Adjournment Debate: Membership of EEC.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That the Dáil do now adjourn.

When I spoke on this subject on 1st June last I gave a résumé of our negotiations and the progress made in those negotiations up to the end of May, with particular reference to those matters of special importance to us. I propose now to summarise briefly the main developments that have occurred in our negotiations since our last debate here. Other speakers on this side will give in greater detail in the course of the debate the progress of the negotiations with which they, as Ministers, are specifically concerned.

The major development in the past month, indeed in the negotiations to date, has been the agreement reached on 23rd June between Britain and the Communities on the question of New Zealand dairy products and Britain's contribution to the financing of the Communities. As Deputies will recall, agreement was reached in May on the question of Commonwealth sugar. In fact, solutions have now been found to all the major issues in the British negotiations with the exception of fisheries. We recognise the importance of these agreements. We welcome them because they remove what could have been serious obstacles to British membership of the Communities and they open the way to the successful completion of the negotiations as a whole.

In our own negotiations we have reached agreement on a number of matters of major importance to us. At the ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June we accepted the modified timetable proposed by the Communities for the alignment of our agricultural prices with the Communities' common prices. This timetable will involve six equal alignment steps over a transitional period of five years, the last alignment step taking place at the end of 1977. The Community, for their part, agreed that in the beginning of the transitional period the full cost of refunds in respect of exports of agricultural products to member States of the enlarged Community and to non-member countries, as well as the cost of market supports at home for agricultural products, should be borne from the Communities' agricultural fund. At present we spend some £30 million a year on subsidising our exports of agricultural products and, because of that, the agreement reached with the Communities is of great significance to us. It is something for which we had been pressing and it, therefore, represents a decisive step forward in our negotiations.

We also reached agreement with the Communities at the meeting on 7th June on another important matter, namely, the question of the trading arrangements to apply between Ireland and Britain during the transitional period. We were concerned to ensure that the transitional arrangements to be agreed in the agricultural sector would not involve any diminution in the degree of freedom of trade resulting from the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. The Communities have now given the assurances we sought in this matter.

The Community have also agreed to our request in the matter of dumping. We felt it necessary to urge that we should be in a position during the transitional period to take prompt remedial action against dumping. During that period Irish industrial firms will have to cope with problems arising from the elimination of duties on imports from the member States of the enlarged Community and also their reduction on imports from non-member States. Under the agreement reached with the Community we will be free to continue to use our national procedures against dumping either from outside the enlarged Community or from the member States of the Community during the transitional period.

There have also been significant developments in the past few weeks on another negotiating matter of great importance to us; I refer to fisheries. On 7th June the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the Community to give a positive indication that they recognise that serious problems exist for Ireland in connection with the provisions of the fisheries policy from the point of view of common access to fishery waters and pointed out that it was necessary to find a solution to the problems. The Minister also made the point that the common fisheries policy adopted for the Community of Six is not suitable for a Community of Ten. The Minister proposed that the best course would be for the Community to accept that we should be able to maintain our present arrangements of access to fishery waters after accession and that all ten member States of the enlarged Community should consider the matter with a view to arriving at a solution equitable to all.

In essence what the Minister asked was that a new fisheries policy suitable for a Community of Ten should be worked out by the member States after accession. By definition such a policy would be one in which the vital interests of each member State would be taken care of. In the meantime there would be no change in the present position in regard to access to our fishery waters.

In the period since our meeting on 7th June there have been significant developments on this question of fisheries. Most important is the fact that the Community have now clearly recognised, in a declaration presented to us and to the other applicant countries, that the proviso in the fishery regulation of free access to fishery waters poses serious problems for the applicant countries and that it is necessary to find a solution to these problems. This is, of course, what we have sought from the Community as a first step. The Community are now formulating proposals on fisheries and they hope to put these proposals to Ireland, Britain and Denmark at the ministerial meetings on 12th July and to Norway on 26th July. We must, of course, await the Community position but I should say that our position still is that we are maintaining the proposals which the Minister for Foreign Affairs put forward on 7th June.

There was a further meeting with the Communities at Deputies level on 29th June. At this meeting the Communities put to us their proposals in regard to the participation of the applicant countries in the Community "own resources" system of financing and the contributions to be made by the applicant countries to the financing of the Community during the transitional period. These proposals are under examination and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be giving our reaction to them at the ministerial meeting with the Communities on 12th July.

The Communities have also put to us their proposals on the adaptations which would be necessary in the institutional arrangements following enlargement including the representation of Ireland on the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. These proposals seem to be satisfactory from our point of view and we expect to be able to record agreement with the Communities on this matter on 12th July.

The arrangements which were agreed with Great Britain in regard to New Zealand butter and cheese were presented to us by the Communities on 29th June. We note that the intention, as embodied in these arrangements, is that the prices at which New Zealand butter and cheese will be sold in Britain will be such that the markets for the products of the enlarged Community, including Ireland, will not be endangered. In these circumstances we were able to indicate that the arrangements in regard to New Zealand were acceptable.

We have also received from the Community their proposals regarding Ireland's subscription to the capital of the European Investment Bank including a contribution to the bank's reserves and regarding representation on the bank's institutions. The Community proposal is that our share of the bank's capital should be 0.73 per cent, that is, 15 million dollars, the paid up portion would be 3 million dollars, of which one-fifth would be payable in cash two months after accession and the remainder in the form of Treasury bonds over a period of two and a half years. The Communities' proposals on representation on the bank's institutions would give Ireland a seat on the board of governors and the board of directors. These proposals are being examined and we hope to be in a position to reply to them at the ministerial meeting of 12th July.

It will be seen, therefore, that appreciable progress has been made in our negotiations since the last debate on the EEC was held a little over a month ago. We very much hope it will be possible to maintain the momentum in the short period remaining before the summer holidays in August so that further progress can be achieved. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has, in fact, been pressing the Community for their early reactions to some at least of our proposals on issues of major importance to us. We have in mind specifically the question of the arrangements which would apply in respect of the motor car assembly industry. He has stressed to the Community the importance which the Government attach to satisfactory arrangements being agreed for the industry. We hope the Community will be in a position to put proposals to us on 12th July. Until proposals are adopted by the Council of Ministers and formally put to us as the Community position, I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss their likely content or anticipate our reactions to them.

Another matter of major importance in our negotiations is the question of our scheme of tax reliefs on profits derived from exports. As Deputies are aware we are seeking agreement in the negotiations to the retention of our export tax relief scheme for the remainder of its statutory life, that is up to April, 1990. The Community were informed of this at the outset of negotiations and at the meeting with the Community on 7th June the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a statement in support of our case; the text of this statement has been made available to Deputies. Some days later a detailed memorandum was submitted to the Community the purpose of which was to outline the Government's policy for the expansion of industrial production and employment, to describe the export tax reliefs in detail and their role in the implementation of the Government's policy and to explain the need for their retention. The matter is now under examination by the Community and it is not possible at this stage to say whether they will be in a position to give a reaction to our proposal before the summer recess.

Deputies were circulated some time ago with the text of the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Community on 2nd March in which he indicated the broad objectives of our economic development policy. He outlined the means used to achieve these objectives and indicated the Government's views on the aims and characteristics which would be appropriate to the regional policy of an enlarged Community progressing towards economic and monetary union. While this question of regional policy is not a negotiating issue as such it is one to which the Government attach major importance in the context of our membership of the enlarged Community. We hope to submit a detailed memorandum to the Community next week in furtherance of our vital interest in this matter.

Another important development which I think I should mention, although it is not a negotiating issue as such, is that the Community have now proposed that common procedures should be established so as to ensure that in the period between the signing of the treaty of accession and its coming into force decisions taken by the Community institutions take full account of the interests of the applicant countries as prospective members of the Community. It is envisaged that consultations should take place with the applicant countries in the interim period before such decisions are taken.

The Community have further suggested that the common procedure to be agreed should apply equally to any decisions by the applicant countries which might affect the obligations which they will have as members of the Community. It has been agreed that the Deputies should draw up proposals for a common procedure. It is possible there may be discussions between the Community and the applicant countries on precise proposals before the summer recess. This development is of great significance as it means, in effect, assuming the conclusion of the negotiations and the signing of the treaty of accession at the end of this year, that we shall be participating—to a degree to be defined in the agreed common procedures—in the work of the Community institutions during 1972.

It will be evident to Deputies from what I have said that we are now well into the decisive stage of our negotiations. The Community are responding in substance to the proposals which we have put to them in support of our positions on various major issues and solutions are now beginning to emerge on a number of these issues. It would hardly be realistic to expect that it would be possible to agree on solutions on all our major negotiating issues before the summer holidays but, as I have said, we are pressing that solutions be found to some of them in the period remaining. Solutions on the remaining issues will then have to be found in the months after the holidays if the schedule for the completion of the negotiations as a whole by the end of 1971 is to be adhered to. The year 1972 will then be open for the necessary constitutional, legislative and other preparations for membership. The expected timetable should serve to bring home to all of us the urgent need to intensify and accelerate at all levels and in all sectors of the economy the necessary preparation for membership. This is what the Government have been urging and will continue to urge.

In so doing the Government are not, as some commentators have asserted, trying to stampede the country by anticipating, by taking for granted the result of the referendum on the question of accession to the Communities or by playing down the fact that a referendum would have to be held in any event. Those who assert this must really imagine that the Irish public are extremely gullible to think that this Government or any Government should contemplate such a colossal confidence trick. Of course we must have a referendum; it is required by the Constitution and the Government have said so all along. In fact, there is a chapter on the subject in the Government's White Paper of April, 1970. We shall also have a debate in the Dáil and a vote on the terms of accession which will be set out in detail in a White Paper to be published when the negotiations are over.

This then is the position in regard to consulting Parliament on the terms of accession and on the holding of a referendum. I do not think that the Government are due any special merit on this score. The requirements prescribed in the Constitution will be rigidly adhered to as they must be but I have mentioned the matter today to scotch, once and for all I hope, the assertions of those who talk in a grossly misleading manner of the Government attempting to force or insinuate something on an unsuspecting Irish public. At the same time, I must emphasise that the Government must proceed and must urge that all those concerned should proceed with preparations for membership of the Communities in the belief that the necessary approval will be forthcoming from the Dáil and the Irish public to enable accession to take place as envisaged on 1st January, 1973. I can say that for the Government to proceed otherwise would be worse than foolhardy.

An essential part of this process of preparing for membership of the Communities is to ensure that in the period leading up to the Dáil debate on the terms of our accession and to the referendum the Irish public are kept fully and accurately informed on the European Communities themselves, on our negotiations and the terms of accession agreed in the negotiations and on the implications for Ireland of membership. Ever since our application for membership of the EEC was first made in 1961—and it is interesting to note that it is almost ten years exactly since that application was formally presented on, I think, 1st July, 1961—the Government have been concerned to encourage full and thorough debate throughout the country on what membership will mean for Ireland. It must be admitted that there has been a certain lack of public interest. This, in a way, was understandable because of the disappointment and set-backs experienced since we first applied for membership. Indeed, it must have seemed at times that negotiations would never get under way.

The situation has now changed radically with the prospect of the conclusion of the negotiations by the end of this year and our accession to the Communities in January, 1973. There is now every sign that this question of membership, one of the most vitally important since the State was founded, is becoming a truly public issue. I very much welcome this development but I would hope that a certain balance would be maintained in the discussions about the Communities and our prospective membership. I very much hope also—and this is most important —that the Irish public will not be misled as to the options open to this country if we were to stay outside the enlarged Communities.

The original application for membership was made by the Government of the day in the firm belief that the interests of this country and the welfare of the Irish people would be best served by Ireland joining an enlarged Community which included the present member states and those other countries now seeking membership. This belief was based on a detailed examination of the economic options open to us. The present Government remained convinced of the validity of this decision. Indeed, developments in the Community in the decade since our first application was made, the experience of the member states and our examination of the economic position of this country and the possible options open to us have strengthened the Government in their conviction. It is in this conviction that we have maintained our application for membership of the Communities and are at present negotiating for membership.

Those who advocate an alternative course to membership of the enlarged Communities have a duty to indicate clearly to the Irish people where the advantages for Ireland would lie in any particular alternative course they advocate. I stated in 1967 in a debate here that such people must be prepared "to demonstrate convincingly that there is a valid alternative which can ensure for our people an expanding economy with opportunities of developing our economic potential at least as good as those available within the EEC". It is now more than four years since I made this statement and those who oppose our entry into the EEC have singularly failed to demonstrate the economic validity of any of the courses of action they advocate. They have failed to show—not surprisingly —that by remaining outside the enlarged EEC, which will include Britain, our major trading partner, we can continue to sell our agricultural and industrial products in increasing quantities abroad; and that we can continue to attract the foreign capital and technical know-how so necessary for continued and accelerated industrial development.

It is relevant to restate our national economic objectives: they are the expansion of the economy at a pace and to an extent which will achieve full employment; the ending of involuntary emigration and the provision of a standard of living for all our people comparable to that of the other countries of Western Europe. There can hardly be anybody in the House or the country who would not agree with and fully support these economic objectives for our nation. It is the Government's conviction, based on detailed and continuing examination of the facts and economic prospects of this country, that membership of the EEC will provide the necessary opportunities, impetus and dynamic to enable us to achieve these objectives.

We believe further that, given the limitations which are imposed on us to act independently in economic and trading matters, membership offers, perhaps, the only means by which these objectives can be achieved in the foreseeable future. For those who support the economic objectives of which I have spoken and at the same time advocate that we should remain outside an enlarged EEC, the obligation is clear; they must explain to the public how, while remaining outside the Community, we can hope to pursue effectively and to realise these objectives.

To date, they have failed singularly to do so. Much of the case made by opponents to membership of the EEC seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts or a failure to face up to them. There seems to be a disturbing refusal—against all evidence—to consider the nature of the EEC and its evolution and progress since 1958. There is a refusal to examine objectively the facts of our economic situation and our prospects for economic development in the light of the options open to us as a very small country.

Those who oppose our entry into the EEC would instead have us enter some form of trading or association relationship with the Community. However, even if it were open to us to negotiate a trade or association relationship such a course would affect radically the special trading arrangements we have with Britain. In particular, it could place in jeopardy our agricultural exports to that country, on which our farmers so largely depend. Furthermore, in such a relationship we could not hope—and this has been made abundantly clear to us—to participate in the Community's common agricultural policy and thus our farmers would be denied guaranteed and higher prices and free access to a much greater export market which membership would bring. In a situation of external relationship with the Community, we would have no say— which we should have as a member— in decisions of the Community in the economic and trading sectors which could seriously affect us.

I hope this debate and the discussions throughout the country in the coming months regarding the EEC and the implications for this country of membership will be conducted in an objective and realistic manner. We must not sell ourselves short in regard to our capacity to achieve what we want for our people; neither must we exaggerate the scope and extent of our freedom as a small country to act independently in pursuance of our interests.

There has been much talk in the debate about sovereignty and I have referred to this matter already. In essence, sovereignty means the ability and the freedom of a country to exercise a choice. We must not mislead ourselves as to our capacity to influence in our favour those events and developments outside this country which seriously affect us. The fact is that our freedom of choice is strictly limited in the economic and trade sectors. Far from diminishing this freedom, membership of the EEC would widen it. It is true that membership will create certain difficulties and the Government have never attempted to conceal this but, by making all the necessary preparations and using fully to our advantage the transitional arrangements negotiated, we can hope to diminish these difficulties to a considerable extent.

In turn, membership will present opportunities which will be of great benefit to this nation if availed of fully and imaginatively. The European Communities were founded in the realisation that none of the countries concerned acting alone could hope to gain what they desired for their own people in terms of economic growth, stability and social progress. The same is true of our country. The present day realities of economic growth and development of technology demand that we and other like-minded democratic countries of Europe increasingly integrate our economies and markets. In the Community we seek to join, one country's loss, far from being another country's gain, would be a loss to all members of the Community. The interests of each member will be the interests of all. With the enlargement of the Community, the foundations will be made of an integrated Europe, committed to peace in the world, to progress and prosperity for all and with common responsibilities towards developing countries of the Third World.

Now that the conclusion of negotiations is in sight, I should like to urge on all those persons whose contributions will be important that if we are to take full advantage of membership we must recognise the urgency of the situation. When I say all of those whose contributions will be important, I cannot visualise any sector that will not have an important contribution to make. Since 1961, ten years ago, we have put in train what we regard as the necessary measures to prepare our people, our industry, and our agriculture for membership. Now it appears there is only a little more than one-tenth of that period left.

I have mentioned the preparations we have urged and have taken to take advantage of membership but, equally, it is important that we be ready to withstand whatever disadvantages will show up. In an enlarged EEC we will be members of a Community whose desire it is to help their members but I do not expect that such help will be extended to the carrying of passengers. Therefore, unless we avoid that role we will face disadvantages. However, membership will have advantages but they will not come by free-wheeling. Even if the Community were disposed towards helping lame ducks, I do not think the Irish people would wish to depend on the generosity of others. All that we have sought since the foundation of our State is parity with other nations and equal opportunities in our trading and commercial relations.

The negotiations are not yet complete. We are not going to take only what we get—we shall strive to get what we want. However, having got what we regard as a satisfactory agreement for entry, then we will vigorously pursue with the Irish people their acceptance of that agreement and we will pursue the explanation of details of that agreement as it affects each sector. Assuming we get the agreement we seek, I believe the Irish people will accept it.

Mr. Donegan

I should like to take the opportunity of commenting on a few points made by the Taoiseach. Before the conclusion of his speech he said that we must be very careful to see that foreign capital and industrial know-how continue to flow into this country. I would point out to the Taoiseach that they will flow into this country in the expectation of our membership in the EEC. The Government have taxed by way of company taxation and the increased corporation profits tax the profits of companies here to a tremendous extent to the benefit of foreign entrepreneurs. The problem is not whether or not they will come; the problem is whether or not Ireland will be entirely owned by foreign entrepreneurs in the very near future because I want to remind the House that the source of capital investment here to employ our people is profit. There is no vast colonial wealth from days gone by. If those profits are going to be taxed by the Government as they have been taxed, then we shall find an Ireland not owned by the Irish but owned by the people who desire to get the benefits of the EEC.

In concluding his speech the Taoiseach said that the interest of each member of the EEC would be the interest of all. I am very much in favour of our accession as a full member of the EEC, but I hope I am a pragmatist. Who does the Taoiseach think he is codding? How many cases have there been in the Court of Justice in Brussels? How many times has the Taoiseach dealt with a continental? Whatever hope you have of making a bargain with a Britisher and having the bargain kept, the continental, as has been his way over the centuries, is confident that he can read the small type and get from you the very last drop of blood that is contained in that small type.

