade, progress has been disappointingly slow. While some progress was made in the early sixties to eliminate or reduce protection on certain manufactured industrial products between the north and the south, and there was an interchange of commerce between the two areas, this was not continued throughout the sixties. It is not without significance that the Irish manufacturers in the Republic who would be profoundly concerned about any loss of protection or any lowering of their economic well-being in relation to entry into the Common Market, would be equally vociferous if we eliminated protection between the north and the south on mutual entry into the Common Market. The concessions we were willing to give to Europe in 1963 were not willingly extended to our fellow-brethren in the North of Ireland and this is an aspect we should examine closely in the context of ultimate normal relations in this country.
I would hope to see an end to the lip service we have paid quite frequently in the Republic to the integration of the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic in relation to the Common Market. It is not enough to merely talk about this development unless we are prepared to pay the price. We should have regard to the industrial arm of the north and the impact of the Common Market on the linen industry, the massive textiles industries, the engineering industry, the ship-building industry and on the tremendous infrastructure of industry that exists in the North of Ireland. It is important to bear in mind that Mr. Barber probably could not care less about what will happen to Northern Ireland in the context of Britain representing that part of our island in the EEC negotiations. So far as I am concerned, the Minister for External Affairs will have my support if, at least during that aspect of our negotiations, he places particular emphasis on this feature.
In relation to agriculture, our negotiators should bear in mind the relationship that exists between the farming community in the north and in the Republic and the direct repercussions any agricultural decisions will have on the standard of life of the farming community in the north. In any negotiations for membership, I hope the Republic will not sacrifice Northern Ireland on any altar of pan-Europeanism. We should bear in mind the difficulties facing farmers in Northern Ireland in relation to the British deficiency payments system and we should ensure that consultations take place if only through the NFA and the Ulster Farmers' Union.
In his contribution yesterday, Deputy Keating dwelt at length on one point but, perhaps due to the whirl of events, the daily newspapers were unable to take the full statement. I suggest to this House that in relation to Ireland's membership of the United Nations and the constant reference to that organisation when it suited us, we should not be unduly introverted in relation to our EEC application. It is of importance to point out that the future of world trade and the profound impact there will be on EEC trade depends not so much on whether there is an enlarged Community but on the pressing problems of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or the pressing problems of Italy, particularly Sicily and Southern Italy, of Spain, Portugal and Greece.
It is important to bear in mind that a 5 per cent reduction of tariffs throughout the world would achieve far more for the benefit of mankind. It would bring a far greater improvement in international trade than all the tariffs within the Six, or EFTA, or the enlarged Community. We should place our political horizon in its proper setting and we should be very careful from the point of view of the reactions of other countries. I will quote the reaction of a senior Indian diplomat who has not changed his views down through the years. His reaction is the classical reaction of undeveloped countries.
It seems likely that any western European grouping of powers on the basis of a closed community will produce similar groupings in other parts of the world. Already there is such a grouping on the military plane. That may or may not be justified, but such an extension of the closed shop in the political and economic fields is neither necessary nor is it good in the long-term for the world especially when it is based on the comparative wealth and colonial background of countries like the members of the EEC. They have made no secret of their desire to keep the fundamental character of the Community western European. The only outsiders likely to be associated with it are their former colonies and even these are confined to the economically undeveloped continent of Africa and the West Indies. Asia has not even been admitted as an associate lest "hordes" might swamp this exclusive club. The situation, therefore, would appear equally uncompromising to the newly emerging nations of Africa. Even if some of these countries get associate status and thus enjoy some access to the European Common Market they will have to face difficulties in developing local industries in face of competition from the highly developed countries of the EEC itself.
This brings me to the nonsense talked by the Minister for External Affairs about EEC aid to the African nations. I questioned him about this on 25th June and he said that, as regards assistance to the less developed countries, the Community's record compares very favourably with that of other industrial countries; the Community has an associate arrangement with 18 African states and a special European Development Fund has been set up to provide finance for measures aimed at promoting the social and economic development of these countries. I assured him the African states were somewhat unimpressed by this form of aid.
My reaction is essentially pragmatic because I am conscious of the involvement. Lest the House be under any illusions, let us take the attitude of the EEC towards South Africa. Trading with Africa, exports in 1969 amounted to £242.4 million and imports to £434 million. As far as I am concerned, there seems to be a good deal of double thinking, which has made the sanctions policy within the EEC so much rubbish. It simply does not work. The prospect of short-term gains on the economic front for the EEC has wiped out any ideology or racialist sympathy with the oppressed peoples of South Africa. I am always amused by the pontifications of alleged statesmen, or churchmen, for that matter, who profess to abhor racialism and who, by their policies and actions in the international sphere, sustain racist governments in power.
