asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the position of the European Economic Community regarding the possible admission of neutral nations has been defined at any meeting of the Foreign Ministers or Heads of State of the Six; and, if so, in what terms.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
14.
I am not so aware. I should point out in relation to meetings of the foreign ministers of the Six that these foreign ministers meet regularly as the Council of the European Communities, the proceedings of which are confidential.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what effect the recent agreement between Britain and the EEC regarding the retention of the Safeguarding of Employment (N.I.) Act, 1947 for a transitional period after Britain's entry to the Community may have on employment prospects of Irish workers in (a) the EEC, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) the UK generally.
The effect of the agreement to which the Deputy refers is that the restrictions prescribed in the Safeguarding of Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, 1947, on the employment in the North of Ireland of workers from outside the area will be abolished over a transitional period of five years.
Would the Minister agree that the fact that we have sought a similar five year transition period for this purpose must have weakened his hand in seeking, as I presume he did, to have the Safeguarding of Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, 1947, terminated as from the beginning of the transition period?
I think the Deputy will have to agree that membership of the EEC does bring about termination of this Act which, as we all know, is suspect and disagreeable in its origins. The fact remains that the protection of employment which we sought for our own workers was necessary and we should not discount the need for this transitional period. Therefore, I sought that five years because of the anxiety of our own workers. I do not object to a transitional period elsewhere, but what is objectionable in that Act is, of course, its origins and its political nature.
Does the Minister say he did not seek the immediate ending of the Safeguarding of Employment (Northern Ireland) Act?
The Deputy is under a total misapprehension about the functions of the EEC. A function of the EEC is not to determine political differences between member States. This House discussed this matter and I think I made it widely aware that the Act in its origins is suspect—that is a mild word for it. It is a nasty piece of work. What we sought was the protection of our own workers and what the British sought was the protection of employment in the North of Ireland. What membership of the EEC does is to do away with that Act.
I would be wrong, therefore, in assuming that the Minister made it clear to the Council of Ministers that the continuance of this Act from the beginning of the transitional period would be regarded by us as an unfriendly move on their part?
That would have been a silly thing to do.
Would it?
It would have been totally silly and stupid. We are negotiating for membership, not telling them how to behave. As I have said, I and this House made it clear to everybody concerned that this Act had more in it than protection of employment, and at this time to see the finish of it is very welcome. At the same time, I think it would be quite unwise to give the impression that we are dictating to the Community how they will behave with all other nations. I see how it may be desirable to do this but I do not think we are in a position——
I think we should have made our position clear.
We did that. We made it quite clear. Is the Deputy suggesting we should not join the Community because of it? What leverage has the Deputy apart from saying things?
I just wanted to know what the Minister did and I am now quite confused as to what he did.
Directly arising from the Minister's reply, I also am in a state of confusion as to what he did. Did he or did he not make representations to have the Safeguarding of Employment Act made totally inoperable at the moment of our entry? Could we just have a straight answer?
What both Deputies are trying to do and this is quite serious——
Can we have a straight answer?
I will give you one as straight as you ever gave. That is a queer one for you. What both Deputies are trying is to say that the European Community have given their stamp of approval to this Act of Northern Ireland.
No.
I made it clear to members of the Community that this Act, in its origins, is what I regard as a nasty piece of work. If the Community after that decide to allow the Act to go on, I do not regard it as being a cause for us to take up a position in which we would feel that the Community are unfriendly. It is satisfactory that the Act will come to termination after a five-year transitional period and, even though I would desire—and I think it is generally known that I would desire—to see the Act, because of its origins, disappear, I do not object to the protection of employment here or in the North of Ireland because it is necessary to protect workers.
We would still like to know did the Minister ask the Community to terminate this Act.
I was never in a position of negotiation in which I could ask that question, but the members of the Community were aware of my attitude.
Are we now to understand that the Minister does not consider himself entitled to make any representations to the Community on matters that are the content of negotiations between the UK and the Community? Does he exclude himself from the right even to comment or express an opinion on such matters?
No. We have this right, and I can tell the House that the Community were aware that there were nasty aspects in that Act, but since we are seeking membership and while neither I nor anybody else here likes this Act, we should not put ourselves in the foolish position of telling the Community they are unfriendly if they do not do away with it at once. They are doing away with it in five years. They are giving our workers five years protection, and the Members of this House should grow up.