Let the Taoiseach realise that he is not going to a Sunday school. Let him realise that we have got to face up to the employment of our people. We on this side of the House are not completely happy with the negotiations as they have proceeded so far. We are not completely happy that the defence of the employment of our people or that the situation in regard to the creation of employment for those young people coming along and for those who are leaving agriculture has been properly dealt with by this Government.

Let me now move to my own few remarks, having dealt with the soft generalities of a Taoiseach who should know better. When the Taoiseach was speaking he might have adverted to the day it is. It is the day following the 48 hours in which Mr. Wilson of the Labour Party in England has told them that he will not lead the party unless they come behind him in favour of the EEC. Following that, yesterday, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Callaghan, made a stronger speech and it is quite clear that whatever dissidents there were in the British Labour Party in relation to accession to the Common Market, they are being told to toe the line. It is similarly clear that a majority of that party will come together with the Tory Party and that there will be a general view in England, translated into action by political votes in the House, that Britain should join the EEC.

At this stage the Taoiseach should have taken the opportunity to define our situation in the clearest terms that are politically possible, and as he has not done it I propose to do it for him. The position is that there are many people in this country who are fearful of the redundancies and of the upsets that will occur when we enter the Common Market. That is nothing more than natural. It is unfair to our people that we should expect them to have the same insight and the same knowledge of the problems of entry into the Common Market that they would expect of us. It is our job to translate for them into simple language what the situation is, and I will put it in one sentence: if Britain enters the EEC things can never be the same again. That should have been said by the Taoiseach.

Seventy-four per cent of our exports go to Britain. The Taoiseach generalised, but let me be specific. The position is that the prices of agricultural goods are supported by a system of target and intervention prices, the target price being the price which it is felt the farmer should get for his produce; the intervention price is the price at which, when on the ordinary market the price of the goods has dropped to a low level, the authority in Brussels intervene and pay subsidy or compensation to the farmer and to other people in the EEC for their loss due to the price being below the intervention price. Where does the money come from? It comes from the common external tariff which would be raised against us if we stayed outside, even on the cattle that we send to Britain. We would find ourselves in the position of paying some hundreds of millions of pounds—the estimate has been put at £300 million to £400 million—to Brussels and would not secure any adjustment in prices in times of stress, strain or glut. That should have been said by the Taoiseach. That is why we are going into the Common Market.

The time has come for straight and clear talking. Naturally the Labour Party are worried about redundancies. Why should they not be? In my constituency, in fact, in my own town a factory laid off 83 people only a few days ago, and the union representative, a classmate of mine at school, was quoted in the Irish Independent as saying that in that industry, namely, the weaving industry, there had been 1,800 redundancies in the last few years.

I want to define quite clearly Fine Gael's position in relation to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, but I want also to define the proper concern of the Labour Party in relation to redundancies. I want also to give my personal opinion and what I believe to be the opinion of my party, namely, that as Mr. Wilson has spoken in support of Mr. Heath, as Mr. Callaghan has spoken in support of Mr. Wilson, as a 20,000 word White Paper on the Common Market is to be released by the British Government tomorrow, as we have reached an advanced stage in our negotiations, the question of choice is now lying in the past. That was not made as clear as it should have been made by the Taoiseach. The question that now arises as between both sides in this House is whether or not the Government are doing their job as the representative of a small nation to get the very best bargain. I repeat that I am absolutely clear in my mind that the continentals will bargain and bargain and bargain again—that is a phrase from an address I made at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis— and when they have done that they will invoke every clause in every section of that bargain to see to it that their nation—and I use the phrase "their nation" deliberately—get the maximum benefit.

We are going in like a child in arms. We have a Minister for Foreign Affairs who finds himself able to be extremely pleasant here in the Dáil. He is somebody we all like in this House, but I want to know whether or not a pleasant bedside manner—and I make this entirely as a political charge because the gentleman is a friend of mine —in this House and in Brussels is a substitute for knowledge of business, for knowledge of and toughness in the art of politics and for a capacity for the voluminous work that has been done, for instance, by the Rt. Hon. Mr. Rippon for the British Government.

I want to point now to a particular problem that has been mentioned by the Taoiseach as something that has not been settled. I refer to the question of fishing in relation to our accession to the EEC. I want to ask if our Minister for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the quotations I am now going to give, is on top of his job, whether the Government are on top of their work and whether they should be replaced by a Government, whether it be a Fine Gael Government or any other type of Government—preferably the Fine Gael Government that I am going to fight for in the very near future— whatever type of Government it would be it would be a Government with more concern for the public weal, more energy and more expertise as far as negotiations are concerned. I will quote from the Dáil Official Report of last Tuesday. Deputy Begley and I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, since his replies of 23rd June, 1971, any changes had occurred in this country's position vis-à-vis the common fisheries policy of the EEC and if so what the changes were and their effect. The Minister's reply and the supplementaries were as follows:

Dr. Hillery: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 25 and 26 together. We are seeking in the negotiations arrangements on fisheries which will best protect our own particular interests. So is each of the other applicant countries. The proposals which I put forward to the Communities on 7th June still stand.

Mr. Donegan: Is it not so that since the question of 23rd June an agreement has been made regarding the efforts of Norway and that this was made without any reference to the problems of Ireland? Is it not so that there is some danger of our being bracketed with Denmark?

Dr. Hillery: This is absolutely without foundation in any source of information, public or private. There has not been any arrangement about fisheries with any of the four applicants but there has been agreement that there will be meetings with the four applicants on this question. It is impossible to deal with repetitions of something that is simply not true.

Mr. Donegan: I am glad to hear it.

Deputy Keating then took up the supplementaries. Three days later the Financial Times, on page 7, carried a report under the heading “Norway's fishing may get special treatment”. It is as follows:

The Six today clearly confirmed that they are considering giving special treatment to the Norwegian fishing industry when the Community is enlarged to ten members. In a declaration read to the Norwegian negotiating team the Community implicitly recognised that it might not be possible to solve Norway's problems in the same way as those of Britain, Ireland and Denmark. In meetings with the Danes and the Irish yesterday, the Community delegation confined itself to reading out the statement on fisheries agreed with Mr. Rippon in Luxembourg last week. This simply states that the Six are prepared to reconsider their fisheries policy in the context of the Community's enlargement.

There we have a situation which we knew perfectly well existed from reading reports, as it is my bounden duty to do as shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce in the largest Opposition party. We knew there were negotiations in relation to Norway.

Mr. Colley

Which negotiations is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Donegan

Do I have to quote again?

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is quoting a rumour.

Mr. Donegan

I hope I will be allowed for lost time. I will quote again:

In a declaration read to the Norwegian negotiating team the Community implicitly recognised that it might not be possible to solve Norway's problems in the same way as those of Britain, Ireland and Denmark.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy quoted an article which confined itself to stating precisely what the Minister for Foreign Affairs had said.

Mr. Donegan

I refuse to be harassed but I will quote again what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said:

This is absolutely without foundation in any source of information, public or private. There has not been any arrangement about fisheries with any of the four applicants but there has been agreement that there will be meetings with the four applicants on this question. It is impossible to deal with repetitions of something that is simply not true.

I knew that the Norwegian delegation were told they would get special treatment and that there is a danger we will be bracketed with Britain and Denmark. Do the Minister and the Taoiseach know that an ordinary Dutch trawler can get from Dunmore East to Rotterdam in less than 24 hours, that it is of between 300 and 500 tons? They will find that these trawlers are entirely refrigerated and that they are capable of catches that could denude our fishing grounds in a decade. I knew about the situation in Brussels but a couple of days later the Taoiseach came in here with waffles, like Mr. Pastry waffled his way to fame and fortune.

I am restricted in regard to time but I wish to deal briefly with the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. When the agreement came before the House the Fine Gael Party put down a reasoned amendment that the agreement would be accepted as a prelude to a movement towards entry to the EEC. On 1st July we reached the half way stage in the agreement period. When the agreement was before us we in Fine Gael saw the probability that we would find ourselves in Europe and we desired that our economy, our targets and our plans would be aimed towards the defence of jobs and the creation of new jobs here in the context of EEC membership. We knew that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement should be taken as part of the freer trade which would become inevitable with entry to Europe but we were at that time the subject of shouts across the House.

How wise Fine Gael were at that time to recognise the free trade agreement with Britain as merely an expansion of the agreement negotiated by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello in 1948. How wise we were to see that there was necessity for us to enter a greater Europe. How stupid were the Government not to have set their sails towards Europe for Ireland's benefit.

I adverted to the position in regard to the Labour Party. There is common ground on this side of the House in regard to the dissatisfaction that exists with the standards of the Government's negotiations. If we have reached a stage where access to Europe is a certainty, the question of decision does not arise any longer. The common ground that exists on this side of the House on this matter will be united with the dissatisfaction of the people of the country with the negotiations. There will be a change of Government as a direct result and I want to state the position of Fine Gael in case younger Deputies or those with other interests do not appreciate what the plain policy of this party has been from the time we first heard of the imminence of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and of EEC membership.

We are a small nation. If you exclude Luxembourg we have the smallest population of the countries seeking to enter the EEC. Therefore, our economic influence on change, our economic influence on things that might be given to us, is minimal. It is easier for the people in Brussels to give special concessions to Ireland than to any other nation. This has not been availed of.

I know practically word by word all the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, and I know most of the Treaty of Rome. I fully realise that there is a difference between these two documents. One is, if you like, a bilateral agreement between two States which allowed for specific bargaining in great detail before it was signed. In that document there are even letters from Ministers as evidence of decisions taken in relation to various products including cattle and beef If I am not mistaken, they were signed by the ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said it as well in reply to questions. Now it is denied by the Taoiseach. This is further evidence that the Government are at odds and that they are incapable of any concerted action or negotiation.

The Taoiseach spoke about dumping. I do not know whether he has had any business experience but the fact is that there has been considerable dumping under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the fact is that there will be considerable dumping under EEC conditions no matter what we do. We may as well face that. This is one of the reasons why the Labour Party are worried. I contend that the time for decision is over. There is no possible way in which a lady's frock, or a pair of lady's shoes, or any of what I call the choice industries in relation to which there may be ten or 12 different items in the shops all at different prices, can be price controlled. If the people who are doing it are careful about their nefarious activities, there is no way of proving that there is dumping in the choice industries of clothes and in various other industries perhaps going right across a broad spectrum of at least 50 per cent of our purchases.

We may as well face it. We are going in. There are pluses and there are minuses. The generalisations of a Taoiseach who at all times seems almost on the point of saying what used to be said long ago: "Wrap the green flag round me boys", are of no use to the ordinary person who will lose his job because of dumping. The evidence of the lack of negotiation by the Government in this regard is contained in the behaviour of that Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in the past three months.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has two minutes left.

Mr. Donegan

I thought I had five. However, on the Control of Exports Bill less than two months ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that no negotiations had been started during the review year period, which ended on July 1st, in relation to industries that had been harmed by the Agreement. Three weeks later he said negotiations would be allowed to proceed after 1st July and on 1st or 2nd July the Minister was able to give us a list of affected industries. If on the only other international agreement on trade which has serious effects on this country the Minister had to be kicked in the last three months of the year of review into asking for a review in the areas of difficulty, what hope have we with this EEC negotiating team? The Minister for Industry and Commerce literally had to be kicked from this side of the House into making a review during the year of review.

Mr. Colley

I think the Deputy actually believes that.

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy knows it to be true and if the Minister wants it from the debates he will get it. That is evidence that the Government are not fit to be the negotiators on something which is inevitable in my view. We need to bargain as we never bargained before.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It ill-became the Taoiseach today in his concluding remarks to taunt those with a view which is apparently at variance with that of the Government on their lack of information of alternatives to the Government's proposals for full entry. He knows as well as everybody in opposition to the general direction of Government policy on this matter that the full working out of alternatives demands a great deal of expertise which is at the full disposal only of the civil servants in various Government Departments.

He also knows that the few small groups with their tiny resources who are attempting to arm the Irish public with the beginnings of a contrary viewpoint have done a great public service because, in their absence, there would have been no debate. In their absence presumably this House would have given a carte blanche to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as he is now known. Obviously during these negotiations he has been graduated from commonwealth status to European status. Presumably throughout this debate we could have huzzaed him each week as though this were a cumainn meeting or a Cairde Fáil gathering of old boys praising his latest forays into Europe. Instead those private groups and this party in this House have attempted to get honest thinking on the important question of our entry into the EEC.

The Government party, more than any other party, has contributed more to our gross total dependence on the British economy and it ill becomes that party now to taunt Opposition parties with their inability to provide an alternative in the context of our total dependence on the British economy. To underscore that total dependence our Minister for Foreign Affairs is today in London talking to Sir Alec Douglas Home. It is a strange turnabout in fortune when republicans can talk with belted earls on important questions affecting the future of their state. Presumably the Minister for Foreign Affairs is getting a pre-Press view of the British White Paper to be published tomorrow. Presumably that is the real reason why the Minister for Foreign Affairs can afford to overlook this important debate here; he is getting more important information in London. This meeting underlines, what has been a fact from the very start, the real influence in our application for membership of the EEC.

Since we last debated this issue British entry has become more assured. Whilst a formal decision has not been made it looks as if the formalities will be completed by the autumn. Whether or not there is a free vote in the British Parliament it looks as if Parliament will agree on British entry into Europe. Quite naturally, in view of our dependence on the British economy, if British entry becomes a fait accompli, the national debate in this country will then become one on the kind of relationship we must have with an enlarged Community. That relationship can go all the way from full membership, which the Government proposes, right across to a trade agreement or some new agreement.

It ill becomes the Taoiseach also on this day of days, when taunting these disloyal and disreputable people who question the sagacity of the Government's approach to Europe, to ask these people for their alternatives when one considers that the national trade union movement is at this moment in Limerick deciding—may have decided, for all I know—to come out in opposition to the Government's policy. The resolution speaks of the dissatisfaction with the information at the disposal of the trade union movement and their concern—indeed, this has been Labour's concern from the start— about the employment position and the effect on people here.

The Taoiseach referred to the unchanged policy of the Government in regard to entry since 1961. Imagine the wisdom, or lack of it, of trying to enter the EEC in 1961! Whatever the state of our industry now, imagine what lay before us in 1961 had we entered then. The Taoiseach is a master of the cliché and he excelled himself in cliché today when he said that throughout our history we had merely looked for parity with other nations and neither did the Irish people like being treated like lame ducks. Lame ducks indeed!

The Taoiseach said the conclusion of our negotiations is in sight. What an extraordinary assertion. I had not known they had begun. Presumably the conclusion is in sight because the British White Paper comes out tomorrow and this will conclusively end whatever negotiations have been going on at our end. Labour's opposition to Government policy starts on jobs and spreads into such areas as that of our sovereignty and our neutrality, all issues of importance, issues which the party opposite at another stage in our history regarded as of some importance. Apparently these things do not matter very much any more but we, in the Labour Party, still invest them with a considerable degree of importance. Our opposition, based on jobs and spreading into other areas, will continue because we will still continue to push the necessity of a national debate to devise the kind of relationship that best suits the needs of our country. Even should we become full members of the Community we believe that certain preconditions should be spelled out.

Labour's opposition from the start has been based on the reality of our situation and not on the wishful thinking of the Government Party. That reality is based on jobs and the state of the economy. As I say, our opposition will continue. We hope that the Government in the promised White Paper will descend from its spurious omniscience and give us an insight into the official mind on alternatives other than full membership. We are entitled to that. We are entitled to be told why this Government rejects any other arrangements except full membership. Those whom the Taoiseach taunted for their lack of an alternative suggestion are entitled to know exactly what constitutes the background thinking of the Government which rejects all save full membership. We need a relationship suitable to the needs of the unique position of our own economy. We believe that relationship at its most ideal would be one which would give our agricultural products immediate entry and give a long period of preparation for our industrial products. That would be the ideal in full membership. Outside of that we believe there should be some arrangement which would protect our industrial arm and give our agriculture a chance of getting at the high prices prophesied in the enlarged Community.

There are advantages and disadvantages in all relationships. The Government, because of their insistence from the very start on full membership status and our fitness for that status, has thrown away any possibility of negotiating other kinds of relationship. We are dissatisfied with the Government negotiators because from the very start they showed themselves stereotyped in a certain negotiating mould. They closed their minds to other types of arrangements which might have suited our economy better.

The Government by their negotiating strategy have severely limited the opportunity of other kinds of arrangements which might have suited our unique economic position. They seek full membership in a Europe whose future political development they do not understand, full membership in a Europe regarding which neither the Government nor our negotiators have said anything about its future political make-up. The political future of Europe is at least an element in the consideration of other countries seeking membership. The Norwegian Parliament have discussed the kind of Europe they seek, what its foreign policy should be and how decisions should be arrived at. These, however, are all items which apparently do not exist for us and like the notorious fisheries issue it is something we shall consider after we enter.

In his famous Memorandum to the Community in April, on the outline of the Government's views in relation to regional policy, Deputy Dr. Hillery said:

In response the Community Delegation noted the Minister's statement with great interest. They said that it would be taken into account in the discussions to be held later in the negotiations on this subject between the Irish and the Community Delegations.

We read great significance into the distant, polite interest of the Community in our various submissions.

We do not appear to be very interested in the political future of this Europe, how decisions will be made and whether the Commission will hold supremacy, whether the Council of Ministers will hold supremacy or whether it will be a Federal or a Confederal Europe. These are matters way beyond the ken of our humble Irish negotiators who will come along apparently in the wake of the British White Paper to tidy up whatever trivial problems remain.

When one considers our unique situation one realises there are no trivial matters concerning this application. Just as the absence of a regional policy is the most serious omission in the present Community, so the absence of political control in that Europe, and whether power will lie with such countries as Germany, Britain or France, is of immense importance to a small country like ourselves. On the economic side it is of great importance that the probable future development of this side of the Community's work should be known to us not merely because of its intrinsic interest but because, of all the countries applying, we probably have the greatest amount of underdevelopment, and therefore the greatest need of a regional plan motivated by a political will that acknowledges our problems.

Whether we would prefer the Commission to be a balance between the different national interests or whether it would suit us better to go along with the Pompidou concept of major powers deciding, which is not much changed from the de Gaulle model, are matters which have to be discussed. These are not academic matters but matters of the greatest importance in relation to the kind of economic policies that may be followed in the EEC. Like so many other vital matters, it is to be considered when we finally enter, to judge by the silence of our negotiators.

The monetary union may be further advanced before Britain enters. It must either call for some settlement in the direction of a federal or confederal arrangement or strengthening of either the Commission's powers or the powers of the Council of Ministers. Do we want the kind of Europe which will meet in Chequers and pass on word to the smaller countries like ourselves? Is this the kind of Europe we are looking for? What reception would that kind of arrangement for our problems have? I should like an admission from Deputy Dr. Hillery as to where we stand in this political development of Europe since it has such a clear bearing on the way we may expect our interests to be treated.