The alleged aid given to African countries pales into insignificance in the light of the massive capital investment of the Six and of the Ten, particularly Britain. There is literally utter exploitation of many millions of people in South Africa and in other African states. We tend to forget the massive volume of investment by Britain in that part of the world. The principal creditor of South Africa is the United Kingdom. In 1966 it held almost three-fifths of all foreign investment in South Africa. The United States held 13 per cent of all foreign investment in South Africa. France has substantial investments there. So have the Federal Republic of Germany and other European countries. The value of direct private investment by Britain, excluding oil, insurance and banking, amounts to 1,097 million United States dollars or 9 per cent of total British investment overseas.
At the end of 1966 direct investment by the United States in South Africa had a value of 600 million United States dollars, or over 2 per cent of the total foreign investment. One should be very careful about the reaction of the African states. I speak of an area of 470,000 square miles with a population of 18.7 million people, 80 per cent of whom are non-white, to use the offensive term, ruled and exploited by 3.6 million people who want to get into the Common Market. South Africa is to have entry into the Common Market. That was made clear recently. We should not be under any illusions about the substantial involvement with a racist government. We should not be under any illusions about the reaction from African states. There is a real possibility that any residue of sympathy on the part of African states towards Ireland in the United Nations will gradually disappear since they are excluded from entry because of the neo-colonial character of EEC investment in the Common Market itself.
There is a wealth of literature available to any Member of this House who might care to be concerned about that development. I am not giving any propagandist approach. I have quoted from the United Nations' publications on Apartheid—two particular publications published, by Irish contribution, by the United Nations. Indeed, the plaintive expression of opinion of U Thant that economic aid given by European countries bolstering up the economies of South Africa and Rhodesia should be withdrawn rings very hollow when these countries have not paid the slightest attention to that approach.
I wish to turn now to the Social Fund, to redundancy, to food prices and, finally, to agriculture and industry. In relation to the Social Fund, it would be snide of me not to accept that articles 1, 2 and 3 of this Treaty of Rome did contain the germ of social content which would give financial assistance for the promotion, within the Community, of employment facilities and assist the mobility of labour. I have in mind now the retraining of workers and the wage levels of workers. We should not have any false hopes in that regard. The fund can be criticised on a number of fronts. It may be objected that the definition of "employment" under the Social Fund is extremely rigid. I would point this progress and the work done by the out particularly to the EEC negotiators. It might not be possible to ensure that retraining facilities will be effective throughout the enlarged Ten.
The retraining of workers in our retraining centres and its effect on the economy of a country is extremely complex. I do not think the fund is in a position to administer effectively retraining facilities of that nature. Equally, when recession occurs or when a closure occurs in a particular industry or when there is massive re-deployment one gets rather scant notice generally and by the time the machinery of the Social Fund would be put into operation on an Irish-EEC integrated basis, even with enlarged notices on re-deployment, I am rather sceptical about immediate response in that regard from the Social Fund for Irish problems that might arise. Deputy FitzGerald said he was not convinced that the overall cartel and merger policy of the EEC had a sufficient social content. He said it seemed to be exceptionally industrially oriented: too much towards industrial efficiency; too much towards the growth of large units; not sufficiently taking into account all social factors.
I strongly urge the team of negotiators we are sending over to Brussels to comb the regulations made to date under the EEC Commission in regard to the Social Fund to ensure that they will evolve more satisfactorily towards Irish industry problems. I said earlier it was rather difficult to quantify the effects, particularly effects of an industrial nature. I shall not attempt to do so. To those who would globally state a figure of, say, 100,000 unemployed, I would reply that one does not precisely know. Global figures are dangerous. They highlight the necessary safeguards. They certainly highlight the tremendous dangers involved in entry into the EEC. We have 200,000 workers engaged in industry. Consider the impact of competition. If we take a figure in the region of 15,000, then I think one is talking in terms of greater reality in respect of the Common Market so far as the impact of redundancy is concerned.
I was involved for a number of years in the annual reviews of Irish industrial progress and the work done by the Committee on Industrial Progress. I was not a member of the committee but, as industrial officer of the ICTU, I was involved in making trade union comments on behalf of the trade unions in response to the draft reports of the CIO and subsequently, each year, in the annual reviews. I do not accept figures that are thrown around— 30,000; 40,000; 100,000. I expect an economic dislocation in the region of 20,000, scaling down to 15,000. This figure is certainly not outside the realm of informed speculation or informed guess-estimates of the overall impact of immediate freeing of trade. I would strongly underline the subjectiveness of a figure of that nature.