The Government have thrown away many bargaining opportunities. They threw away neutrality, which is an old story and I do not want to go back on it. What a tragedy it was that in 1961 we had a Government negotiating who never understood what neutrality meant in European terms; who thought neutrality was a left-over from the second World War and treated it as such; who threw away this very valuable bargaining counter when it could have been a valuable adjunct for an arrangement which would suit the unique situation of this country. All other forms of relationship apart from a trade agreement, lead eventually to full membership after a shorter or longer period. Had the Government driven home the fact that our neutrality had an ideological content to it— perhaps that was too strong a way to put it—it would have been something. But to say in advance that this neutrality meant nothing to us, that we were neutrals of a special, identifiable kind, was a national tragedy. It was idiotic and in view of what we should have been attempting to negotiate it was downright foolish. Advantages which have been lost are well and truly lost and there is no point in going back over them, but we are left in the situation now where, in the prospect of British entry, the Government proceeds along its preordained course for full membership. Our opposition throughout must be one that seeks to gain the greatest concessions from the known will of the Government at any particular time.

The biggest area of omission, and I referred to it earlier, is the absence of a regional policy. I am not going to berate the EEC exclusively on the absence of a regional policy, although they deserve it, but the problems of their member states do not call for a regional policy with the same urgency as our situation here calls for a regional policy. The problem in Southern Italy has not been corrected to any great degree and, in the Hallstein situation in Germany, the policy has not changed things very greatly and, in Belgium, the matter of regional underdevelopment has not been overcome.

The Community listened with polite interest to Deputy Dr. Hillery in his speech to which I have already referred. I do not blame them for listening with polite interest because it reads like a brochure for an adult education course in economics. It fills up four pages, but it does not say anything. One can imagine a few civil servants working for a day in order to ensure that they would say nothing over the four or five pages. I imagine the people who heard the Minister reading that document say: "Here is a Minister from a fully developed economy coming to us with the normal problems faced by any other country in our Community." The tragedy is that our problems are not shared by any other member of the Community. The so-called isolationist party which under its own financial steam has done more travelling in Europe than any other political party in this House and made more political contacts than any other party in this House, has engaged in more political discussions on the kind of Europe that might possibly eventuate than any other party in this House. What have we discovered from our contacts? What we have discovered is that most of these European countries have no conception of the problems we have in this country and I go so far as to say that it is doubtful whether the Commission themselves understand the radical nature of the problems of economic underdevelopment of this country. Of course, like the way we threw over neutrality, this Government have been so much in love with the brochure that they have not had the guts to admit in Europe that this is a major underdeveloped economy and the Taoiseach can come out with this nonsense today about not wishing to be a lame duck.

The EEC, as I said before, is more than an all-Ireland final, more than an athletic contest. The Labour Party does not say the Irish worker has less energy, less interest in his work, than any other worker, or that the employer is less hard working than other employers. We are simply saying that the competitive edge is with these large industrial nations with a longer industrial tradition and the morale of the Irish people is of no avail in such a situation and that it lies with our negotiators to correct this natural imbalance.

We do not see the evidence of a regional policy in the EEC. Even if the Minister for Foreign Affairs were so minded, he could not give the people he spoke to that day evidence of a regional policy existing here now. I do not wish to berate the EEC; I wish to say that our own Government at home have done very little on the matter of the development of a regional policy. The Buchanan Report is now two years old. What is being done about that? I presume that with the invitation cards in the bottom drawer of every Minister's desk lies a copy of the Buchanan Report. Nothing more has been heard of the report. The people still leave the land. Of course this Government lack the courage to say where the areas of growth should be throughout the country. The point is that we cannot go to Europe or anywhere else looking for a regional policy when the national Government have not made up their mind as to the components of a regional policy here and now. Yet the Taoiseach told us this afternoon that the conclusion of our negotiations is in sight. The national trade union centre complain that there is no information. We have no regional policy that I know of at this time. We do not know the shape of this political Europe that we are going into, nor do we attempt in any official publication to state our objectives in a decision making composition of an enlarged Community. Has the Minister in his journeyings discussed it with anyone? Yet, the conclusion of our negotiations is in sight.

Is it any wonder that we have opposition to entry on the kind of scandalous treatment this Government are giving the country in relation to information? Admittedly one may take a cynical view of it and say it does not matter, the British have made up their mind, and that is it. I have never been under any illusion about the sovereignty we have been coat-trailing for 40 years now, but I would say let us at least attempt to make the meagre most of what little sovereignty we have. That is my greatest accusation of this Government. They have not attempted to do even that. They have gone gaily ahead with this adventure of theirs without much thought. They have convinced quite a lot of people in Europe that this is a normal economy. It is not. The proportions of our population, to take no other statistic, in agricultural and industrial employment are totally different from those in any other country in Europe, demanding, therefore, totally different conditions.

Let no one in this debate think the attitude of the Labour Party remarkable. It would have been remarkable if the attitude had been any different. We opposed from the start this adventure of the Government because we did not think we were competitively up to the things they thought we were up to. In 1961 they thought we could take on the competition of Europe. I do not think anyone would say now that at that time we were. It may be all right for them to gamble but I do not think it would be so good for a small Labour Party, tied largely to a working class vote to do so. We could not take risks in that opposition situation.

I hope that the Government would at least give us further information on the negotiations thus far, that at least they could concede that there is an element of validity in the arguments of those who look for other kinds of relationship other than full membership and see that it is not simply a question of opposition for opposition's sake but appreciate that there are real grounds for disquiet, real grounds for objection, real worries about our future. However difficult it may be— and I concede they have handed away most of the valuable bargaining counters that might have lain in their possession—I hope that at least in the remaining weeks that lie to them they will attempt to negotiate on the realities of the Irish situation.

I hope that before the end of this month, after July 12th, we will have a further debate on the political aspects of the EEC. I would ask Government speakers not to rely on the kind of claptrap they have been giving out on this matter for ten years but to attempt to meet the real opposition on real concerns. Let us not attempt to score debating points in this context. I do not care who wins in any referendum or in any eventual election. The matters at issue are of immense concern to every Irish man and woman. No other decision that we have faced in this century has been as grave in its consequences for all of us and our descendants. I must express myself as totally disappointed with the kind of speech made by the Taoiseach today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr. O'Kennedy)

It sometimes appears, having regard to many of the arguments that are posed, both pro and con, on the question of our accession to membership of the European Economic Community that the arguments, particularly against our accession, are often posed as if the whole emergence of the European Economic Community had never happened, as if the forces that gathered together in Europe after the last world war had never gathered, as if the Treaty of Rome had never been signed. I can sympathise a lot with the general view one finds occurring that it would be grand for us in Ireland if these things had never happened and if we were in a position to pursue our own sweet way, to preserve what people call the integrity of our own national identity and to do all such things as if we were living in isolation in a notional situation. It may, of course, appeal to almost every Irish person that it would perhaps be more desirable and appropriate for us that we should live in such a cloud-cuckoo-land.

The realities, of course, are far different. The Treaty of Rome has been signed. The European Economic Community is a reality and any arguments we have at this stage must be on the basis of these realities and any arguments that we pose as to the alternatives available to us must also be on the basis of the realities of these alternatives, if such they are.

It is, for instance, suggested that our sovereignty will be compromised in this exercise and, to this extent at least, I acknowledge what Deputy O'Leary had to say, that our sovereignty in the last 40 years has been a limited type of sovereignty, having regard to the fact that we are influenced by events outside our control and we are, in a very small way, and only in a small way, able to do anything to control these events.

So much, I think, for the argument that our sovereignty as such must be preserved beyond all things because this very sovereignty is the type of sovereignty that may be allows us to engage in comfortable, aloof criticisms of events from Africa to Europe, to South America, ignoring the fact, from time to time, that this comfortable self-indulgent criticism of ours has very little effect on the situations in those countries. It is significant that many of those who oppose our membership of the European Economic Community are those who are most readily disposed on every occasion to offer value judgments which may satisfy their own egos, which may somehow give them a certain source of personal satisfaction but which, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out here on many occasions, can be of very little effect on the international scene. While we would wish that this were not so nonetheless we must be realistic and accept that this to a very large extent is so. It is only since we became members of international organisations, and particularly the United Nations, that we have been able to do something not just for ourselves but for the world and, in fact, to express real concern about the manner in which the latter is developing.

This, in many ways, is rather characteristic of those who want to preserve this happy isolationism that, perhaps, we have not enjoyed in any event. What kind of sovereignty is it that does not allow us to influence in any way events which influence us? If the EEC had never happened perhaps we would still have to ask ourselves this question at this time. Surely it is unrealistic to suggest, even on the question of neutrality, that the neutrality which was followed by this country during the last war would mean anything to us in the event of a future international conflagration. If there ever were to be—one dreads to think of the thought—an international conflagration in future years of what value to us would our notional neutrality be in such circumstances?

I do not want to dwell very long on this expect to say that we are not now living in the days of the city State, nor in the days of the entirely independent nation State, the tribal State. We are living in days of national States but of national States which are influenced by international events, of national States which are concerned for international events. It is very much a happy characteristic of our times that we are as nations concerned, not just for ourselves but concerned, even for selfish reasons if for no other, with the development and the direction of world events also.

It is suggested, in line with this unrealistic argument, that we should have then looked for other alternatives. We should particularly have sought what Opposition speakers to this proposal —those who oppose it—suggest, that is, we should have sought some form of association. That is a very happy suggestion if such were feasible. From our point of view at this time or, indeed, at any time having regard now to the development of the European Economic Community such an alternative is just not feasible for a number of reasons. It is not feasible in the first instance because the European Economic Community countries do not themselves wish to engage in negotiations in that context because many of the association agreements already negotiated have been negotiated in the light of the international obligations of many of the countries which have made such agreements such as Finland, which has a rather delicate position vis-à-vis both Russia and the Western European powers, Austria which is bound by a 1955 international agreement in any event and other countries which have problems in this area which we do not have.

Over and above that, there is a very significant aspect of the association agreements under discussion at present even between the EFTA and applicant countries. It is abundantly clear, as the Taoiseach said today, that one of the characteristics of the association agreements—it is even one of the characteristics of the negotiations which are at present proceeding between these associated countries and the EEC—is that participation in the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community will not be allowed.

This is not a matter of great concern for Sweden, Switzerland, Austria or Finland because Austria with the highest agricultural exports of those countries—5½ per cent of her total exports are agricultural—can hardly be concerned to the same extent as we are with participation in the common agricultural policy when we have a corresponding figure of roughly 55 per cent. Is it realistic then to suggest that if Ireland would like an association agreement that the Community would vary the terms of the association agreements, which specifically seem to exclude and will exclude sharing the common agricultural policies, to suit the Irish application? We have to have regard to economic reality. One of the main advantages of membership of the European Economic Community is, in fact, participation in the common agricultural policy.

Deputy O'Leary's criticisms about the way we so easily abandoned our neutrality, that we did not endeavour to make application for associate membership are just not in accordance with the facts. Even if they were they would be based on a very unrealistic interpretation of development in Europe and of the benefits accruing to us from that development. I relate my remarks to the economic arguments that have been made. Some of the arguments are rather emotive and have been addressed particularly to the housewives. It has been suggested, for instance, that the high agricultural policy will mean high food prices. It has been suggested that in the Common Market at the present time 1 lb of butter costs 10s, which is double the Irish price, 1 lb of steak costs 15s and 1 lb of sugar costs 1s 10d and that, accordingly, on joining the European Economic Community the Irish housewife will be faced with all those very much increased costs and, of course, that this will give rise to considerable increases in wage demands with, again, an extension of the inflationary trend which is apparent in this country for some time and which let me say has been apparent in almost every developing country for some time.

An approach to membership in terms of its effect on the cost of living is misleading for a number of reasons. First, it is important to remember that there is no common European price for steak, for butter, for sugar or for pork. Therefore, any arguments put forward on that basis are futile. Of course one might refer immediately to a reply given here by the Taoiseach on the 29th June, 1971, indicating the price per pound of the various commodities in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg but it must be noted that those who oppose membership of the Community on the basis of the cost of living, have, in each case, given as examples the countries having the highest cost per pound for the various commodities. This is inaccurate. The figures given by the Taoiseach contradict very effectively the prices quoted at page 25 of the second edition of the pamphlet, Why Ireland Should Not Join, which was issued by the Common Market study group. These figures do not take into account the fact that there is no common price within the Community for the commodities mentioned. Neither do such arguments take into account the fact that the financial adjustments involved in EEC entry will be subject to arrangements negotiated for the transition, from the time of our accession in 1973 until the year 1978 and beyond, by which time we ourselves will be part of the machinery which will affect the cost of living not only here but in other countries.

Therefore, to say that these prices, however inaccurate, will apply immediately on accession, is inaccurate and is not in keeping with the transition that has taken place already between the EEC countries themselves and the transitional arrangements that will be accorded to us and the other applicant countries. Nonetheless I acknowledge that we must be concerned with the cost of living. We must ensure that events at home would not be such as would accentuate the trends of increasing inflation that we have experienced during the past few years.

Another area of very real concern for us is that of environment. This question would be important if we had never applied for membership but since we have applied it is all the more important. Most other European people do not enjoy the type of healthy and pure environment that we enjoy here. It is sometimes feared and suggested that that environment will be influenced by our membership of the Community. Maybe we have been rather tardy in indicating an awareness of the need to preserve our natural environment but there are signs now of such awareness and there are signs, too, of real activity.

I should like to deal with some of the advantages that may accrue to us in the preservation of our environment by virtue of our membership of the EEC. Those countries that are most heavily polluted are those which are engaged in heavy industry, notably, Germany, Holland, Luxembourg to some extent, and northern Italy to a great extent. Germany and Holland face problems in this respect that are of an order that we could hardly contemplate but these two countries have a strong tradition of heavy industry, of chemical industry and of industries of the type that are in themselves hazards to the environment. Ireland does not have such a tradition. There may be certain parts of Ireland in which there is a concentration of industry but by and large we do not have such a tradition. I cannot see how it would be to our economic advantage, much less to our environmental advantage that, in a European Community we would switch suddenly to heavy industry which would put us in direct competition with the Germans, the Dutch and the northern Italians. I do not think it has ever been suggested that we would do that. Rather it is suggested, with some notable exceptions, that what we should do is develop industries that will produce goods which characteristically are Irish in design, in quality and in texture thereby winning the European markets.

In this context it is well to realise that only those goods that are Irish in character will win a place for us in the Community markets. We must produce goods that are different from those produced by the other countries. The Germans have succeeded by concentrating on products that are heavy, durable and reliable. The Italians, on the other hand, with their flair for design, both in shoes and in cars, have benefited greatly from concentrating on these commodities. Surely if Ireland is to benefit it will not be from the type of heavy industry in which the Germans engage and which would add to the pollution of our environment, but rather, it will be from our concentration on the traditional skills and crafts in our textile industry and in many of the other industries that are emerging throughout the country, in particular the cottage-type craft industry, the products of which have been noted on the international scene.

I am not putting forward these proposals as a guarantee of the preservation of our environment but if we exclude heavy industry from our pattern within the EEC we shall protect our environment. In the unlikely event of our not becoming members, our industrial programme would, to some extent, have to extend to a wide area of industry. Quite likely we would be obliged, because of tariffs to engage in some aspect of heavy industry in which we have not been engaged heretofore.

Environment has been mentioned. It is acknowledged that farming will gain tremendously from our membership of the EEC. Agricultural production will increase. If we are to benefit from membership our agricultural production should be geared to an efficiency and extended in a manner which seems inconceivable for us at the present time. It is quite likely that we could and will become the primary agricultural producer of the EEC. I do not need to say more on this aspect. Agricultural produce does not come from factories which cause pollution. It is interesting to note that many parts of France, which is the primary producer at present in the EEC, are almost untypically free of environmental problems which are noticeable in other parts of Europe at present. It is obvious that we will have to preserve the extent of our farming land. We must take special precautions to preserve the purity of our rivers and to protect our natural game life. This preservation will protect our resources not only against ourselves but against those Europeans who do not seem concerned about wild life. Enlightened thinking in Europe will go a long way in helping to ensure that our island will be preserved and that the natural habitats of animals and wild life in Ireland will be protected as breeding places. Ireland will then remain a place of recreation not only for the Irish but for Europeans and others who visit us. These natural advantages must be preserved.

We have all been concerned with the concentration of development on the east coast of Ireland, and particularly with the concentration of development in and around Dublin. There are numerous reasons for this. One factor which brought about this concentration is our special trading position with England. It is economically more desirable to have production units as near as possible to our consumers in England and, vice versa, it is not inexplicable that industry along the east coast developed near the source of raw materials which traditionally have come from England. We can moan and groan about the Government and all parties may endeavour by virtue of incentives to check this position and to promote industries in many ways. but we cannot back away from the hard facts of our geographical position vis-à-vis our main trading partner. Is it not just possible that when we become members of the EEC we will not be totally concerned, as we have been because of the restrictions imposed by our geographical position, with development on the east coast but that the south, south-west and west which are in many ways as near or nearer Europe than the east coast, will benefit from membership and that the growth centres in Waterford, Cork, Shannon and Galway will be strengthened?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has one minute left.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I understood I was to speak until 6 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has one minute left.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Anyone who visits Shannon Airport will see that it is becoming a major transit stopping point for European-American traffic. In conclusion, may I refer in the space of half a minute to the educational system? We must have regard to the fact that we are spending £83 million on education. Some people still want to have small school units with every facility. They argue that the small units are characteristic of the Irish way of life. People want the same facilities for study as Europeans have in their units. We want all the facilities and also to retain the maximum number of teachers, irrespective of the cost. In conclusion, I would like to say that, while all of this isolation might be desirable, it is not in accord with reality. If we wish to provide our students with the type of education, the range of facilities, and the types of specialisation, particularly in the later stages of post-primary education, that are so vital to them, to our society and our economic future, we will have to agree that there is great need for change in some ways. There is need to amend in some ways the traditional structure of education.

Mr. J. Lenehan rose.

Dr. FitzGerald

I understand there is agreement about the order of speakers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have no information in regard to it.

Dr. FitzGerald

There is agreement between the Whips about the order of speakers and that the parties will be called in order for half-hour speeches——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is calling Deputy J. Lenehan.

Dr. FitzGerald

I protest.

Mr. J. Lenehan

The Deputy can protest all he wants.

Mr. R. Burke

The Whips have agreed to half hour rotation. I understand it is now the turn of Fine Gael to speak and I would respectfully suggest that Deputy FitzGerald be called.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is calling Deputy J. Lenehan.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is the Deputy being considered a Fine Gael Deputy for this purpose? As long as Deputy Lenehan is using the Government's time that is all right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy J. Lenehan, as an Independent.

He is not speaking in Fine Gael time.

Mr. Tully

May I make one point? I do not want to be involved in a wrangle here but I think the Chair is right—an Independent must be allowed to speak if he wants to and that is it but if necessary we can extend the time by a half hour for the purpose of getting the full time out of it. That is an easy way out.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept that.

Mr. R. Burke

That is agreeable.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I shall be very fast. In the last 100 years, as I have already said, the Germans have tried to capture western Europe by force of arms and they have failed. They have found a much more subtle method of capturing it and they have decided now to capture it by economic crookery. That is all I can call it. It is nothing better than that. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary who went before me knows so little about economics.

The Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. R. Burke

A Cheann Comhairle, before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle leaves the Chamber—I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy——

Dr. FitzGerald

That is not an issue and it should not be suggested that it is an issue.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

Everybody knows the Rules of Order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Evidently some people do not know the Rules of Order.

Mr. R. Burke

On a point of order——

Mr. J. Lenehan

If you leave me alone I will sit down in a few minutes. It is as simple as that.

Mr. R. Burke

I wish to find out what has happened to the agreement between the Whips. Do we have half-hour speeches from the end of Deputy Lenehan's contribution until 10.30 p.m. or is the time extended by agreement by the amount of time for which Deputy Lenehan will now speak?

Mr. J. Lenehan

Dr. O'Donovan

Unconstitutional ones.

Mr. J. Lenihan

There are not many in the country who could spell the word "constitutional", never mind know what it means. What about our marriage laws? They must be the most primitive outside the Congo. They are not laws but tribal customs put into operation in this country 500 or 600 years ago and never altered since. Not so long ago I remember women being bought in this country and men paying men to take their daughters off their hands. That system has not changed a great deal. I admit the dance-hall and Hitler changed much of that. What are we to do with the tinkers when we go into the Common Market?

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a serious debate and the time is limited. The Deputy should come to the question of the EEC.

Mr. J. Lenihan

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Kennedy, continued for half an hour or more and I think I am entitled to the same amount of time. What are we to do with the tinkers?

Mr. L. Belton

Send them into the towns.

Mr. J. Lenehan

No doubt we are living in our own cloud-cuckoo-land. We have not peace or ease or common sense at present. The man who is not fighting about something or blowing up one thing is blowing up something else. If they do not blow up the Silvermines in Tipperary they will blow up something in the North of Ireland. I think that is wrong and it is something I condemn. Bad as the Government are they have made some effort to make progress and have not received a great deal of thanks for it.

How will our language fare? We are entering a community where we shall probably have German, French, Italian and English. I hope we shall have Irish. I am one of the few Deputies, apart from Deputy Begley, normally speaking Irish. We are spending millions on Irish. I have no objection to this and I should love to see Irish developed but I am sufficiently realistic to recognise that we have as much chance of developing Irish as Bord na Móna have of sending a man to the moon next week. We must come down to earth. It is all right to go to the Parliamentary Secretary's territory which of course he has now left—I think he was wise— and speak Irish but you would have to go a good deal west of me before anybody would know what you were saying. Is this not wrong?

What are we doing about developing technical education? Nothing or practically nothing. All the children are educated to be priests, nuns, teachers, doctors and engineers and there is not a job for them in any part of the world while we have not a man to plaster a house, paint a wall or put up a slate. Are we taking any steps to correct that? We are going into the Common Market. Personally, I believe the market affords opportunities but if you have nothing to sell, obviously you can sell nothing. Where are we going? We have our community schools and other strange things thought up by some genius in some Department in Dublin but in the last analysis we are back again in the days of the Druids.

When we go into the Common Market—I believe the market in Belmullet on Saturdays is big enough for all we have to sell in most cases—where does our land go? Who buys it? While the 1965 Land Act was not the greatest fraud ever introduced it was certainly the greatest fraud that ever went out of here; it was brought in to cure all the ills and evils and it went out twice as bad as it came in. Those people will come over here and buy up our land. We all know that the price of land has escalated in recent years. Germans, Swiss and Dutch people will be able to come to this country and buy what land they wish.

What will happen to our fisheries? It is clear that unless we implement some programme whereby foreign fishermen will be kept at least 30 miles from our coastline there will not be any fish left in our waters. There are very few Deputies who know anything about the fishing industry but I was in the business for many years and I know what I am talking about. I know that the use of the monofilament net is illegal but this does not prevent foreign fishermen from using this kind of net. The Dutch, Danes and the Norwegians have the most sophisticated fishing gear in the world. Unless we take some measures to protect our fishing grounds, within two years of our entry into Europe there will be no fish left. This applies in particular to the west coast. It is necessary that we take urgent measures to protect our fishing grounds.

We have negotiating on our behalf a person who is great friend of mine, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, the Minister knows as much about fishing and economics as I know about flying jet planes. I am not casting any reflection on the Minister for Foreign Affairs when I say that we should appoint economic experts to negotiate on our behalf. How can a Minister who is a doctor of medicine negotiate for us in regard to the fishing industry?

Mr. Barrett

The Minister for Foreign Affairs lives on the coast.

Mr. J. Lenehan

That may be but he knows very little about the fishing industry. If we are in earnest about going into the EEC—which I doubt— we should employ economic experts to negotiate our case. I doubt if there are many Deputies who would not agree with me on this point; even Government Deputies who normally disagree with me on everything realise the facts of the situation. Up to now we have not faced up to realities. We are going to try to enter Europe with one hand as long as the other. The man from Connaught might as well go to hell as go into Europe—at least he would have a good fire there.

Dr. FitzGerald

At the outset I should like to make it plain that, contrary to the implications of remarks made at 6 o'clock, in intervening at that point neither I nor the Fine Gael Whip were seeking to exclude an Independent Deputy from speaking. That would be against the traditions of the Fine Gael Party and this House. As an agreement had been reached about the order of speakers we were concerned to clarify at whose expense, in terms of that agreement, the intervention was made. We were a little afraid that for this purpose Deputy Lenehan might be treated as a Fine Gael speaker and, for more than one reason, that worried us a little. Having said that——

Mr. Andrews

I should like to make it clear that we were not trying to prevent Deputy Lenehan speaking. Just to clear the situation, how could Deputy Lenehan be party to an agreement made between myself, Deputy Burke and Deputy Kavanagh?

Dr. FitzGerald

We were anxious to clarify the effect of Deputy Lenehan's intervention. I apologise if I have reopened a discussion which should be left——

Mr. Andrews

Deputy FitzGerald is making a petty point.

Dr. FitzGerald

I merely wanted to clarify a point. This was necessary because several remarks, even from the Chair, suggested different interpretations of what happened. I was interested to note from Deputy Lenehan's concluding remarks the suggestion that economic experts should take over the negotiations. Whoever the Deputy may have been thinking of in this regard, I have a fair idea it was not me, judging by the tenor of his remarks about me in this House. However, what he said rang a bell with me, not that I consider economic experts should ever undertake negotiations.

It is fair to say that some concern is felt over the fact that the negotiations are being conducted solely at ministerial level by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have respect for the capacity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but it must be stated that past Governments of all political complexions, when faced with complex negotiations, adopted the practice of having relevant Ministers who had special competence in particular Departments to conduct negotiations. An effective teamwork system operated. This was true of the first Government which operated by teamwork at imperial conferences and it was true of the Fianna Fáil Government in the various negotiations that took place with regard to trade agreements with the United Kingdom. In many of these cases the matter at issue was far less crucial than the subject of EEC membership.

Therefore, it is surprising that in this case the only Minister involved in negotiations is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the fact that for a long period his Department, to some extent, were left on one side in negotiations of this kind, one can understand the anxiety of the Minister to play a leading role in the negotiations. It is one thing to play a leading role but a different matter to play the only role. In the past the Minister for External Affairs, as was his title then, did not play any part in EEC negotiations and he sedulously refrained from referring to the subject in either House. I pointed out previously that of the 20,000 words spoken by Deputy Aiken in a period of four years in debates on foreign affairs, 56 words were devoted to the EEC. We have moved from the position where the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarded the EEC as of no interest to him—or perhaps was not permitted to speak on it—to a point where no one else but the Minister speaks on the subject. We have moved from the position where negotiations were carried out on matters of much less importance by the Taoiseach, accompanied by a team of relevant Ministers, to a situation where negotiations are carried out solely by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Taoiseach does not play any part and does not show much interest. I did not hear his speech today, but the way in which his speech was read on the last occasion, a month ago, did not suggest he had much interest in the subject.

The other Ministers from whom we have had contributions in the House have shown by the tone and manner of their addresses—the content of their speeches is not much of a guide because they have been written for them —a considerable lack of interest. I am not clear whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing everything because the other Ministers are not interested or whether it is that they have lost interest because the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing everything. Either explanation is possible or the truth may lie between them.

However, I do not think it is a satisfactory position. I do not think that anything as complex as the EEC can be satisfactorily handled by one man dashing off to handle the negotiations and dashing back again here to make speeches. It is even more surprising and disturbing that the whole weight of the domestic campaign, if one can dignify what has happened so far by the use of such a word, has to be borne by the same Minister who, when he is not negotiating in Brussels, is doing his best, is doing a reasonable job even if he gets testy at times from the stress of too many difficult jobs, to put across the case for EEC membership with extraordinarily little support from his colleagues.

One can understand that the Government have many preoccupations at the present time but I do not think any Government can justify hanging on to office without being prepared to do the minimum job required of them. In regard to something as critical as the EEC, the minimum job is that every Minister whose Department is concerned vitally in the negotiations should be himself taking part in the negotiations, and every Minister of this Government, who are committed to EEC membership, should be explaining to the people why the Government are committed, in terms that would be comprehensible to ordinary people and in terms that relate to the particular problems of the Departments. Nothing of the kind is happening.

Dr. O'Donovan

Are they letting the Deputy down?

Dr. FitzGerald

That is putting it mildly. Even at this stage some change in this position is necessary. It will certainly be necessary for some of them to bestir themselves before the coming major debate prior to the referendum on EEC membership. I think it is necessary for them as well to bestir themselves in regard to the negotiations now taking place. I cannot spend more time on that at the moment because in a short speech there is a lot to be got through, but I think it is worth emphasising that not enough attention has been paid to the deficiencies of the Government in this respect and that too heavy a burden is being placed on one Minister.

A number of issues are currently under negotiation or are about to be negotiated and it has been disappointing, though not entirely the Government's fault in this respect, that more progress has not been made in respect of some of these issues. The Government have made their case, and I have criticised it on a number of occasions, but the problems we face at the moment are not inadequacies in the Government case but the fact that this case has not met with any response from the Community because of the Governments other preoccupations in the pre-negotiation period.

I think it a pity that the Minister has not found it possible, as he promised earlier, to ensure a greater degree of parallel in the negotiations and that our negotiations have got so out of hand that the British negotiations have now been completed and ours have not even got to the point where our first position papers have been answered. This is unsatisfactory as far as the House and the community are concerned. It may not be entirely the Minister's fault but I hope he pressed in Brussels yesterday the dissatisfaction of the House and the country with the way the negotiations have worked out.

Among the principal issues which have to be negotiated is the question of animal and plant health. From the very guarded statements we have had so far, I am not clear as to what is the Government's position on this. I am not clear as to what the Government are seeking and I think it would be useful if, in the course of this debate, the issue were clarified. It is of vital importance to this country that the particular disease-free conditions which we have in respect of certain animals and plants should be preserved. I do not think there is any difficulty of principle about this. In so far as we are free of certain diseases, due, fortunately, to the rather drastic methods we adopted in the past, at great cost to this country, we are entitled to require within the context of these negotiations that provisions would be made that will ensure we will be safeguarded against the importation of animals or plants from parts of the EEC or the whole of the EEC in so far as these diseases are prevalent. Of course, if those countries can eradicate these diseases it would be wrong of us to use this argument to keep out continental meat or vegetable matter. We would not succeed in such an attempt and it would be wrong to use such a spurious argument.

However, so long as diseases, from which we are free, exist in those countries, it is not only a genuine argument but one that we must insist on—that our position in that respect will not be prejudiced by the entry here of such products from EEC conditions. This is well within the context of the Treaty of Rome, within its spirit and its letter which makes provision for the continued exclusion of imports under a number of headings, some of which can be extended to this area.

On the question of fisheries, the negotiations have taken a number of twists and turns. I do not think any of us can be happy with the way in which it has been handled by the Government so far. It may be, it probably will be, that the final result will be much less unsatisfactory than people have feared, but we may owe a lot of this to negotiators other than our own. It is, perhaps, unfair to prejudge the issue at this time with negotiations at their present stage. It is only when we see the outcome of the Government's performance in this respect that we can make a judgement on the Government's faults. They have a strong case to put and I hope they will put it as forcibly as the people and the fishermen of this country want it put.

I am not clear that in their presentation of the case they are taking full account of the advice and views of those concerned. I would have been happier if they had at an earlier stage brought in expert advice or if the advice they are now getting were extended further than it has been. In these negotiations we should do what was done in 1948 when we were negotiating a trade agreement with Britain. We should have brought in people with expert knowledge from outside to sit in on the sidelines and be available for immediate consultation next to the conference tables in Brussels. This Government have had a tradition in the past 20 years of trying to do all these things themselves. This is no time to stand on that and I am glad that some slight breach in this has been made in the fishery issue.

I think the Government should extend consultation more widely so that we can ensure the agreements reached will be satisfactory. The people vitally concerned should be on the spot to be consulted immediately as the negotiations proceed so that amendments to the various proposals can be brought forward and that these people can suggest how best to deal with proposals. In that way we can ensure that the final results will be satisfactory.

If the British Government had advising them—if that is the correct word —in Brussels representatives of other foreign Governments such as New Zealand, we certainly could have, if our Government had the wisdom to undertake it, Irish people from outside the public service with expert knowledge of this particular area present on the spot to advise them. I hope they will do that and that the fisheries negotiations will move to a successful conclusion. I am quite clear—and we on this side of the House have repeated this—that the Community were quite wrong to agree on a fishery policy at the time they did in the way they did without consulting people who had a much greater interest in fisheries—the applicant countries. I am glad there are signs of the Community changing their view on this because it got them into an indefensiable position, and I hope our negotiations in this respect will ensure Irish fishermen their due and that the natural sources on which they depend will not be plundered by other people who have not got and could not have the same sense of responsibility to these resources as the fishermen of this country themselves.

There has been a great deal of confused talking on the subject of dumping, and I am still not satisfied with the position. The Minister told us that in earlier negotiations our Government have been assured that at the end of the transitional period the problem of selling goods below cost in our market can be met under the provisions of certain articles of the Treaty. I pressed him at Question Time on this matter and he appeared to say, if I understood him correctly and if he understood my question correctly, that this would enable us to take prompt action against this type of low cost selling. However, I would ask the Minister to tell us what documents he has before him that entitle him to tell the House that. Apparently he got some assurance as to the kind of action we could take to deal with this problem without having to go through what could be a slow, cumbersome Community procedure. This is a serious question. It is one not to be put on one side by vague talk of articles of the Treaty. We need to know precisely the terms of the assurance, and he must lay that before the House so that we may examine it and see whether, from our point of view, it is satisfactory.

On the question of vehicle assembly, the negotiations are at a middle stage at the moment. The Commission's reply is unsatisfactory from our point of view and I would like to ask the Minister precisely what he is negotiating on this matter. He will be aware this is a matter I looked into last year and that the view which emerged from such negotiations as I had with the European Commission on this subject did suggest the possibility of getting an arrangement that would enable us to continue vehicle assembly for a prolonged period. However, that was on the basis—and this I communicated to the relevant authority here—that we would have some kind of plan or programme to show the Community if they did depart from the normal transitional period and gave us a greatly extended transitional period of three or four times the normal length, which would enable us to adjust this industry either by increasing its scale to the point where it would be viable or, alternatively, by converting it into a more specialised type of industry, perhaps a motor components industry which would give similar or, indeed, one would hope, greater and expanding employment eventually.

The Community's attitude on this matter is not a negative one, but they do not believe in transitional periods just to put off the evil day. The success of our Government in these negotiations would depend to a considerable degree on whether they can put forward constructive proposals which will tell the Community why we need a prolonged period, precisely what satisfactory outcome, in the form of the preservation of this employment—perhaps in a slightly different guise—we foresee if we get this transitional period. If we can put forward such a case, then I believe—and this is a view expressed by me in Brussels a year ago—we will get the longer transitional period. If we simply go along whining that we want a few more years because it is politically awkward to have the vehicle assembly industry closing down now, we will not get very far with the realistic and hard-headed people in Brussels who do not see any particular reason to pull our chestnuts out of the fire if we have not the wit to do it for ourselves.

I should like to ask the Minister, because it has not been disclosed so far, what positive proposals for this industry are being put forward in Brussels of a kind calculated to persuade the Community, in the context of their policies and attitudes, to give us the transitional period we require. If we discover that no such proposals have been put forward and if the transitional period is not for the 20 years or more we were looking for and that this industry needs, we will know where to place the blame, on the Government which must have known the kind of approach that was necessary to achieve this satisfactory result and which failed to adopt such an approach.

On the question of steel, I think we are entitled to know from the Government what preparations they are making to ensure the survival of this industry at the end of the five-year period. It is all very well to be getting extensions of transitional periods but, while that is useful in putting off the evil day, it does no more than put off the evil day unless the Government are taking steps to ensure that the industry which is being preserved for a longer period will become viable. So far as I can judge, since the end of the 1950s every action taken by the Fianna Fáil Government in regard to this industry has been calculated to make us less rather than more viable. It has been a constant matter of concern to those in Irish industry—and I do not mean by that just the managements of private firms; I mean trade union officials also—that the Government's policy in regard to Irish Steel Holdings has not been calculated to ensure its survival under free trade conditions. Indeed, at a time when the Government were extolling the virtues of free trade and trying to persuade private industry to prepare for free trade, it was erecting or seeking to erect fresh barriers to protect this particular State industry, thereby discouraging that industry from taking the necessary steps to prepare for free trade. Where other industries were urged to adapt, this industry was re-adapted as rapidly as possible because it happened to be under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That kind of approach may pay off in votes for a short while, but eventually the day of reckoning comes, and unless steps are taken to make it a viable industry there could be very serious problems here. I am not satisfied that the Government have been taking these steps, and the extended transitional period for this industry and the special provision under which the export of scrap can be controlled for the full transitional period, will not solve anything—and the Government should not pretend it will solve anything—unless they have proposals to undo some of the damage they have done through their policies and to turn this into a viable industry which will survive free trade successfully and not one which, because of the excessive diversification forced by the Government, will succumb to free trade.