In the original comprehensive CIO surveys on Irish industry in the period 1961 to 1964 there was a global figure of around 11,000 on the freeing of trade by 1970. If one takes the figure of 20,000 on the freeing of trade by, say, 1976, 1978 or 1980, and a figure of 20,000, say, over a transitional perod, such a figure is by no means of such magnitude that it cannot be faced with some sense of reality. I do not accept Deputy FitzGerald's attempt to play it down. It is much better that all the Irish people should be fully aware of the implications of that particular involvement.
In that regard, I come to the social security aspects of the Common Market. They are not very satisfactory. They are certainly very embryonic. In many respects they are quite contradictory. Only a few years ago, in late 1967, an economist stated that the social security systems of member countries were as far apart as ever. While there are common trends in the extension of the area of social security, it is hardly possible to accept these developments as the outcome of the evolvement of the Common Market since they would probably have taken place in any event. I think it is true that within Europe, irrespective of the Common Market, there has developed.
The other point I want to make in a tremendous harmonisation of social security systems. I very much doubt if the social security laws and practices of the European States, particularly of the Six, have been harmonised to the extent that the so-called EEC Social Security Fund bureaucrats tend to suggest.
Therefore, I submit to the House that there is a general uncertainty regarding the impact of the EEC on the development of a social security system on a global basis within the Common Market. This uncertainty springs from a very serious omission from the Treaty of Rome. There is nothing of a specific nature in the Treaty of Rome in relation to the introduction of a single system of social security throughout the EEC. There are general aspirations in Articles 117 and 118, the kind of aspirations with which we are all familiar: talk about conformity and harmonisation of practices relating to employment, labour legislation, working conditions, social security, protection against occupational accidents, industrial hygiene, trade union law, and so on. There are vague general aspirations in Articles 117 and 118.
I do not think that, by and large, it can be contended that the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC has brought about a great deal of uniformity within the social security systems of different countries. I want to point out very emphatically to the Government, to Irish employers and to Irish trade unionists, that there are some extremely important differences between the Irish and the British and the EEC social security systems. As we are quite well aware, the Irish system is operated through the Department of Social Welfare except for medical care, whereas in the Common Market a number of schemes are administered by semi-independent bodies within each country, with the result that centralised Government control over the social security systems in the Common Market is extremely limited.
That is the first major difference between the two systems. The second major difference is of profound importance to Irish employers and trade unionists in the context of Irish labour costs and so on. It is that employers have a far greater role—I do not like the word "role"—a far greater involvement and responsibility in respect of social security than they have in this country. This is some disturbing news to be given to Irish employers and I propose to spell it out later on.
In this country there is a single social security stamp in respect of benefits provided through the national social security insurance scheme, but in the EEC different charges are made for different things and they are collected separately and given separately to the various bodies by each employer. In this country the social insurance contributions by Irish workers are on a flat rate contributory basis. For example, earning £2,500 a year, I pay 10s 10d a week as a voluntary contribution to widows and orphans and, if you like, that is my State social insurance contribution on that particular matter. On the Continent on the basis of £2,500 a year, more than likely I would be paying vastly more in a wage related system.
There is a very urgent need for the Government to bring in a wage system of social security, irrespective of whether we go into the Common Market. If we do happen to find ourselves in it, it will be as well if we have gone through this exercise. I consider it to be quite wrong and quite unfair that an Irish industrial worker working, say, in Bolands in Deansgrange or in an industrial estate in Pottery Road in the constituency I represent, earning £18 or £19 a week in Albright and Wilson, should have to pay 12s 10d a week. The employer pays 15s 6d. Within the next few months we can add another 2s 6d on to that amount of money and the worker will be paying 15s a week out of those earnings. Another worker with £2 under £1,200 a year pays the same amount on a flat basis. It is quite unfair to have a flat rate, social insurance contribution system in operation. It is to the credit of the continental countries that, by and large, they have introduced a wage related system of contribution and benefit. This is of considerable importance.
here and I shall point out some of the relation to the social security system is that, on the Continent, a very substantial proportion of the cost of social security is met by the employers. This, I am sure, is cheerful news for Irish employers. As the House is aware, in this country towards the financing of the social security system, the employers pay 16 per cent roughly. The employees pay 15 per cent and the State, from general taxation, pays 68 per cent. There is roughly 2 per cent coming from other sources.