On the question of tax incentives and grants, it is extremely important that the Government should succeed in getting an extended transitional period in respect of tax incentives. There is no problem in regard to grants. I know there are people who say the contrary, that there are people opposed to EEC membership who talk about the danger to grants because they will be controlled by the European Commission. The problem about industrial grants in Europe is not that within the EEC they are controlled tightly by the European Commission and that this might be to our disadvantage; the problem is precisely the opposite, that the European Commission has hitherto failed to control the use of industrial grants in well-developed areas, as a result of which the regional policy in the EEC is not being pressed forward with sufficient strength because these industrial grants, being available in the developed areas, are diverting industry away from the undeveloped areas. Our Government's role within the EEC, when we get in, will be to press for a tightening up on industrial grants, so that the 83 per cent of Germany, where, I believe, industrial grants are now available and nearly all of which is highly developed by our standards, will no longer be able to seek to attract industry away from areas like Ireland, Wales, Scotland, southern Italy, south-west France or Brittany. My concern is not that the European Commission has a power of control here but that this power has not been exercised, and as a result regional policy has not developed in a satisfactory manner.

Apart from that aspect, which is the opposite to the case that was put by the anti-Common Market people, who either fail to understand, or perhaps, deliberately fail to understand this problem, tax incentives are a very serious issue and do create a problem. Because of the form in which we have them they are not easily to be put within the spirit of the Rome Treaty. Yet we know how vitally important they are. Such research as has been carried out here into the success of industrial incentives would suggest that it is the tax incentive that is, perhaps, the most important element. Industrial grants may have been overrated by us; we may have spent more that we needed on them. The crucial factor in achieving industrial development here has been the tax incentives introduced by the inter-Party Government almost 15 years ago.

It is vital that these incentives be retained for a prolonged period. I would not myself wish that they be retained indefinitely, because they are extremely costly; they do involve the diversion of a large amount of tax revenue out of the Exchequer into private hands. In the long run we would hope to reach a stage at which industrial growth can be achieved autonomously without this expensive incentive and at a rate which will give full employment to our people. This could well arrive during the 1980s and by the 1990s we might be in a position in which it would be in our interest not to be giving tax incentives. That is a long way away. No one need doubt that throughout the 1970s, and probably throughout most of the 1980s, these industrial tax incentives will be necessary to achieve the kind of growth of industry that we need.

It does not follow that they must take the form they take now. It may well be that we will find it in our interest to modify the tax incentives so that they relate to the whole of industrial output and not just to exports. As time goes on, as exports grow and become relatively more important and as the balance between exports and home sales becomes more even—and the reasons for having special tax incentives become less— tax incentives for industrial growth, whether related strictly to exports or to the whole of the increase in output, will be needed. I am not sure that it matters very much which. The important thing is that we have the ability to offer this incentive to firms which expand their output and their employment. Frankly, I am not bothered as to whether a man is employed in making goods for home consumption or for export so long as he is employed. If he can be employed in making more goods for a prosperous home market, so much the better. The important thing is that we should not be deprived of the ability to use this instrument flexibly during the period of development that lies ahead which will extend into the 1980s and possibly, even probably, to 1990.

The Government have a strong case to make. I hope they are making it. On this side of the House we cannot be satisfied with the way in which they are making the case. We know too little of how it is being presented. As we have not yet had any great indication of the response from the Community, we cannot even see their assessment of the effectiveness of the case made. This certainly is one of the major elements of the negotiations and from our point of view one of the most important.

There is then the general question of regional policy associated with the question of tax incentives and grants. I have raised before in this House the possibility of having a multilateral conference on this subject. A multilateral conference on fisheries policy has been proposed because of the different interests of the applicant countries and the need to reconcile them around a table. In the case of regional policy we have different interests also. I do not think that Denmark has much interest in regional policy. The Norwegians have a very special problem in Northern Norway on different aspects from ours. We and the British have rather similar problems except that most of Ireland is underdeveloped and needs an adequate regional policy, whereas only certain peripheral areas in the United Kingdom are in this position. The difference in the relative importance of regional policy to the two countries means that at the negotiating table our respective Governments will be taking up different attitudes

I do not think these differences in interest can be reconciled by bilateral negotiations. A member of the European Commission suggested in this country some months ago that this was an appropriate matter for multilateral discussions and suggested that we might seek such multilateral discussions. I think he was right. I would hope that our Government would take up this matter and that we would emphasise its importance. Moreover, in this connection, there is a need, which we have stressed in this House, for the Government to ensure a protocol to the Treaty of Rome on this matter.

Back in the 1950s the Italian Government insisted on a protocol to cover regional policy requirements and, as a result of this protocol which required the Community to give priority to Italy in regional policy and in the allocation of the very substantial funds available for regional policy, half of the funds from the European Investment Bank have been diverted to a single area of Southern Italy. It is quite clear that we too need such a protocol, both defensively to ensure that funds do not continue to be diverted to Southern Italy at the expense of this country, and offensively to ensure that we also get an above average share of the resources available for this purpose. I hope the Government are taking up this matter. We have no clear assurance from the Government that they will insist on such a protocol. We in this House are entitled to press for it.

On the question of preparation for membership, there is much to be said and very little time in which to say it. I am very concerned about the question of land purchase. This requires preparation. Our position with regard to land purchase will require the establishment of the kind of rural development authority which Fine Gael have proposed, one which will have sufficient power to ensure that when land becomes available it does not go to foreign speculators or even foreign non-speculators but that it becomes available for distribution amongst Irish farmers to provide adequate sized farms for Irish farmers to ensure that they will be viable under EEC conditions.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry Deputy, but I must interrupt.

Dr. FitzGerald

Other areas of preparation, on which I would have laid some stress if I had more time, are in the sphere of agriculture. It is ludicrous that we should continue to operate a milk policy which is totally contrary to our interests in the EEC and which had the effect of reducing output at a time when it should be increasing.

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

In these and many other areas there has been an absolute failure by the Government—and by the Ministers of the Government who show no interest in the EEC—to do anything to adjust Government policy to the needs of the situation. This is the kind of issue which it is our job to press. It seems to me that it will require a lot of pressing to get the Government to do anything about it.

Dr. O'Donovan

I intend to talk rather differently about this matter from the way in which most other Deputies talk about it. In the main I will talk about it historically. I want to give a good, solid example from which we should have learned a lesson if we are capable of learning anything. When we became part of what was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—whether it was in 1800 or 1801 does not matter; it does not make much difference—we were in the finest common market in the world. There was no other market to compare with it anywhere else in the world. Pax Britannica ruled the world. What happened to this country? When we entered that common market our population was six million against a population of 12 million in England. When we left it in 1920 our population was one-tenth of the population of England.

What happened to our industries in that common market? The same thing as will happen to them if we go into the Common Market. When we went into that magnificent organisation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the most successful organisation in the world for that period of 120 years, we had large industries. We had a silk industry, a cotton industry and all kinds of industries connected with food development. We had industries connected with the manufacture of clothing. We had iron industries, and so on. What had we got when we left it? We had one range of industries only—industries connected with food and nothing else! Brewing, distilling, bacon factories, a few decrepit flour mills, about one-fifth of what we had when we went in. Even in the food industry there was a decline, relatively speaking. Since we got control of our own affairs in this part of the country—many people would say we devoted too much attention to it; perhaps we did at certain times—we have done a most effective job. We supply all our own requirements. As I have said on another occasion, by accident I have been in every country in the Common Market in the past ten years and in some of them two or three times. For a person who did not leave this country for 25 years that is some performance.

What does one see if one goes to the Common Market? Our clothes are as cheap. Our food is much cheaper. Every item sold here that is required in an ordinary household—and until recently the cost of building our houses—is cheaper than in the Common Market. What will happen to our light industries if we go into the Common Market? I have already outlined it in this House. The so-called transitional period is five years but in this context five years are nothing. It is the same as five minutes. In the confessions of St. Augustine he said: "Oh my Lord, my God, I will measure it but I know not what I measure." There is a great deal of this business of knowing not what is being measured by the Government side of the House.

Under the Treaty of Rome—seemingly Deputy Garret FitzGerald was aware of this, but he did not mention it; I do not say that he deliberately did not mention it but it seemed to me that he was aware of it—if there is any accusation of dumping by one country against another country in the Common Market, the country against which the allegation is made will get six months to reply and, in the meantime, it can continue sending in the stuff. At a conference in Galway some years ago, when Sunbeam Wolsey was the strongest firm in this country and had record exports, their representative said there was a textile supplier in northern Italy who could supply all our textile requirements with three weeks production. Does anybody think there will not be a year in which they will not have three weeks surplus production? I know they will and when the three weeks production is dumped in here who will stop it? Not the mealymouthed individuals engaged in these discussions anyway. That is one thing certain.

Did we build up all these light industries which supply our needs for the purpose of discarding them like so much rubbish? Is that why we put the enormous effort into them? Certainly the Fianna Fáil Party in the thirties put effort into them, admittedly at the expense of the ordinary people. I remember when the boots made in this country could hardly be worn. I remember when the electric light bulbs were crooked. I remember the first pottery produced down in Arklow. We have experienced the result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I have seen semi-State bodies using foreign cutlery and foreign crockery. I was in a certain institution, largely kept up by the people through taxation, and when I turned over a cup I saw "Made in England". Have we any sanity at all? What has got into the Government Party? What is the matter with them? It may be true, as Deputy Dr. FitzGerald feels, that Fine Gael are being let down by the Ministers. If the Ministers are keeping quiet because the Government have some arriere pensée that shows they have a little bit of common sense left. If they are mickey-mousing about the situation, I am all with them.

I want to say a few words now about the kind of campaign being mounted against Mr. Raymond Crotty. Mr. Raymond Crotty is a man who, compared with most Deputies here, is a super economist. He is a man who held a university appointment in Wales. He is now employed by the World Bank. He has been so employed time and again. He goes to the trouble of writing two booklets. What happens? This is work for which he is not paid, whereas everyone in favour of our going into Europe is paid one way or the other, mainly by the taxpayers. What happens when Mr. Raymond Crotty produces this booklet that I have here in my hand? Let me read out what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said about it; this is dated 18th June:

The latest anti-Common Market pamphlet is a curious concoction of selective statistics, inaccurate statements and misleading analysis. This mixture is presented in highly technical and academic format but, in spite of the novel form—

presumably because it is highly technical and academic; I suppose we should talk and write a lot of political rubbish, judging by the stuff to which we have had to listen from the Government and, indeed, from the Fine Gael Party. What does the Minister for Foreign Affairs go on to say?

—the substance of Mr. Crotty's case is familiar from his earlier pamphlets. The same unproven hypotheses have been invested on this occasion with a spurious air of statistical precision.

Having been challenged to prove his case statistically, Mr. Crotty did so. He is then told that he engages in selective statistics, inaccurate statements and misleading analysis. Therefore, he is out.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs went on to say:

There is no evidence that beef requires less labour than other commodities under modern conditions. On the contrary, a recent study has shown that cattle require more labour than either milk or tillage on most farms.

I engaged in farming during the war years. Unfortunately, I had to till 30 per cent of the land. The greatest plaint by milk producers is that there is no five-day cow. I know beef production does not require as much effort as milk production.

I want now to speak about two other people, a colleague of mine, Professor Louis Smith, who wrote in the Sunday Press three weeks ago, and a man who signed himself “Maynard” writing in the same paper last Sunday week. Maynard talked about Mr. Raymond Crotty's English. But both these gentlemen wrote stinking English. Maynard's article was headed “The Case against going into the Common Market” and it was a diatribe against Mr. Crotty. This man, who talked about Raymond Crotty's use of English, what did he write? He wrote “Mr. Crotty's usage of English”. What about Mr. Maynard's “usage” of English. I like people to use a language properly and not to use abstract words where they should use concrete words. This is one of the great traps in language, using abstract words instead of concrete words.

In this document issued by the Department of External Affairs—"The Common Market and How It Works"—there is a table showing exports and imports for the year 1969; it is page— I do not think there are any page numbers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is significant.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is towards the end of the document. The table shows that the United Kingdom had, roughly speaking, half the exports of the EEC and the United States and more than half the imports of the United States and the EEC. The population of the United Kingdom is about 50,000,000. The population of the EEC and the United States is about 200,000,000 in each case so that the United Kingdom had—what is the arithmetic of it?— twice as much imports and exports per head as either the EEC or the United States in the year 1969, and that was the year in which the EEC was supposed to have made such progress. That kind of graphical illustration is bad. I do not say it was done deliberately, but if it was done deliberately, it was a bad business and, if it was not done deliberately, it was a damn stupid business, very stupid indeed. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me.

The existing Six have been a very successful community in their history to date. Not only would we have access to these markets but we would be at the conference table and would be involved in all decision making. We would have a full say in any decisions affecting our people. This is a very important consideration in addition to participation in markets.

Naturally, there is a certain apprehension in embarking on any new course as to what will happen. In my opinion at this stage of our development we have far more to gain from membership than many other countries who may be applying for membership. A great deal of the land in this country is far below potential production. Much of our land has yet to be reclaimed. Much of the land needs to be limed and manured. This is a fact of life. There is a great deal to be done in this respect. We can increase production enormously by improving the standard of much of our land. We can improve cattle production. The better prices obtainable on the European market will be an incentive to farmers to carry out further reclamation work and to improve their holdings.

We can develop a better market for sheep in places like Germany by a little more drive and intensification of effort. The sheep industry has not been very good this year for farmers. There must be an incentive to expand the market in Germany.

Our dairying industry and other branches of agriculture stand to benefit on our entry into the Common Market. Our horsebreeding industry will benefit. I am not thinking merely of the thoroughbred horse industry. There is no need to dwell on the value of this branch of the industry. The performance of our thoroughbreds in Britain and on the Continent speaks for itself and there is no need to advertise our thoroughbreds further. That branch of the industry is doing well. I am concerned about the non-thoroughbred horse breeding industry. I found when I inquired that the number of horses in the EEC countries is far less than it was ten years ago but equestrian activities are growing rapidly as the people become better off in the towns and cities. More people are becoming interested in horseriding, pony trekking and other equestrian activities. Equestrian centres are springing up throughout the Continent. Bord na gCapall should concentrate on this branch of the industry and should try to sell more of our horses and to improve the price for non-thoroughbred horses. This is a feature of agriculture which affects small farmers. These are the people who breed the non-thoroughbred horses and these are the people that Bord na gCapall were set up to help. I am sure that they will attend to this matter in due time because it is a worthwhile exercise for them to sell our non-thoroughbred animals in EEC countries. We already sell horses in Italy and Switzerland but they are mainly jumping horses. It is not necessary to confine the activity to outstanding jumping horses.

On the Continent there is this very same problem of the flight from the land as obtains in this country. In Germany the problem is acute. The Germans maintain that it would happen if the EEC had never been established. In Germany, of course, there are ample job opportunities in industry and the pay is better than for agricultural work.

Young people are leaving the land very rapidly there. One sees many elderly people working the land as one goes through the country. That is not good for farming. Germany has not a sufficient labour force to satisfy its industrial needs. There is a foreign labour force of 2.2 million working in Germany. The workers come from Greece and other Mediterranean countries, Pakistan and some Asiatic countries.

Most of the politicians that we spoke to—and we concentrated mainly on politicians in the various State Parliaments—agreed that German industry has no option but to expand beyond the frontiers of Germany. I found, as I think my colleagues found, a great willingness to explore the possibility of expanding to Ireland, although I did see that Deputy Corish, who was a member of our group, told a political correspondent over the week-end that he did not detect this great willingness. I disagree here with Deputy Corish's assessment of the situation. We found the politicians most willing to assist in any way they might and in each State we were in they agreed to place our promotional literature in regard to attracting industry here in their various libraries so that it would be accessible to their members. They were quite agreeable to do things like this and to acquaint their respective Ministers for Economics in the various States as to the position here. We found that there was very little contact made by our industrial promoters from the IDA and other agencies at this level. I do not know where they make their contacts. The Members of Parliament and the Ministers that we met had little or no contact with these people.

In this respect we could intensify our drive. For example, in Germany there is one representative of the IDA who has to deal with the entire country, a country which is expanding its industry abroad, to places like South America. Surely this one representative cannot inform everybody who should be informed as to what is available here, the incentives provided to foreign industrialists, tax allowances and grants and all the other attractions for foreign industry to set up here. Perhaps we could utilise our Embassy staffs in the various countries and get at least some of them to go out and meet the parliamentarians and to contact the industrialists, those who have a labour problem and are willing to expand. A great deal can be done in this way. The more we do between now and 1973 to attract German industrialists to set up industries here the more prepared we will be industrially to enter the EEC in January, 1973. I would ask the IDA and whatever other agencies are involved to get busy in this respect. This is a matter in which they can exercise their talents and do a lot more than, from our experience abroad, is being done.

We also found that German industrialists were not being fully informed of the situation with regard to our strike rating in the international graph. While we have a very high strike rating in this international graph it should be emphasised and pointed out to those people that most of the strikes do not take place in foreign promoted industry. Indeed, as far as I can recollect none took place in German promoted industry. It should be emphasised even though we have had many strikes over the last few years most of them took place in semi-State bodies. In Shannon, for instance, where you have very many industries from different parts of the world we only experienced one strike in the history of the industrial estate. This had nothing to do with wage structure or anything like that but was because an American firm concerned refused to recognise a union. The experience of German industrialists who come to Ireland is that there are very good relations between them and their workers. Most of those industrialists to whom I have spoken speak very highly of the people who work for them. They find the Irish workers are very adaptable.

Our industrial promoters when they go to large industrial cities in Germany and elsewhere should emphasise the points which are of importance to those people. We should do our best to attract industrialists who are willing to go abroad and who have labour problems in their own countries. The Labour Party and others have a great fear of foreign control of our industries. We discussed this with many Germans whom we met but they said we should not worry about this. Their experience is that 35 per cent of German industry is controlled from America and they have never had any worries or any trouble in this respect. They thought there was no need for us to worry about industries being controlled from Germany or other European countries in the light of their experience. It was interesting to hear that from those people. This is a fear which can now be dispelled.

There are many more matters to be negotiated in relation to our entry to the European Economic Community, least of all our fishing industry. I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, will negotiate successfully with regard to that. If he makes as good a job of fisheries as he made of agriculture I am sure we will not have to worry about our fishing industry. Unlike Deputy FitzGerald I believe our negotiations are in the proper hands and I do not say that because the Minister is a colleague of mine. Deputy FitzGerald seemed to criticise the fact that one Minister was saddled with the negotiations and that it was completely his responsibility. This is no different from the British negotiations which are in the hands of one Minister, Mr. Rippon. He had a negotiating team with him just the same as Deputy Dr. Hillery has in Brussels. As far as I know there is a special department set up to deal with the EEC negotiations, headed by Mr. Tennant. There is a staff to help in the negotiations so I see no difference in what we are doing and what Great Britain are doing under Mr. Rippon. Deputy FitzGerald's fears and criticisms in this regard are unfounded.

Like most people I have the greatest confidence in the Minister and his negotiating team and I am sure they will finish the job which they are doing so well. We will finish up as happy members of the Community in January, 1973, and our farmers, our industrial workers and all sections of the community will benefit as has been the case in the countries which have already joined. Even the German socialists admit that Germany has benefited under the EEC. I did not meet one socialist who would agree with our socialist party in their views by staying out of the EEC.