In Belgium, the employers pay 48 per cent. In France, the employers pay 65 per cent. In Germany, they pay 37 per cent. In Italy, they pay 63 per cent. In the Netherlands, they pay 39 per cent. In the United Kingdom, the employers pay 27 per cent of the cost of social security. In Ireland, the figure is 16 per cent. I am afraid the Minister will have more than just a harmonisation problem on his hands if he talks about accepting the EEC lock, stock and barrel with no reservations and no question of any realignment of the Irish social security system.
There is a vast gulf between what we operate here and what is operated on the Continent. It is about time the Irish Cabinet sat down and, instead of chasing its own ideological and republican hares around the Cabinet table, took a cold look at the kind of problems likely to be facing it. In this country employees pay 15 per cent towards the cost of social security. In Belgium they pay 24 per cent. In Germany they pay 37 per cent. In the Netherlands they pay 47 per cent. In Britain they pay 5 per cent more than they pay here, making a total of 20 per cent.
If we are to have harmonisation between the Common Market countries and if we are to have, as seems to be implied in the Government's approach, continental employers coming to this country—I very much doubt that they will be coming but, on the assumption that they might be coming, and if they come here on that basis without the Irish Government readjusting the Irish social security system rapidly—as far as I am concerned there are many sins of omission to be faced on the part of the Government.
That is one problem. I do not believe that acceptance of implications and regulations will present us with any utterly insurmountable or insuperable obstacles even though massive changes are necessary and should now be introduced in the social security system apart from the fact that, in my opinion, employers should be paying far more towards occupational health, occupation welfare, industrial hygiene, occupational pensions and general social insurance contributions. I see no reason why there should be this tremendous disparity between Britain and Ireland and the Continent and, I might add, American employers, who pay far more in their terms of contribution. I suppose that will not make me very popular with some members of the Federated Union of Employers. This is an aspect of the matter that urgently needs consideration.
Another aspect that we should consider is the free movement of workers in the Common Market and the internal involvement of the social security system. There seems to be some peculiar myth operating in the Fianna Fáil Party that all one does is sign a treaty and from then on things tend to fall into pattern. I want to point out that the obligations which this country would have to accept on the admission of Common Market concerns here would be very considerable. Migrant workers coming here could not, under any circumstances, generally be dealt with less favourably than Irish nationals in respect of social security and regulations enforced here, irrespective of what member state they came from.
We should also appreciate that we would be accepting liability in respect of migrant workers or any aliens getting employment here to pay appropriate family allowances and social security benefits for their dependants and themselves similar to what they would get in their home countries. This would extend also to medical and health costs. Let us have no illusions about that commitment which we would face. I shall deal later with the number of aliens currently working implications in that regard.
There is a sharp need for the Minister and the Department of Social Welfare, whoever the Minister may be, to face up to the implications in respect of reciprocal arrangements existing with the EEC and which we would be required to observe. These reciprocal arrangements would go far beyond the arrangements we have at present with Britain in regard to disability benefit, marriage or maternity benefit, unemployment benefit, contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions or workman's compensation. We have certain reciprocal arrangements with Britain at present but what would be done in respect of Britain would have to apply also with more massive implications in respect of people moving from other countries to this country.
In fairness, I should point out that Irish nationals would have the benefit of reciprocity in the other countries. It does not end there. Under Articles 19 and 23 if a Belgian worker came to Ireland to work and fell ill on a temporary return to Belgium he would receive medical attention in Belgium and the Irish Government would have to meet the cost. Let us chew on these implications which we shall face. Under Article 22 and Article 23 if a German pensioner retires to live in Germany, having lived in Ireland, he draws his pension from the Irish Government and he also receives free medical treatment and that medical treatment is paid for by the Irish Government. If the family of an Italian worker coming to work in Ireland fall ill in Italy they will receive medical treatment there as long as is necessary. They will pay nothing: the Italian Government will pay 25 per cent of the cost and the Irish Government will pay the other 75 per cent. These are just a few of the EEC regulations but they are quite substantial and we should be under no illusion as to what is involved administratively in terms of the EEC and of parity of social security.
There is another aspect which should be brought to the attention of the House and these are the particular obligations of a social security nature devolving on the Minister for Labour. At present our industrial workers here enjoy between 16 and 21 days annual leave and public holidays, a rather sparse concession of leisure in the European context. I should hope that if the Irish Government are serious about their application they would indicate their views now to Irish workers. Looking for support in the referendum I could imagine the Minister for Social Welfare using this as a great ploy: vote "yes" and you will get 21 days holiday, 22 in the Netherlands, 25 in Belgium, 25-28 as they get in Germany or 29 as they get in France or Italy. As regards annual leave and public holidays Article 120 of the Treaty of Rome says that member states shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalent of paid holiday schemes in the member states.
In France, for example, where there is a total of 29 days because there is also a service agreement operating generally on a national basis giving extended holidays in addition to the 25, a full month's holidays is regarded as a normal feature of collective bargaining. If the Government are so adamant about going into the Common Market they should give us the benefits as well as the difficulties. It is quite dishonest on the part of the Government not to point out to the employers and the nation as a whole the changes in the social structure, relating to the Social Fund and the social situation which will be involved. The Government are not very explicit on these points in the White Paper itself.
There is also the matter of children's allowances. We should be rather careful in our analysis of that situation in relation to the Common Market because I think there is far more opposition to and there are far more reservations in people's minds about children's allowances than they are prepared to admit. In Britain family allowances is a difficult political topic. At the moment there are 4.1 million families in Britain who receive family allowances and there are 3.8 million families who do not receive them. Therefore there is an immediate clash in regard to social policy in that country and there is the same clash in this country. If we are to enjoy the level of family allowances operating in the EEC countries there will have to be a massive payment which I would estimate at between £10 million and £15 million. We would have to do two things: to bring family allowances, first of all, up to the level in Britain, where we are very far behind, and secondly, up to the level operating in the EEC.
Take one Common Market country, France, to illustrate the tremendous gulf that exists in this regard. Let me compare the different rates. In Britain a family of two children gets 18s; in Ireland 10s per week; in France 29s per week. In Britain a family of three gets 38s a week; in ireland 20s per week; in France 75s per week. In Britain a family of four gets 58s; in Ireland 30s; and in France £6. In Britain a family of five gets 78s; in Ireland £2; and in France £8 3s per week.
The Fianna Fáil Party are in a frightful dilemma because some Minister will suggest levelling up all the children's allowances if we go into the EEC. The Government are so desperate at times to take the heat off themselves that they must certainly pass that, and this levelling up would cause a social problem here. Those who will not qualify in the future for the extra payment which must come about in family allowances will not be remarkably altruistic and they are likely to join the childless families in opposition to the whole idea of a massive upward adjustment of family allowances. We should not underestimate the effect of that. If family allowances are increased to the level in France of £8 3 per week for a family of five children, there must be a social reaction even from such a Catholic country as this. People will allege that allowances are a kind of reward for excessive breeding of families rather than, as it should be, a recognition of the responsibilities undertaken in parenthood. There will be a great deal of controversy in the event of a massive levelling up of children's allowances.
I want to stress another aspect of the Common Market which is of concern to Irish workers. It is a very proud fact of life here that there is a tremendous disparity between the trade union organisations of this island and in Britain and those on the Continent. I do not accept for one moment that we have anything to learn from the Continent about the organisation of workers in trade unions. The reverse is the case. I remember, as educational officer of the Irish Congress of Trade Unons, spending a fortnight in Brussels and then spending three weeks in Paris as part of the training which I was given under the old OECD. I was appalled at the sectarianism of the Catholic Federation of Belgium, the Protestant Federation of Belgium, the Social Federation of Belgium; then there was the Communist Federation, to crown it all—a splintered trade union movement. Take one look at France. Take one look at Italy. Take one look at the industrial protest parades which take place in France where you have national massive one-day political strikes. Those in Fianna Fáil who are deeply preoccupied at the moment with introducing trade union legislation in this country would want to take a look at what happens in the industrial cities of Northern Italy when the industrial workers get the bit between their teeth and decide to react sharply towards employers. That is the kind of Community we are going into. It has a lot of warts as well as a lot of alleged advantages.
It is a matter of profound regret that of the 60 million or 70 million workers in the Common Market, outside of agriculture, there are only about 12 million of them organised in the trade union movement. While admittedly in Germany there is a strong trade union sector, the DGB which organises 30 per cent of all industrial and commercial workers, a powerful trade union organisation, there are hundreds of thousand of workers in the Common Market, in the transport sector, in the retail and wholesale distributive sector, in the vast range of small industries, in the agricultural sector, who are not organised in any trade union. It is nonsense for Deputy FitzGerald to say here that the trade unions in the Common Market exert a dramatic and dynamic influence over the proceedings of the EEC. That is not my experience. In many of those countries trade union organisations are divided into three or four different federations. Certainly they are not organised on the basis which we would like to see in this country.