Mr. Harte

My words will be very brief because I think we should be preparing ourselves for entry into the European Economic Community rather than talking about it. I take the view taken some years ago by the late Mr. Seán Lemass who negotiated the free trade area agreement with Great Britain. I believe that our economy is tied with that of Great Britain and that if Britain goes into the Common Market we should go in also. This is not to say that we should not be very watchful of the negotiators to make sure that the best conditions are negotiated. If Britain go into the Common Market then we have to make up our minds that we have to go in as well. If the entry of the Republic of Ireland into the EEC is opposed it is the strongest argument since the Treaty for Partition because if we opted out of the EEC conditions and Britain entered then we would not have a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties, but we would have an international boundary between these two parts of our country. That to me is ludicrous in the extreme. Therefore, instead of talking about what we should do and how we should go about it we have got to make up our minds that we are going into the EEC. We should prepare our workers and make sure that those people who will be hit when some industries go to the wall, will be given employment in other industries.

Certain protective conditions have prevailed since the Fianna Fáil Party first took office in the early 1930s and have tended to create an artificial position. Industries which appeared in sheltered conditions to be very healthy felt the draught of competition when the protection was removed. I have every sympathy with workers who will lose their jobs but it is up to the Government to provide alternative work for them.

Since the foundation of this State we have been somewhat neglected in County Donegal. We are too far away from a Dublin Government and are not wanted by a Stormont Government. This is the position as some Donegal people see it depending on what political philosophy they profess to have. There is a certain section of people in Donegal who were disappointed that they were not included in the ancient province of Ulster when Partition was set up. I am not one of those people but I could see certain basic reasoning in their thinking. They differentiate between particular types of unionism. They believed in union with Great Britain and they could see economic advantages in union with Great Britain. This is not to be confused with support for a Unionist Party who basically are a Protestant supremacy party. It was thinking of economic union with Great Britain which I believe motivated the former Taoiseach, the late Seán Lemass, into negotiating free trade with Great Britain. We have free trade with our nearest neighbour; we have a situation in which Irish people have the right to self-determination on a political front and also have the advantages of the greatest market in the world.

My approach to EEC membership is influenced greatly by the commitment of our free trade area agreement with Great Britain. On any occasion on which I discuss the prospects of membership whether causally or at party meetings, I experience a certain amount of excitement in relation to areas such as Donegal because within the EEC there will be much more co-operation between the counties of Donegal, Derry and Tyrone than there has been since our country was partitioned. This co-operation will be good. In saying this I believe that I express the sentiments of the majority of the people in these three counties. Donegal is a hinterland of Derry. Many complaints have been put forward to the effect that the port of Derry is not being used to the best advantage. It has been suggested that if we had access to the Derry port, Donegal industrial concerns would benefit greatly. While the deepest seaport in the entire 32 counties is at Rathmullen and while I should like to see that port developed, unfortunately, Derry is the more natural seaport for the three counties.

I am disappointed that the Government are not promoting better co-operation between these three counties I have mentioned by way, for instance, of developing more major industries along the Border to which people from both Derry and Tyrone would come to work. While it may be said that in so far as the North is concerned only those people having a work permit are allowed to work there, my contention is that it would be good policy on the part of the Irish Government to provide industries in the Border areas. This would encourage people on each side of the Border to participate in industry and also get to know each other better than has been the practice in the past.

In this context the Treaty of Rome indicates clearly that regional development is part and parcel of EEC conditions and that, in so far as possible, the wealth of the community should be divided equally. This policy would be very much to the advantage of a county such as Donegal. I see no reason why the Government should not take steps to prepare us for such conditions. EEC conditions are disposed favourably to regional development. Every encouragement should be given to counties to develop and co-operate such as the three I have mentioned. I see no reason why such areas should not be developed as against the argument put forward for developing the Shannon free zone. Perhaps stronger arguments could be put forward for the development of this area than those put forward for the development of the Shannon free zone.

Deputies in this Parliament argue about the West and how it has been neglected and similar arguments are put forward in Stormont when Members of that Parliament talk about the west of Northern Ireland which includes the two counties I have mentioned—Derry and Tyrone. There is much in common between the people of these two counties and the people of Donegal. Therefore, the Government must do everything in their power to develop along the Border regional industries that would be in keeping with the nature of this particular part of Ireland. By so doing the troubles that are now confusing the communities on both sides of the Border would disappear. In EEC conditions there would be no room for argument between Irish people and neither would there be room for competition between Irish people. Therefore, if we are to succeed there must be co-operation not only between workers and industrialists south of the Border but, particularly, between the north and the south. We are all Irishmen living on a small island about to enter what I consider to be the strongest economic unit in the world but in order to succeed we must put aside our political differences. Irrespective of whether one is Nationalist or Unionist, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, we must realise that there is a moral obligation on us, in terms of survival, to co-operate.

Last week a group of people from Donegal who are not from my constituency came to Dublin because they were alarmed at the Gaeltarra Éireann proposal to set up a small industry in Kilcar. The reason for their anxiety was the fear of losing their livelihoods. I refer to the handweavers of Donegal tweeds. I have no vested interest in this case except in seeing that the right action is taken. However, these people came to me and I arranged through the Minister for Labour that representatives of Gaeltarra Éireann and representatives of Magee's of Donegal who are involved in this business should come to Dublin, together with representatives of the workers, to discuss the matter. After a constructive discussion which took place in the Minister's office on Friday last, I am glad because of confusion that has arisen, to have this opportunity of conveying to the general public that the people concerned are now prepared to co-operate with each other because they realise that if there is competition in an area such as Donegal this competition will be to the disadvantage of all concerned and that ultimately it would be the Donegal people who would pay. This example of Donegal people coming together should be an example also to the rest of the nation in so far as there must be co-operation between all industries.

Undoubtedly the motor-car industry which has been very much in the news in the past few days, will not, for obvious reasons, welcome EEC conditions but this is no argument for staying out of the EEC. If we proceed on the lines of argument of protecting workers and industries which now have certain protection, we are putting forward a strong argument for the maintenance of Partition. We all wish to see this country reunited but anybody who says we are not ready for EEC conditions is admitting that we are not ready for the reunification of our country. There are certain industries in the country which do not welcome the prospect of membership but this is not their fault. It stems from a poor policy of long-term planning on the part of the Government who did not realise that the prosperity of which they boasted was only artificial prosperity. Now that the artificial protection for certain industries is being taken away, the Government are beginning to see reality. I wonder what kind of country we would have if the economic war had not occurred. Generally speaking, the sheltered conditions which most of these industries have been enjoying have stemmed from the dispute between Mr. de Valera's Government in the early 1930s and the British Government of that time.

Donegal is a fishing county. Much discussion has been taking place on what will happen the fishing industry in EEC conditions. We have yet to be told exactly what the conditions will be like in the EEC. We are glad to know that recently, basically because of the pressure of Norway, there has been new thinking on the fishing problems under the EEC. It would be wrong for me to speak on the different viewpoints of Government speakers and the representatives of the fishing industry because I know so little about fishing. Indeed, this may also be the attitude of the Government, although I notice that members of the Government have delivered speeches from prepared scripts which would make one believe that they have all the answers to the difficulties and problems of the fishing industry. I take the view that the Government have not explored all the possibilities which exist for the improvement of the Irish fishing industry. Late as it may be, the Government should keep their options open and should give serious consideration to the proposals put forward by Norway.

Agriculture will benefit under EEC conditions. Donegal is basically an agricultural county. I am satisfied that Donegal will enter a new era of prosperity when we enter the EEC. It is disappointing to notice that not once has any Government Minister mentioned the proposals for regional development in EEC and for co-operation with Northern Ireland in this matter. We have been talking about entering what I have already described as the strongest economic bloc in the world. We have been romanticising about the idea of getting in, but not once, to the best of my knowledge, has a member of the Government ever mentioned the type of industry which could be promoted along Border areas in order to co-operate with people North of the Border. Maybe I should not mention this point, but I would be failing in my duty as a public representative if I did not bring this point to the attention of the public. Perhaps the Taoiseach, whom I consider to be a reasonable man, will give some thought to these points.

The Treaty of Rome contains basic commitments about securing equal development throughout the EEC countries. If this is to be carried to its logical conclusion we must get away from the pattern of development along the eastern seaboard. At the moment, and generally speaking, the industries have mushroomed along the seaboard from Dundalk to Cork and have then spread across the country in an erratic fashion to Shannon, Limerick and Galway. We have not been developing industries in order to secure equal development throughout the country. This shows weakness of Government policy. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the position in relation to the West of Ireland and particularly in relation to Donegal.

The County Donegal development team issued a report recently and I have addressed parliamentary questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce about this report. It has been projected that there will be a decline in population in Donegal. This decline has not acclerated to any degree. Any person who is conscious of it and who cares to look at the census of population figures will see that there has been a steady pattern in the decline in population over the last 50 years. There has been a drop of 1,111 persons per year in the county. If this trend continues over the next 20 years the population will have dropped to about 80,000 people. It is necessary to create over 2,000 jobs in four periods of five years in order to maintain the population of Donegal as it is at present. The Government should take serious notice of the report of the regional development team, who have done a magnificent job and have analysed the difficulties which the people of the county will experience under EEC conditions. The team have tried to put forward constructive proposals for the protection of those people. I believe that the Minister for Industry and Commerce must do better than make glossy speeches about what the EEC means.

My approach is that we are committed to the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. I think Britain will enter the EEC in five or ten years time because ultimately the European Community cannot survive without Great Britain. With our commitment to Britain under the Free Trade Area Agreement I take the view that we should stop talking about whether it is good or bad to go into the the EEC we should make up our minds that whether we do or do not enter the EEC, we are committed to the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain and because this is a similar position we should be training our workers and adjusting our industries. Any persons who object and who say that we should not enter EEC and that we should not have free trade with Britain are making the strongest argument for Partition of this nation that any Irishman has ever made.

Mr. Tully

The thing I find fascinating about this debate is the number of contradictory reasons for joining which have been given by speaker after speaker on the pro-EEC side. Hardly a speaker, either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, has got to his feet without making several arguments in contradiction of what was said by speakers on the same side. This is evidence that in this House we have the situation where many people are very anxious to enter the EEC but do not know anything about it. They are talking about the EEC as if it were the solution to all our ills. It brings home to the minds of those of us who have gone to the trouble to find out what it is all about, how stupid the whole thing is. Deputy Donegan, who is a friend of mine and for whose intelligence and ability I have a high regard, made a statement here today which he obviously got from glancing at the top of a newspaper and not bothering to read any further. He said that Harold Wilson had decided in Britain that he would not go into the EEC unless he had the whole Labour Party behind him and that this was buttressed the following day by James Callaghan saying that those in the Labour Party who did not want to go into the EEC were not welcome in that party and that the whole party were behind Wilson in his effort to bring them into the EEC. I did not read that in the papers. Maybe I read a different paper.

Mr. Ryan

A liberal paraphrase.

Mr. Tully

It is a liberal paraphrase but substantially correct. I think our friend Deputy Donegan just did not go deeply enough. He saw something which he thought would be of some little support and he used it. Perhaps that is a good political ploy. To me it appears that as far as the general public in Britain are concerned, and I go over there occasionally like most people in this country, the odds against the people of the country supporting the entry of Britain into the EEC are growing daily. Indeed, my experience with members of the British Labour Party, particularly the Parliamentary Party, is that there would be, I would imagine, within the party itself about a five to one vote against entry at present. How somebody can come in here and say that a united British Labour Party are going to join the EEC is something which I just cannot listen to without correcting.

Deputy Harte, who has just spoken, said that those who are opposed to the EEC are for a certain reason cementing Partition. This, of course, gives some support to the line which some of the Fianna Fáil people have been trotting out for the last year or so— that the EEC would be an end to the Border. Let me put it plainly on the record of this House that whether we go into the EEC or stay out of it the Border as it stands will be there. The customs border may go but most certainly the political Border will not go because we go into the EEC. As a matter of fact, the Treaty of Rome, recognising as it does existing political borders, could cement the Border there for all time if we go in. That is something which should be remembered. I am surprised that somebody like Deputy Harte who, like myself, lives close enough to the Border to know what the facts are, should make a statement here to the effect that it is one way of solving our problems in regard to Partition.

Listening to the speeches here and looking at the Fianna Fáil benches, I wonder is it a fact that the Government neither know nor care what is happening. Is it a fact that the best they could get to put the pro-EEC case was one of their back benchers, a decent fellow but not exactly the man they would normally put in in an important debate, who managed to talk for 12½ minutes? Is that the way the Government want to put the EEC case in this House? Where are all the Ministers? Why has there been a Parliamentary Secretary sitting here most of the day?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully. Deputy Tully has only half an hour.

The Taoiseach this afternoon, in opening the debate, spoke of the saving of what he referred to as the £30 million subsidy for agricultural products. He told us this saving would mean there would be a good deal of money in the hands of the Government to be used for better purposes. He did not tell us, and nobody yet has told us although it is something we should be told very quickly, what it will cost us to go into the market. How much will it cost? Let nobody say we do not know; we must know; we should have the facts by now. If so, I should like to know if the £30 million the Government hope to save will look big or small on the other side of the scales from the actual payments we shall have to make.

There is a section in the booklet, "The Common Market and How it Works", issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which tells us that this State could be described as a common market—they are careful to say State —and that if a trader in Mayo wishes to bring goods from Galway he does not have to pay duty at the county boundary and that a worker in Cork may go to Westmeath and have the same right as a native to employment there. Would he have the same right in Northern Ireland? According to what we hear it does not seem so. Do the Department of Foreign Affairs consider that there is no difference between a worker coming from Cork to Galway or from Galway to Westmeath and a worker leaving Dublin for a job in Hamburg or Brussels or in some town in France?

I think the Government have the idea that they will be important people if they go into Europe and for that reason no matter what the cost they must try to persuade those who have the right to vote against it that they should vote for it. A few years ago I remember being in Brussels with Deputy Ryan of Fine Gael and some others and I asked about employment. I was told rather glibly by one of the senior EEC officials that there was no unemployment in the Common Market. When I pursued the matter he explained that within the countries of the Common Market, since there was free movement of men, money and materials they did not consider that anybody should be unemployed in one country when he had the right to move to another country for work. Whether the prospect of moving from Mullingar to Berlin or from Cork to Amsterdam would appeal to an Irish worker, I do not know.

These things cut both ways. We may possibly have a situation from time to time where a German who has bought a big farm wants to bring in somebody to run it. The aliens section of the Department of Foreign Affairs will inquire if there is any objection to his employing a non-national. It is very difficult to find out the hours that man will work and the wages he will get. They love to bring in people from their country to work here and I am sure that most of the better jobs will be retained for these people if they have the opportunity of handing out these jobs freely. If we go into the Common Market there will be no aliens; they will all have the right to come here.

Something that has not been mentioned, apart from a slight reference in a previous debate, is the question of defence. We are told that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome, in the Treaty of Paris, about defence, but can anybody forget the Taoiseach's comment to a newspaper reporter in Paris two years ago when, coming out from one of the first meetings on one of his tours, he told a reporter that if Europe was worth joining she was worth defending? We must assume that what he meant was that he could see no good reason why Irishmen should not be prepared to take up arms and, if necessary, die in defence of Europe. That may be the Taoiseach's opinion but I do not think it is the opinion of the majority of Irish people. Certainly, it is not the opinion of parents who have young boys of military age who might be inclined to join the Irish Army. While they do like excitement and have no objection to travelling as they have done to such places as Cyprus, the prospect of going out to be what was formerly called cannon-fodder in the defence of some country, of which they have no knowledge, will not be accepted in this country. It is all very well for Deputy Lemass to shake his head and tell us he does not believe in this——

Mr. Lemass

I thought the Deputy's earlier argument was that all Irishmen would be in Hamburg or Brussels or some place like that.

Mr. Tully

I suggested the Government were anxious to say that there would be plenty of employment and that possibly it would be in Hamburg or Brussels. This might save the Government the thouble of having to expel a Deputy like Deputy Lenehan who voted against their mean trick of withholding the dole from a number of people. The Government would prefer to get these people out of the country. I have been dealing with working people for 25 years and the attitude of some of the Government members towards the working class of this country is disgraceful. They have been getting away with this treatment of the workers and this is proved by the fact that in one of the Sunday papers a commentator—well informed—congratulated the Government on the reduction of 13,000 people on the unemployed register. The commentator did not know that 13,000 were starving in the west of Ireland because the consequences of withholding the dole were felt more severely in that part of the country.

The only way this Government can reduce the number on the unemployed register is by making the people ineligible to draw the allowance. I might mention that another method was used lately, which fact came to my notice recently. When the emergency started in the north two years ago, a number of reservists were moved into the Army and they have not been allowed out yet. This means that if they were unemployed previously they are no longer on the exchange numbers and if they were employed someone else has their job now. However, that is by the way.

The Taoiseach was anxious to tell us that there would be no danger of dumping if we enter the EEC and we would not be forced to accept dumped goods. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that it will not be possible to prevent dumping; as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, it is impossible to prevent goods going from Donegal to Kerry or from Westmeath to Louth. It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to make such a statement.

There have been repeated comments from Fianna Fáil Deputies about the regional policy of the EEC. Let me put it on record once again: the EEC have not got a regional policy. They have been talking about such a policy for years.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): They have started such a policy.

Mr. Tully

During the first year of their existence they tried an experiment in southern Italy but they have not done anything since. They have no regional policy and this was not written into the Treaty of Rome. In fact, there is grave doubt whether they would be prepared to allow any Government, including the Irish Government, to pay subsidies to industries which might be starting in regions comparable to the west of Ireland. It is unfair that the impression should be given here that there is a regional policy which will do something for the west. We have been trying to save the west for long enough; do not let us save it again on paper—it cannot be done.

The question has been asked: What do the Labour Party intend to do if the referendum is held? The Labour Party believe it would be a mistake to go into the EEC. We know that if Britain goes in we shall be put in an awkward position but we consider every effort should be made to try to get an alternative to full membership. We do not believe that negotiations are being conducted in a proper manner by a Minister who puts his hands over his head once he gets on the plane for Brussels and holds them there until he returns to Ireland and who says that we are going into Europe whatever happens. This is not the way to conduct negotiations.

The Labour Party will do their best to put before the Irish people the mistake being made by the Government. We suggest that this Government, or their successor, must carry out negotiations in a proper manner. We do not believe this is being done now. We shall oppose this attitude of the Government and we believe we will have substantial support if the matter is put to a referendum. If the referendum is carried, and if the decision is that Ireland should join the EEC, we will not take up arms against the Government for trying to do what the people want.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I was interested to hear the contribution by Deputy Tully, particularly the final part of his speech. He mentioned that it was the intention of the Labour Party to oppose the proposals if put to a referendum. As Deputy Tully has mentioned, this is a most important debate and the decision taken by the people will be one of the most important decisions in our history. It is essential that the issues be put clearly before the people. The debates in this House will help Deputies—those in favour and those against entry—to put their proposals before the Irish people.