I should like to say that we will have a rather peculiar and anomalous situation. At the moment in Cork the Irish Trade Union Congress is meeting. It represent 500,000 industrial workers in this island and you would have negotiations going on in which the Irish Government would represent some of them and the British Government would represent more of them. As far as I am concerned, one of the most tremendous bulwarks we have in these islands and which is not evident on the Continent is this body of organised workers of 240,000 in the Republic and 180,000 in the North of Ireland, composed of Protestants and Catholics of different political views, all united in the trade union movement.
I only wish that other sections in industry, in trade and in social life and so on would have this elementary common loyalty on an occupational, social or political basis. This is one of the more hopeful and more beneficial aspects in relation to Ireland and the EEC.
I should like to point out that Article 48 and 51 of the Treaty of Rome envisage the development of a community wide labour market. It is important that we should appreciate what precisely is involved in the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of member states as far as employment is concerned. We should be aware that under the Treaty of Rome—I am not suggesting that we should accept it—subject to certain limitations workers will be free to accept offers of employment and they will be free to remain in a member country to engage in that employment. There is here a clear cut involvement of the movement of workers in and out of this country within the Common Market. The word "worker" should be interpreted very broadly because according to the Common Market regulations it includes everybody who is the subject of a contract of employment. It does not matter whether the worker is an Italian or a psychiatric doctor or a trade union official from the Continent, or any other form of worker, there is that right to work in this country if we enter the Common Market. The actual working of the treaty is confined to the freedon of the worker to accept an offer of employment which is actually made. No Italian, French or German worker can come here merely in the hope of obtaining work, as some people seem to think. An offer of employment has to be made to him and the provisions state that very clearly.
It is important to point out the implications of this because a number of illusions exist in regard to it. We should not, however, overstress the problem. It is an inescapable fact of life that the major difficulties which restrict the international movement of workers are related to problems of language, of customs or of customs duty and of administrative and occupation procedures as between one country and another. Therefore these difficulties exist as between Ireland and the EEC already, irrespective of whether or not we enter the Common Market. It is important that we should appreciate that with the current employment situation here it is not likely that Irish employers will be offering very many employment opportunities to foreign workers provided the trade union movement are in a position to ensure that foreign workers coming in would not be exploited.
As industrial officer of Congress I have seen this exploitation in the hair-dressing trade, in the hotels and rstaurants trade and in the tourist trade. I have seen Italian workers being exploited and I have seen other European workers being exploited, but generally speaking it is not likely that there would be a massive influx of foreign workers in the event of our entering the EEC. I would also point out that the position is not perhaps as certain as I have stated because at present employment permits are normally granted for a maximum period of 12 months and their renewal depends on the availability of nationals at the time the renewal application is made. It is quite obvious that these aliens regulations, which operate jointly between the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour, in consultation with the trade union movement, will have to be relaxed substantially if we enter the Common Market and this could give rise to substantial fears among Irish workers that there would be a very large number of foreign workers taking up employment. It is an aspect to which we should pay particular attention.
It is essential that we should bear in mind the difficulties which could arise in this regard. I should like to point out that there will devolve on the negotiators during the course of negotiations, and particularly on the Irish Government, an obligation to point out in no uncertain terms to the EEC countries what the employment situation is in this country and that, as the NIEC have pointed out, it will be well after 1980 before there will be any surplus employment opportunities, on the basis of current calculations. While undoubtedly employers would continue to give preferential treatment to nationals it is important that the EEC countries should be under no illusions in that regard. I am very concerned that the Irish job forecasting and manpower services could not even hazard a guess as to what is likely to happen between 1975 and 1980, nor indeed does it seem likely that the EEC will at all times have up-to-date information about the state of the Irish labour market.
I would also point out that note should be taken of the large number of aliens resident in Ireland. I used the statutory term "alien" although I dislike this wold; we hear it used very frequently by Fianna Fáil in regard to the "alien traditions" and "alien ideology" of the Labour Party and we all know that it is a pet word of Fianna Fáil. I would point out to the House that the Department of Labour in reply to a recent questionaire from the International Labour Organisation in Geneva stated that on the 31st December, 1968 approximately 4,435 aliens were registered as resident in this country—citizens of the British Commonwealth countries are not registered as aliens. As we are so preoccupied about what is happening in Europe, it might be of interest to note the number of Europeans in Ireland.
In this country there 937 Germans; 17 Greeks; 13 Hungarians; 13 Iranians; 17 Iraqis; 11 Israelis; 691 Italians; 35 Japanese; 49 Stateless persons; 43 Austrians; 12 persons from the Baltic States; 81 Belgians; 50 Chinese; 24 Czechs; 79 Danish; 421 Dutch; 232 French and 20 Mexicans. In addition to this, there are 16 people from Thailand; 11 from Uganda; 36 from the UAR; 758 from the United States; 18 from the USSR; 19 others; 108 Norwegians; 18 from the Philippines; 45 Polish; 23 Portuguese; 417 Spanish; 59 Swedish; and 90 Swiss nationals. Having regard to the number of non-nationals living in Ireland I do not think that the Fianna Fáil members who are so preoccupied about being Europeanised need be unduly perturbed.
Another illusion of the Fianna Fáil Party is that we can join the Common Market and get all the gains but none of the disadvantages. While I do not regard equal pay as being in any way a disadvantage, I would point out to the Fianna Fáil Party—who are so anti-feminist and who are unprogressive in getting rid of the marriage bar— that such a restriction would not be tolerated in a European community. We all know about the impossibility of a married nurse obtaining full-time employment here, yet the Minister for Health was the person who spokes in the Dáil about Charlemagne, about Saint Columbanus and the monks in Bobbio centuries ago and the wonderful advantages of being associated with the European countries. In the Common Market countries a married nurse would have no difficulty in obtaining full-time employment in any hospital but one has only to visit any of the hospitals in this country to see the discrimination that exists here. Whenever I raised this matter in the House I was told on each occasion by the Minister for Health that the matter was before the Commission on the Status of Women. It is important to point out to the Government that they cannot merely pass matters over to a commission for investigation, that they will have to implement in the Treaty of Rome.
I would point out that Article 119 of the Common Market Charter imposes the obligation that the principle of equal pay should be ensured by the end of the first stage of the transition period. That has long since passed in the EEC and there has been an evolution towards giving women parity of remuneration that does not exist in Ireland.
I would point out to the Minister for Labour that hourly earnings of female industrial workers in this country average only 53 per cent of the earnings of male workers compared with 58 per cent in the United Kingdom, 61 per cent in the Netherlands, 68 per cent in Belgium, 70 per cent in Germany, 72 per cent in Italy and 77 per cent in France. When I asked the Minister for Labour if he would state his intentions to take action to redress this imbalance in the matter of earnings in Ireland as compared with Britain and other European countries, he told me that this matter had been referred to the Commission on the Status of Women.
The women of Ireland are well aware that in the factories and workshops and even in the public service they are getting 53 per cent of what men earn and they know that if they were working in continental countries they would get much more wages. I will not suggest to the Irish women workers that they should emigrate in order to get decent wages but there is an obvious lesson here to be learned in terms of our entry into the Common Market. If we are entering that Community we had better do something pretty quickly about the question of equal pay.
I would point out that particular difficulties arise in respect of the interpretation of "same work" being performed by men and women. The EEC Commission have had eight or nine years experience of dealing with recalcitrant governments and some of the major international cartels who have resisted the introduction of equal pay for their own economic ends. The following practices are completely incompatible with the principle of equal pay: First of all, the systematic downgrading of women workers is out as far as the EEC is concerned. Secondly, the adoption of different qualification rules as between men and women is out. Thirdly, the use of job evaluation criteria not related to the real conditions under which the work is done is also out. These are fairly stringent conditions of a direct industrial character facing Ireland in the event of entry into the Common Market.
I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that Ireland has no as yet implemented the ILO Convention No. 100 for equal pay. That Convention is much broader than the EEC provision. It lays down that each member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as it is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. This Convention has been ratified by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, but not as yet by the Republic of Ireland, by this island republic which is alleged to cherish all the children of the nation equally under its Constitution. If we are genuine about our application to the EEC— I do not believe the Government are— we have got to implement the Convention not only of the ILO but also that under the Common Market itself. In France, the law rather stringently covers collective bargaining. Male adults workers and female adult workers must get the same starting pay. In Germany there is equality in starting rates of pay and on differentials. As a result, while men earn more, women earn around 80 per cent of what men earn. The Italian constitution provides for equal pay. Deputy Keating lauded our Constitution. The only comment I have to make is that there should be introduced into that Constitution a provision for equal pay. I know my colleague, Deputy Keating, thinks the Constitution should be preserved intact but the introduction of such a provision would show clearly that we are not a male dominated society, an anti-feminist discriminatory society. This is not special pleading. Any socialist recognises that as an elementary principle of social justice. It is regrettable that obscurantism has prevented that evolution here.