We can take it that Britain will succeed in gaining entry into the EEC and any discussions in this House should be against that background. We must look at our situation and consider our circumstances, economically and socially, the effects on industry and agriculture, and, most important, the effects on our workers.

Industry is one sector which may cause concern having regard to the competition we shall face from European countries. We must consider the situation if we remain outside the Community. Possibly we would try to negotiate for associate membership or for some kind of trade agreement. Automatically we would be up against a tariff barrier in our export markets. Whether we like it or not, we must increase the employment potential in the industrial sector. There are more people employed in agriculture in Ireland than in any other country of the EEC. That is the pattern and it will continue throughout the world. As there is a falling off in agriculture we must concentrate on industry in order to generate more jobs. If we remained out of the EEC the flow of capital into this country would be restricted. I could not see foreign industrialists channelling their money into our economy knowing that they have to overcome the tariff barrier. They would move to some of the European countries, Britain, France, Belgium and Germany and invest their money there. This would create a very serious problem in relation to the economic expansion for which we are hoping and striving over the past number of years.

It is ten years now since we started preparing for the Common Market. I remember the late Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, exhorting industrialists at that time to re-adapt, streamline, and get their production costs right. He envisaged at that time that the hour we are now approaching would come. Therefore, it is not today or yesterday that our manufacturers have been told what their obligations will be. They have obligations to society. Many of them—I would not say all—have adapted, but I believe we can go further. The important thing is to protect these industrialists during the transition period. There is this danger of dumping, as Deputy Tully has already said. I could see this as a threat to some of our industries. We would also want to ensure that our retail outlets do not fall into the hands of a monopoly, especially a foreign one. No matter how competitive our products may be, if foreign capital succeeds in controlling our retail outlets I could see a great danger that retail outlets in this country, with a manufacturing base in foreign countries, would give preference to the foreign goods. This is one matter I should like to see discussed to ensure that a back door is not found whereby these manufacturing concerns would be able to distribute their produce in this country to the detriment of Irish manufacturers. At the moment much British and other foreign material is coming into our retail stores, far too much for my liking.

As the Taoiseach said today, we shall have to see what will be the situation in regard to our tax reliefs. We have enjoyed these for a number of years and let us hope that in the negotiations we succeed in keeping these tax reliefs up to the very maximum time, 1990. This will be vital to our industries. It will help to entice foreign manufacturers. We must try to ensure in our negotiations that we are left this concession until our industries are on the same footing as those in some of the continental countries. Although we have advanced in industry, and have succeeded in employing more each year, even so, we are not as far advanced in technique and technology as some of our competitors in the EEC countries.

Many people express concern that some of our smaller companies or industries may not succeed against big manufacturers in the Community. I do not believe this. Eighty-nine per cent of the companies in Germany employ fewer than 100 people. It is the very same in France, although I am not saying that there are not some very big companies or corporations in these countries.

People have been talking about our sovereignty in the EEC context. I would not like to imagine what it would be in the context of a United States of Europe with Ireland outside. We would have our sovereignty and we could make our decisions but I doubt if a consolidated European community would take much notice of us when they began to formulate policies for the future Europe. We might lecture to the EEC about decisions they would take but they would say: "It is our duty to formulate our policies. When you had the opportunity to become one of us and to partake in the formulation of policy you refused to do so." They would be quite justified. The challenge is before us now and I have no doubt what the result will be. I have no doubt that, when it is put to the people, and when it is explained in detail, as it will be explained—and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing an excellent job in explaining it to the people— they will vote wisely and well because they are not shortsighted. They can see a future involvement in Europe. They do not want to be isolated on a western island with no say in future moulding and planning, and unable to join in the prosperity of the Community.

It is important that the facts are put to them and that certain misleading statements are contradicted at all times. This has started and will continue until the issues are put clearly before the people. The sooner the issues are put before them the better. There is a danger that if we drag on people will become confused. What hope would we have for the unification of this country if we stayed out? It is quite obvious that England will succeed in getting in, in conjunction with the six northern counties. If we join, politically the Border will be only an academic question, not an economic one. If we do not join we will be cementing the Border forever and isolating ourselves in the 26 southern counties. By joining we will be integrating our interests with those of our northern brethren. By joining we will be with them in the Community and by staying out we will be moving in the opposite direction.

Somebody said that there was no regional policy in the EEC countries. They may not have attained all their objectives but in Southern Italy some headway has been made with regard to a regional policy. It is the aim and the objective of the Community to direct the wealth of the Community to the most undeveloped parts of member countries. During the negotiations it should be pointed out how vital it is for us to benefit from a good constructive regional policy. We must make every effort to ensure that the Community will initiate a strong regional policy under which the underdeveloped sections can partake of the wealth of the Community. I believe this will take place. Apart from that, it has been Government policy here to have a regional policy. They have put this forward and they have succeeded to a certain degree. This, combined with a concerted effort within the Community should ensure the additional flow of wealth which is so urgently needed so that industries can be started in the West of Ireland and the north-west.

We will also require an experienced labour force. The Department of Labour and AnCO should try to ensure that our workers are skilled or semiskilled. It is quite obvious as time is moving on that there is less and less room for unskilled workers. Even though we have many people unemployed there are many firms which cannot get suitably qualified persons to fill the vacancies. Any help that can be given to this sector should be given. There is no point in starting to train workers after an industry has been started. They should be skilled or semiskilled so that when a manufacturer comes here we can say to him: "Here are a number of people who are available for work in your factory." By and large, the worker who has been in agriculture is not altogether suitable to take up employment in industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call on the spokesman to conclude on behalf of the Labour Party.

Mr. R. Barry

Could I have a few minutes? I can assure Deputy Keating that I want to make one point only.

Mr. Keating

I am quite agreeable.

Mr. R. Barry

Thank you. I wanted to express the fears of many people throughout the country with regard to our negotiations for entry into the EEC. I want to refer to the proposed land purchase schemes as they might affect us if we become a member of the EEC. In theory, the EEC rules require that any citizen of a Community country should be free to buy land in another country on the same terms as natives of that country. A pamphlet has been published by the Government but I want to tell the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government quite sincerely that a number of people are fearful of a large number of foreign speculators coming in and taking over Irish land if and when we become a member of the Community.

It is not good enough for the Minister to issue this pamphlet and leave it at that. He should make a bold broad statement assuring the people who are worried that the EEC rules will permit us to give priority in the purchase of land to people already engaged in or connected with farming in a particular area. I am not sure that the EEC rules will permit us to do that, but the Minister for Foreign Affairs seems to be sure that he can make some arrangement. Until such time as he makes a broad statement that the rules will safeguard the retention of Irish land for Irish people, those people will still be worried. My plea is that the Minister will now make a statement to allay the fears of all these people.

Mr. Keating

The last speaker but one pleaded for facts and for the truth about the EEC. I am profoundly shocked by this debate because I find that the Government benches are throwing in what one might call minnows who are totally uninformed about the Community and who, though not actually telling lies in the sense that they are not aware that what they are saying is untrue, are in fact perpetrating untruths. I propose to demonstrate two of them. Before doing so I want to say that this is all of a piece with the Government strategy of trying at all costs to avoid giving the true explanation of the facts and to avoid any real discussion because they are perfectly well aware that even were they to try to tell the truth and explain the problems they would find themselves faced with a rising opposition. The only possible tactic is to bundle the whole question of our application and entry out of the way as quickly as possible.

Let me indicate two untruths out of the many perpetrated by people who do not know what they are talking about. It is no shame that they do not know about the Community; it is a complicated thing. The shame is that they are put up by the Government Party to talk about the Common Market when they do not know anything about it.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

Is the Deputy suggesting that the speakers are put up? The speakers offer of their own free will and they are taken in turn. For a start, the Deputy is making false statements.

Mr. Keating

If they were not chosen from inside the party then it is even worse because one has these ridiculous people offering. I thought there would be some sort of discussion inside the Parliamentary Secretary's party, as there is in ours, as to who should participate in a debate like this. We do that. The Parliamentary Secretary's party may not do it. I thought it was a normal thing for any party to do it.

In the absence of a regional policy why should industries which could locate in the golden triangle locate here? It is a pity that the last speaker but one had not read the recent statement on the EEC regional policy. There is no mechanism for pushing out wealth from the dynamic centre to the periphery. What will prevent the mechanisms which emptied Ireland and Scotland in the last century, under a common market of the United Kingdom, from working in the second half of this century and sucking out people and capital to the dynamic golden triangle? That is a serious question which merits some sort of answer.

We have heard arguments about agriculture on about the same level as the dry stock argument, which is that it is labour intensive. This again is an interesting reversal of Fianna Fáil policy. As a younger man I remember hearing Fianna Fáil giving out about farming with a little man and a big dog. It was meant to be a bad thing in the Fianna Fáil scale of values and I think they were right about that, but now the Minister for Foreign Affairs has discovered that this is labour intensive. The other arguments for agriculture are at about the same level.

Somebody here mentioned the flight from the land as if it had just been discovered, but it is happening all over the world. At page 19 of the statement of 21st December, 1968, Mansholt said:

The rapid diminution of the agricultural population is a feature of the times. But if the living standards of farmers are to rise enough within ten years to make good the present leeway, then the rate of decrease in the agricultural population must be greatly accelerated.

We know about the flight from the land but the point of Mansholt is to make it faster. This makes perfect sense where there is a hungry industry soaking in workers from Turkey or North Africa, but where there is no industry and no thought that there will be an industry to soak up those workers it does not make sense for us —in fact, it is very bad for us. Let us have a serious argument to indicate, if Mansholt price and other methods are put into effect all over Europe, what will happen to the Irish workers so displaced. Do we want them to emigrate? If we do it is honourable to say so; and if we do not, which I do not, then it would be reasonable to say how the industrial growth to soak them up is going to be obtained.

Like Deputy O'Donovan I was shocked by the effort of a hatchet job on Raymond Crotty which emanated specifically from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and from a number of Government spokesmen. He is an eminent and distinguished economist. He is distinguished enough to hold down a British academic job, he has written the best book on Irish economics that has ever been written, he can get consultancies from the World Bank and he has done a great deal of work for nothing but out of commitment. It would be nice to get some sort of factual reputation of Crotty, if such is possible, from any one of the large number of economists who are one way or another on the payroll of the Government.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Keating

It is not an honourable pathway to hatchet him instead of producing serious economic arguments to refute him, if such exist. There are endless promises of this kind of stuff but instead we get, and I repeat in calling the booklet "The Common Market and How it Works", such ridiculous and offensive publications. Crotty is owned serious argument, he is not owned the semi-vilification of a cowardly sort which he has been getting. If there are economic arguments to answer him he should be answered, but if not, the Government should have the pride to keep quiet about it and not indulge in that sort of miserable denigration.

It would be nice also to have an explanation of the value added tax specifically for our farmers. Let us tell farmers in some detail before they are asked to vote on this, about value added tax. Under the Community Irish farmers are going to be taxed although they are not now taxed. They should have explained the mechanics of this because in the short-term prices of certain things such as beef, milk and lamb will rise; they will be 50 per cent dearer, but they will be taxed on their profits as well and if one wants a serious discussion it is fair to talk about that as well.

Let us talk also about the rise in food prices. If there is going to be such an increase in the price of what the farmer sells at his gate is it expected that the benevolent distribution mechanism will retain prices at the same level on the supermarket shelves? If it is not, it is fair to explain to people that the increase in food prices will not perhaps be too onerous and too noticeable in circumstances where they are already rising at more than 10 per cent per annum anyway. Perhaps one can argue that inflation will be roaring on at such a rate that the public will not notice the rise in price, but the Government should not say nothing about it. The Government are not doing what Deputy Fitzpatrick asked them to do, which was to present the facts and let the people in possession of these facts choose.

The same Deputy spoke about a regional policy and he mentioned Italy. The Italians got a protocol in regard to regional development in their signing of the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps our brilliant and vigorous negotiators are doing the same for us, but if that is the case they are keeping strangely silent about it. When regional development is mentioned and the example of Italy is given the plain fact is that it is Italian state policy and not EEC policy. The benefits to Southern Italy could have been carried out, were planned and are put into action by a Government regardless of whether or not it is in the EEC. This is no argument for the EEC.

With regard to the matter of fishing, the argument of special treatment for Ireland is in fact vastly stronger than the argument for special treatment for Norway. The reason is that the Norwegians have a deep water fleet and if other people are allowed on to their fishing grounds they can go long disstances and get on to other countries' fishing grounds. They can go on to the British coast or the French coast. We have a near water fleet and our fishing boats do not have the physical capability to exchange the fishing of our waters at home for the right to invade other country's waters. We do not have that advantage and therefore the need to protect our inshore fishermen is greater and not lesser than the Norwegian need. The supine attitude of our negotiators has already resulted in the Norwegians having to protest because their position was being weakened. The result will be that by negotiating vigorously the Norwegians will get concessions which we will not get. We shall then see the benefits of negotiating while lying flat on one's face, at least the people who represent fishing constituencies will see it. It may be that it is not a great source of income in a national sense—it is to our disgrace that it is not—but it has a vast potential and one that we are betraying.

Now I come to the matter of motor assembly. My belief is that the Taoiseach will go down in history as the man who presided over the disappearance of Fords from Cork because I cannot see, on the basis of the economics of motor assembly, why for a market of 3,000,000 of the poorest people in Europe it is economic to assemble vehicles in this country unless there are special arrangements which compel the companies to do it. It is not a secret that most of the assemblers in this country do not like assembling and if they could get the stuff in from other factories they would do so. I do not think that there is any conceivable mechanism whereby our motor assembly industry can survive. Its death can be slower or quicker but it will be a certain death nonetheless.

I am now speaking as somebody in whose constituency the majority of the glasshouse and horticultural industry is found. We hear plenty of talk about the future of milk and beef in the EEC. Let us have some serious talk about the future of the glasshouse industry because there are promises about dumping. In passing, by the way, in regard to fisheries, I should like to quote the Government's document of April, 1970, page 46—Membership of the European Communities—

Membership of the enlarged Community should be advantageous for the fishery industry.

That was April, 1970. Fine talk for people who are really looking after our interests: "should be advantageous for the fishery industry". When the Norwegians were already raising Cain in their negotiations, we thought it would be advantageous.

Let us hear about the protection against dumping. This word "dumping", what does it mean? In all the protection in the Treaty of Rome—and there is protection written into it, not very effective but it is there—dumping means selling below the cost of production but if you have a vast textile factory, all you have to do is to sell in Ireland at the cost of production plus normal profits and you will still put our people out of business. We are not competitive in a whole range of things against the very big run of the very big units in Europe. It would not be dumping, even allowing the delay of six months. It would not be dumping but it would still be enough to destroy all these things. For example, if the decision is taken by some powerful commercial grouping in regard to tomatoes and stuff like that, if they come from a hot climate where artificial heat is not needed, to put them into the Irish market where the glasshouses have to be heated, it is not dumping in any technical sense but it is quite enough to destroy the Irish glasshouse industry or the Irish tomato industry.

If people have invested many thousands of pounds and decades of effort in that it is fair to discuss it with them; it is fair to tell them; it is fair to try to find protection. If you cannot find protection, it is fair to tell them in regard to their forward plans. The thundering silence about this in my constituency is very striking.

I raised the question of the continental shelf a month ago in my speech on this subject. Again it was met by thundering silence. Is it too delicate to be discussed? Are the reserves of the continental shelf too important to be even mentioned? Certainly things were going on because the concessions to the various foreign oil prospecting companies have since been announced. Certainly there was knowledge and discussion but no mention.

One could enumerate these: it would be nice to have information about the restriction on employment in Northern Ireland; it would be nice to know about the representations our Government have made to have this prohibition on the free movement of labour inside this island removed as a condition of our entry; it would be nice to hear about that too. Again there is thundering silence. We await some information, some reply. We may wait as long as we have been waiting on many other crucial issues.

It is clear that public opinion, any time it is sampled, is moving steadily against the Community in this country. It is clear we will have a referendum. If you present, of course, the dishonest alternative—I want to find exactly what Deputy Barrett said— that we "would be deprived of 70 per cent of our markets"—if that is what you believe Britain's entry without ours would do, then of course you could not find an alternative to that. That is not the choice. There is no question of our losing 70 per cent of our markets if Britain goes in and we do not. In fact with a trade agreement the question would be of a very marginal loss—no loss industrially, but a marginal loss agriculturally, compensated for by the right to plan our own industry, to control our own finances, to prevent the outflow of capital and labour; indeed, if anybody cares about it any more, to assert our own sovereignty, which may in Fianna Fáil eyes be now a hollow, worthless thing; it is not in other people's eyes—but also to plan the location of industry and to give the sort of special incentives that we will not be able to negotiate in the Community, a trade agreement which we can negotiate when all the evidence of the negotiations with other countries in the world, which the EEC has concluded, would be more advantageous to us and not less advantageous. If you present it in this bogus way—that we will lose 70 per cent of our markets—you are already falsifying the argument before it starts and there is no point in continuing to discuss it.

We will have a referendum. Against the flood of the tendentious party political propaganda that the people are being forced to pay for but which is emanating from the Department of Foreign Affairs, we will try to place the facts before the people. We will of course abide by the result of that. We are democrats and we accept the right of the people to make this decision, whatever it is. We will notice of course that the consulting of the people will be delayed by the Taoiseach as long as possible. The package will be known certainly by the early autumn. There is no reason why this issue could not be decided by Christmas and it ought to be because we need a decision and an end to the confusion that now exists. But, in regard to our negotiations we see the same sort of incompetence, the same paralysis, the same fear of open discussion and open revelation of all the facts that we see in every other area of the Government's activity.

There was never a time when we needed resolute government more. There was never a time when we needed vigorous leadership more and also open leadership that could dare to reveal the facts and defend them in public argument and win that argument but, if you look at the record of the last 12 months, there never have been a more irresolute and fumbling Government, a Government almost incapable of making up their mind and when they have made up their mind incapable of adhering to their decision. The people will decide. If national advantage rather than party political advantage is being consulted, they would decide sooner rather than later. We welcome that opportunity to decide. As at present being negotiated we will oppose the terms being obtained by this Government with all our strength and we will call on the people to decide between us.