If we introduce equal pay, industries vulnerable to free trade conditions will find themselves in a dire situation. Male and female rates of pay in the footwear industry are separate and distinct. If equal pay were introduced overnight, without a five-year transitional period, not alone would the industry not be able to face competition from Northern Ireland and Britain but it would be virtually wiped out. There are sectors of the textile industry in which there is an enormous disparity between the rates of pay for male and female workers. That, too, is involved in the EEC tariff transitional arrangements. The food processing industry is equally vulnerable. There are other industries in which there is an enormous disparity between the pay of male and female workers: the bakery and confectionery trade, the catering trade, the hotel trade, the drapery trade the grocery trade. Introducing equal pay for men and women in the clerical sphere would not, I think, provide an insuperable problem. If we are genuine, if we want the benefits of the EEC, we must face up to the realities. If we go in, the Government will have to face amending certain sections of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act, particularly Part III. They will also have to put a provision in the regulations relating to joint industrial councils to ensure equal pay for men and women for the same work. That is a job for the Labour Court. With all their current problems I am sure it is not one they will welcome.
I do not think the Government were being honest in not stating these problems more emphatically. There is no point in running away from the massive involvements from the point of view of prices in the light of the taxation changes within the Common Market. Deputy O'Donovan referred to the impact of the value added tax. A number of countries have rather sharply refused to implement as yet the value added tax because of the traumatic impact it would have on their own interest price structures and on consumer indices. It is noteworthy that the EEC Council of Ministers granted Italy permission to postpone the introduction of the value added tax until October, 1971. Belgium has also obtained permission to postpone its introduction until 1971. This shows the magnitude of the problem affecting the member states in the EEC in the event of the value added tax system coming into general operation.
For Ireland, it will be an extremely difficult problem. The impact on the consumer price index will be very substantial. I think the Government front bench is so obsessed at the moment with a false air of political gaiety that they do not seem able to concentrate on the economic implications of the value added taxation system. If such a tax is introduced, there will be a substantial consequential increase in food prices, well above the 11 per cent to 16 per cent projected. The Government have not faced up to all the implications. I do not regard, strange as it may seem, an increase of from 3 per cent to 4½ per cent in the consumer price index as very substantial. One must bear in mind that, in the past 18 months alone, the price of food in this country, to our eternal desgrace—leaving aside wage impact and the impact of taxation—has quite disproportionately gone up by 16.3 per cent. It is quite a fantastic increase in 18 months. It is the equivalent of entry into the Common Market.
The proposed impact of food prices put forward by the Government in that context certainly is not all that substantial. I suggest to the Government that extreme care must be exercised in this country in relation, particularly, to price surveillance and effective price supervision. Otherwise price will spiral out of all proportion in the event of accession coming in the middle of 1973 or thereabouts. I would bring the attention of the Government to the 1970 OECD report on Ireland. In the prices section of that report we are informed that about two-fifths of the increase in consumer prices can be accounted for by the higher indirect tax rates introduced at the retail level in November, 1968, and May, 1969, and at the wholesale level in January and July, 1969. The impact of taxation increases in this country together with the recent increase in turnover tax of 2½ per cent has distorted beyond all recognition the current price structure in the Irish economy. If we are to be faced with a very substantial further increase, on entry into the Common Market, the matter could get completely out of hand.
Taking the OECD index at the moment and looking around the world one sees what has happened to Irish prices. Talking 1963 as base 100, Ireland is 139 on the price index; Canada, 125—substantially lower. This is for the first quarter of 1970. For all its inflation, the United States is only 124. Austria, 126; Belgium, 127; Luxembourg, 122; France, 129; Germany, 119; Greece, 115; Sweden, 132; Switzerland, 124 and the United Kingdom, 122. Ireland is miles ahead at 139. This is an indication of the explosive increase in prices in this country in the past four or five years especiall, I think, due to excessive conservativism and undue reliance by successive Ministers for Finance on indirect taxation, and the milking of the buoyancy of consumer demand to the extent that would let things go completely out of gear.
I am expressing, on behalf of the Labour Party, very considerable concern about the situation in relation to prices and the effect that that will have on the overall economic situation. It does not amaze me to any degree that we are having a bad tourist season. It does not surprise me that we are having a rather difficult emigrant situation. With the price of food here, apart altogether from the cost of hotel accommodation and the current prices of drink and tobacco, it is obvious that tourists do not find this country financially attractive
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.