Mr. Ryan

The Government have acknowledged within the last month that there will fall to the Exchequer as a result of Ireland's membership of the EEC a bonanza of £30 million annually. Now is the time for the Government to give clear guarantees to our people that that £30 million will be used to give substantial increases in personal tax allowances, in children's allowances, in pensions and all welfare payments. We know that some of the necessaries of life will increase in price because of the much better prices which will be paid to the producers of those necessaries within the EEC. This will have a significant effect upon family budgets. It will not suffice for the Minister for Finance, who is going to reply to this debate, to say that it would be inappropriate at this stage to indicate the manner in which that £30 million will be spent because one of the crucial issues which will affect every voter in the referendum will be the manner in which his family and personal circumstances are going to be affected.

We know that by our own standards and experience all tax allowances and welfare payments are grossly inadequate. They have not kept pace with the depreciation in the value of money. At present our welfare payments are two-thirds the value of the lowest welfare payments anywhere in Europe. This gift which EEC policies will make available to this country without any effort, without payment of any additional taxation by our people, should clearly be spent by the Government not to facilitate themselves in any uneconomic schemes but to provide the necessary cushioning for the individual and the family. I hope, therefore, the Minister for Finance will use this occasion to give clear assurances so that the people will at least be conscious of the fact that their own personal affairs will not be jeopardised within the EEC.

One is disappointed to hear so much defeatist talk in this House and elsewhere concerning the capacity of our people to meet the challenges and the opportunities presented by the EEC. It would appear that some political personalities in this country suffer from a sizeable inferiority complex. They fear that we cannot survive in competition with others. It reminds me of the feeling many people have, sometimes mischievously propounded but at others sincerely held, that half a century ago and more our people were unfit for self-Government, that they could not manage their own affairs. This is translated in the modern age by saying that we are unfit for international politics and international trading, that we are not capable of holding our place in the world. These little islands who think like this should carry this to a logical conclusion and say: "Let us do away with exports, let us put the four people out of ten in Ireland who depend on exports for their standard of living out of employment because we want to live in our own sweet, impoverished isolation."

Membership of the EEC can maintain our standard of living and substantially improve it. If we remain outside the EEC it will mean that this country, even with Britain staying outside the EEC, will have a poorer standard of living and less employment. People who today enjoy the comfort of motor cars, television sets and other amenities are unlikely to be able to enjoy them if we continue to drift as we have been drifting for some time past, pricing ourselves out of world markets, making ourselves uncompetitive. Certainly they will not have them if we decide on isolation.

The analogy that Deputy O'Donovan tried to draw today was one which has no historical or factual basis. He suggested that Irish membership of the EEC would be on a par with the involuntary association of Ireland with Britain from 1800 to 1921. We know our ancestors accepted, and we accept, that the proximity of Ireland to Britain, the undue dependence of Ireland on Britain, has been the neverending source of many of our ills. If we decide of our own volition to continue a situation, which is unnecessary, of putting all our eggs in the British basket we will continue to suffer many of the ills under which we labour at present. Those who are against Ireland's membership of the EEC, beliving that we cannot survive in that international organisation, are the same people who questioned Ireland's ability to assert herself in the League of Nations, the United Nations and every other international organisation of which we have been a member. All too often Ireland has been the victim of British domestic policies which are carried on without regard to the effect which her own partisan conflicts may have on people trading with her.

We are now experiencing another bout of this. We have the situation in Britain in which the Labour Party, which initiated Britain's application for membership of the EEC, are now endeavouring for purely partisan purposes to bring about a switch of Britain's public opinion. It is certainly not yet certain what the outcome of that partisan battle will be. I share the view which Deputy Tully takes of it, but I am not of the same opinion as Deputy O'Donovan. There are within the British Tory Party also members who for reasons affecting the personal survival in parliament of members are prepared to forget the interests of the British people. We have heard from the lips of members of the British Labour Party their readiness, even against their own convictions, to bring down the British Government on the issue of British membership of the EEC if by so doing they can get back into power.

All that is very well but it is most unlikely that the Europe of the Six member nations of the EEC will take kindly to Britain or any other country which applies for membership of the EEC, which negotiates for years for membership and then at the 11th hour begins to engage in partisan domestic politics and battles. If Britain does not grasp the opportunity which history now presents to her of going into the EEC it is unlikely that in our time she will ever be given the opportunity of going in again. Similarly, Ireland have the opportunity of keeping an appointment with history. If we fail to keep that appointment now, because of our own stupidity or because of efforts being made by some mischievous people to do untold harm to the institutions of this country, we will certainly never be given the opportunity in the future of correcting that folly which we through our own stupidity or meanness perpetrated.

Deputy O'Leary said there should be a debate some time about the whole political shape of Europe. We had many questions of a similar nature posed by the Labour Party. I am surprised that they asked questions but did not make any substantial effort to give their own views on it. It is highly desirable that we should discuss what the Irish people believe should be the political future of Europe. I believe that Europe's role in the future, politically, should be a neutral role. That is one of the reasons why I desire to see as members of the EEC not only Ireland, with her commitment to neutrality, but also Sweden and Switzerland. People who now talk of the possibility of Ireland qualifying for neutrality within the EEC do not seem to understand the philosophy which gave birth to the EEC. It was a determination to replace warfare with trade, to replace the competition of battles with the competition of commerce. It has succeeded. It was a determination to bring about a situation in which a Europe at peace within itself would not trigger off another world conflict. It was a realisation that their own mistakes had brought untold ruin on themselves and the rest of mankind twice in this century.

How could anybody, understanding the basis of the EEC, justify the kind of mischievous rumours that are being spread in relation to involvement in military alliances should Ireland become a member of the Community? That is the kind of talk that was being engaged in by Russia and by the left wing dictatorships of eastern Europe at the time that the EEC was first suggested. It is interesting to consider what has developed since then. This fear of the eastern communist bloc is fading gradually and the eastern European countries are now anxious to trade with the EEC. This is to be welcomed and nobody welcomes it more than do the members of the EEC themselves. The Communities are not in any way desirous that the neutral stand which this country has taken since its establishment as an independent state 50 years ago, should be interfered with. On the contrary, they are anxious that Ireland assert her neutrality as a proper doctrine for any member nation of the EEC and that that doctrine be preached within the Community.

Those who talk of military alliances are not aware that existing members of the EEC, with one exception, have no desire to see a development in the nature of a European army or a European commitment. The only nation which seems to desire that sort of development is Holland. It may be suggested that there could be a change and that Ireland, after joining the EEC, might find a situation in which the remaining members wished to bring about a new military situation in which our neutrality would be destroyed. Here again, people are not aware of, or are not prepared to draw attention to, the fact that no substantial change can be made in the policies of the Communities except by a unanimous vote. Therefore, if Ireland believes in neutrality and if we want to see a Europe at peace within itself and a Europe holding the balance of maintaining peace between the east and the west or between any other alliance that may develop in generations to come, we should join the EEC so that we will have a vote in ensuring that the EEC can never develop along a path that would involve Europe, of her own volition, in a war.

Europe is not the six member nations of the EEC nor will Europe be Europe with ten member nations. The Continent of Europe stretches from our own Atlantic coast to the Urals and from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean. At present Europe comprises four different blocs. It comprises the western European democracies of which we are one. It comprises the absolute neutrals—absolute in theory as well as in practice and following lines of neutrality that at times are quite unreal—of which two are absolute neutrals by choice and the other two are absolute neutrals by compulsion. These are Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Finland. There are also the right wing dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Greece and the left wing dictatorships to the east of the iron curtain. Do we think that that is a sound Europe? I think not. Has not that Europe within itself the seeds of further war? I think it has.

Is not the island of West Berlin in the middle of the eastern left wing bloc and a source of annoyance to that bloc? How do we resolve this? It has not been a cause of conflict in recent times but it has been at times since the last war and could become such again. Do we forget about it and expect that generations, perhaps yet unborn, will suffer that situation and not go to war because of it? Are we to try to break down the barriers that divide Europe into these conflicting blocs? If we believe that Europe should develop into a more harmonious union, that European nations should, through trade and commerce, become more dependent on one another, realising their own self-interest requires peace, we must play our part in Europe. We can play that positive part towards the creation of a real Europe, the kind of Europe that we knew when we were learning our geography and history when the atlas showed Europe as stretching to the Urals. This country, economically perhaps, insignificant but, politically considerable, ought to be playing its part in what we believe Europe should be. This develops not merely from a desire to become a world power but from a conviction that our own self-interest requires this of us. We cannot live in isolation and if we have influence we must use that influence not only for our own betterment but for the betterment of mankind also.

The Europe that we could like to see develop politically is a Europe that is socially just, a Europe in which there is an adequate distribution of wealth. Regardless of what the theorists may say, from Karl Marx to the present, about the evils of capitalism, it is extraordinary that in the capitalist system of western Europe which is so much decried, there is available more real wealth for equitable distribution than is available in any other part of the world with the exception of Japan, which has been mentioned.

It has been said that already the final terms of agremeent between Ireland and Brussels are known. I recall that, a few months ago when I had the privilege of accompanying some of my Fine Gael colleagues to Brussels, it was common knowledge in Brussels that the terms of Britain's accession were known and that there was no danger that agreement would not be reached but that the necessary diplomatic noises had to be made for appearances sake. That has had serious consequences in so far as British public opinion is concerned. I am aware of the tendencies on the part of continentals towards lengthy talks and the adoption of attitudes and poses but this kind of display is also having a damaging effect on Irish public opinion. Therefore, it is time that from this Parliament we told our negotiators to go to Brussels and tell them there that if they do not stop this playacting there is a danger that Irish public opinion will become so alarmed that the referendum could face the possibility of defeat. Not only should the Government convey that message to Brussels but this House should say to our own Government that while it is only proper that they should be concerned with the effect which their words would have in Brussels, they must not assume that Irish public opinion is safely behind them in relation to the EEC and that of equal concern is the effect which their silence or their well-chosen diplomatic phrases are having on Irish public opinion. It is time for the Government to leave aside the diplomatic niceties and to say to the people, through this Parliament, that there is no danger of the land of Ireland being bought out by foreigners——

Mr. R. Barrry

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

——because if the Government ensure that we have regional policies, local people, with their own regional committees, will decide what is an adequate farm to maintain a family in proper comfort within that region and nobody from outside that region will be allowed to buy land within it. That is permitted within the policies of the EEC but I would say that very few farmers on holdings of 30 or 40 acres or even less are aware of that policy. It is no disrespect to this House to say that, important as these debates are, we are not getting through to our people. The mass media will generously convey a summary of what is said here but this is usually in a form which our people, busy and necessarily discharging their daily duties, do not find time to read.

It might be a more appropriate activity for us to spend one day a month in recess discharging our obligation by addressing public meetings throughout the country and answering questions about the people's fears. Some of us have been engaging in this activity within our own organisation. I have always found that the most important part of such meetings has been the "question and answer" session at the end where one knew what was worrying the people and where they portrayed their views and questions were answered. In that way it has been possible usually to allay fears. In all cases in which I have participated in these discussions I have found a general complaint that people do not know what EEC is all about. Those of us who are involved in politics have a duty to know and to inform ourselves about such matters. Our efforts and the efforts of the gentlemen of the Fourth Estate have not succeeded in spreading the necessary information. We will have to give more consideration to this in the future.

Again, in relation to our tax exemptions for profits earned on exports it is accepted in Brussels that Ireland may continue to operate those exemptions until 1990. All our Government can say is that they are going to try to get this exemption. Workers in industry are restive about their jobs. Their fears are building up, although it is accepted that because of the peculiar position of Ireland the exemption must continue. Europe accepts the inevitable decline in the number of people on the land. This creates no problem in Europe because industry is hungry for workers and industry prefers workers from their own countries. It is accepted that Ireland, if she suffers a decline in the number of people on the land, must have her own industries, not in the Rhur or in Milan but in Ireland.

It has been said here that there has been no emphatic statement yet from the EEC about future policy. We can accept the word of Dr. Mansholt as uttered in Tralee last autumn that the Commission have, in fact, now realised the folly of policies of importing workers into areas of high industrial and population density. There used not to be a policy to decentralise industry, but Europe now knows the cost of not decentralising industry and we now happen to be making our application in a serious way for membership at a time when there is a determination to decentralise industry. We are certain to get industries from Europe in Ireland rather than have the situation in which Irish people have to go to Europe.

There is another factor which is terribly important. Ireland's membership of the EEC will inevitably attract new foreign investment to Ireland. Such investment has, to a significant extent, been falling off in recent times. We are inclined to blame some of this on the political troubles of the North of Ireland, which are known all over the world. That is not the full answer. If Ireland is outside the EEC there is no reason why any foreign investor would bother setting up a factory here to supply a market of 2.75 million people. If Ireland is in the EEC there is every reason why American, European and Canadian investors should invest in Ireland so that Ireland could supply a market of 260 million people. Industry requires that Ireland be a member of the EEC. Industry requires exports and a market. The fears of workers and management in industry are not justified by the realities of the situation. Let us escape from our own backyard, mentally, economically and socially. We can only climb the wall to open space outside where we have opportunity, if we are prepared to look at this proposal in a more generous way than we have been doing in the past.

It is said after so much discussion on EEC to hear the old arguments again. A suggestion has been made that association is "on", or that it was "on" and would have conferred benefits on us. When we talk about free trade— that is the loose way of referring to the EEC—we often forget that agriculture in Europe is not free. It is a well-controlled and a well-managed market. It is managed by Europeans for Europeans to their own advantage and to the detriment of the rest of the world. Their prices are the prices which are related to the less efficient producers of agriculture produce. If Ireland was in association with EEC or even had a trade agreement with the EEC for the supply of beef, dairy produce and lamb there would be no reason at all for a Europe deficient in these things to pay us European prices for those commodities which we would have to get rid of in order to survive.

We are paying £50 million on our agricultural surpluses. Let us call them what they are—surpluses. What we produce beyond our own requirements are surpluses. We are paying £50 million to get rid of them. We would save that sum by joining the EEC as a full member. What will happen if we stay outside the EEC? We will continue to pay £50 million to the Europeans or others who are prepared to take our goods.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has two minutes left.

Mr. Ryan

The realities of the situation are that we can, within the EEC, expand. Outside the EEC we cannot expand. That is putting the situation at its best. Those who are prepared to accept that we cannot do better may say "stay outside". Those who say we can and should do better must accept the opportunity presented to us. It allows us to free ourselves of the domination of our neighbour, domination from which we freed ourselves politically 50 years ago but from which we have not yet escaped economically, as we must all admit. Within the EEC we can escape from that domination by a new arrangement of international interdependence. We are one of the oldest of the European nations. Our ancestors came across Europe to this island and they could go no further then. We can walk back across that territory from which our own people came and doing that we will find many friends, because Ireland has far more friends in Europe than Britain has. We have always been good Europeans. The British have not. Let us use our friends now to escape from the dominant position and to give us economic independence to match our political independence.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

I should perhaps point out that if one takes account of the gain to the Exchequer by reason of the savings in subsidies on agricultural products and deduct from it the contribution to the Community Budget we are still going to have a very substantial sum of money accruing in this way. I think that the position is that we have never before had such an opportunity and that we probably never will have again. Despite what Deputy Ryan said, I still feel that this opportunity is one which is so important that it requires a very great deal of thought as to how best, in the interests of our people, this money ought to be used.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Colley

A great deal of thought is being given to it. I am sure people in all parts of the country and on all sides of the House will have their own ideas. Deputy Ryan propounded one idea which is not unattractive and is one that has occurred to others but it is certainly not the only idea. All I am prepared to say on it at the moment is that it is so important an opportunity for this country that a great deal of thought will have to be given to it before the final decision is made.

In regard to regional policy some Deputies seem to think that there is no regional policy in the Community and others say that what there is is of no great benefit to us. I want to make it clear that regional development as such is not a negotiating issue in the Brussels discussions. Nevertheless, the subject is one of particular interest to us by reason of our existing regional development needs and the manner in which these needs and the measures adopted to meet them may be affected by membership of the Community. The principal issue for us, I think, is the possibility which it opens up of providing State aids for development throughout the country and of drawing for this purpose on Community sources of finance in addition to our own sources of finance. In the latter connection, the Community is moving towards a greater involvement in regional development. The capital of the European Investment Bank is being increased substantially; the Social Fund is being reformed in a way which will enable it to assist regional development and the plans recently adopted for the improvement of agricultural structures are oriented towards meeting regional needs with the assistance of disbursements from the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

Further progress in this direction will be made with the adoption of the Commission's proposals for Community regional policy and this is something that is expected to occur within a matter of months. Broadly speaking, these proposals involve the following: first, that the Commission would carry out a regular examination with each member state of the situation in the problem regions for which development plans should be drawn up, amplified or implemented as a matter of urgency. These examinations would take place annually or whenever they seemed desirable. They would extend to the magnitude of the funds the member state intends to allocate to regional action over a period of years. If the examination failed to satisfy the Commission it could recommend the member state to submit better or new regional plans and the Commission could also direct opinions or recommendations on regional plans to member states.

A regional development interest rate rebate fund would be set up which would be managed by the Commission and fed from the budget. A guarantee system would be set up for loans made by the European Investment Bank or other financial institutions. The system would be managed by the Commission backed by the member states. Loan guarantees and interest rate rebates would be available in addition to the other measures instituted under the treaty to assist the financing of regional plans approved by the Commission. A standing regional development committee would be set up composed of representatives of the member states under a Commission chairman. It would examine the regional policies of member states with a view to creating what are called converging regional policy solutions. Regional plans could be discussed by the committee at the request of the Commission or the member state concerned. Community aid for financing regional plans could not be granted without discussion by the Commission and the Commission would undertake initiatives to ensure that private and public investors were better informed on regional matters in order to increase their contribution to the implementation of the plans.

At the end of May of this year the Commission put forward to the council proposals for two new regional policy measures. Under the first the Commission would be empowered to pay a premium of 1,500 dollars for each job created in a priority agricultural region—which incidentally would seem, on the face of it, to apply to virtually the whole of this country, judging by the proposed criteria—which was filled by a worker leaving the land. The cost of these premiums would fall on the guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Under the second proposal a rebate of the interest on loans from the European Investment Bank or other sources for investment in infrastructure or job creation in priority regions could be granted by the Commission. The maximum interest rebate would be 3 per cent for a period of 12 years. The cost of rebates would be a charge on the Community budget.

I should like to make it clear that although these proposals of the Commission have not yet been accepted our information is that they are very likely to be accepted in the fairly near future. They are very interesting from our point of view, first, in that they would be additional to what we can do ourselves for the assistance of regional policy development and, secondly, in that they reveal a new approach, an approach which in the past we had been told was not possible under the Rome Treaty. Both aspects are extremely interesting from our point of view.

Dr. FitzGerald

Why was it said that it would not be possible?

Mr. Colley

Whatever about the grant, the idea of a rebate on interest on a continuing basis—I agree that as I have mentioned, there is a 12-year limit proposed—is something which a a number of people argued was not possible under the Treaty of Rome. I myself have always maintained that it was.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Colley

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7th July, 1971.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 6 Jul 1971