asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if his attention has been drawn to the statement of 11th November, 1971, by the vicepresident of the ITGWU to the effect that he is totally dissatisfied with the lack of consultations between the Government and the trade unions on the question of Irish entry into the EEC; and, if so, if he will make a statement on the matter; (b) if, having regard to the fact that the IDA and fishermen's representatives were involved in a consultative capacity in Brussels, he will elucidate his statement on RTE on 10th November last to the effect that trade unions had been consulted in a similar manner as the IDA and fishermen's representatives; and (c) the dates on which formal consultations have taken place with the ITGWU, the country's largest union, on this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
I would refer the Deputy to the statement issued to the Press on 12th November which I circulated to Deputies. As indicated therein, it has been my practice to meet representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for consultations and briefings so as to ensure that the trade union movement are consulted and kept fully informed on our negotiations with the EEC and particularly on matters of special interest to the unions.
I would point out that the president of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union—Senator F. Kennedy —was a member of the congress delegation which met me for consultations.
Would the Minister answer the latter portion of the question, namely, the part which refers to the dates on which formal consultations took place with the ITGWU?
The dates on which I met representatives of the congress were 28th July, 18th October and 27th October. There were representatives of the motor trade union in the congress at the consultation in July. The officials of the Department of Finance accompanied by officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Labour met on 4/9/70, 22/4/71, 23/6/71 and 29/7/71, to report on the progress of the negotiations and the ITGWU workers' representatives were present at some of these, but there were no separate consultations.
Were there any requests by the members of the ITGWU for separate consultations?
I have no record of that. The point being made was, I think, that there was no participation by the union in these negotiations and this point is made by me and by the spokesman the Deputy mentioned. It was only consultation.
But the IDA officials and the fishermen were there in Brussels in a certain capacity. Is that not so?
Yes. I asked members of the IDA and representatives of the fishermen to come in case at any stage of the negotiations I needed technical advice. The consultations with the trade unions were here at home.
In view of the importance of Ireland's application for admission to the Community, would the Minister not think it would be equally important to have representatives of the workers in Brussels?
There was no question of excluding them from Brussels. If congress wished to meet me in Brussels this could have been arranged, but what business we had to do together could be done in Dublin. The need for the technical knowledge of the IDA and the fishermen might have arisen in the course of negotiations on technical aspects of a particular question. The relationship of the congress to me was one of giving information and keeping them up-to-date on events and likely events and getting their opinion of what should be the outcome. I do not think the presence of these people in Brussels would have made any difference to the information that was exchanged between us. There could be no question of the Congress of Trade Unions or anybody else participating in the negotiations because this is not just possible. The statement issued seemed to me to dispel any doubt that may have existed in people's minds that there were members of the trade unions in the negotiations. Nobody but Governments get into these negotiations.
Would the Minister agree that had the trade union members been represented in Brussels at the time the protocol was negotiated the unfortunate and serious blunder of the omission both from the protocol and from the Minister's speech of any reference to increased employment might have been avoided? Would the Minister also agree that the failure to take advice may have contributed to his failure to grasp the importance of this point and ensure, either in the protocol itself or in his speech, which referred to such matters as under-employment and living standards, that there would have been a specific reference to expanding employment, the one really crucial issue the Minister omitted to deal with?
No. It is in the protocol. The Deputy will see in the protocol that the Community accept the Irish aims in this matter. There was no blunder. This is a useful protocol and its interpretation by the representatives of the Community, which was published last week, indicates that the Community under this protocol take on themselves the aims for employment and development. Representatives of the trade unions have commented on the protocol on that basis. The Deputy need have no fears whatever that there is anything lacking in this protocol. This is exactly what we want.
Could the Minister explain then why his speech referred to under-employment and rising living standards but omitted any reference to expanding employment?
The whole basis of Government policy is to create employment. This is accepted by the Community as something to which the Community will contribute.
Why did the Minister not mention it in his speech spelling out the commitment?
I did not think there was any need for it. It is spelled out in the speech of the president to the Council and in the protocol. There is no need to have any doubts whatever about the usefulness of the protocol. It is an excellent protocol and it has been favourably commented upon even by countries outside Europe and also by the trade unions.
I think it compares unfavourably with the Italian protocol.
Could the Minister say whether or not the senior official attending the trade union meeting last Friday has as yet reported to him on the feelings of the trade union?
The official in question is now in Brussels, but I have a report on the meeting. I understand a great deal of anxiety exists in the area about which the Deputy is concerned. We shall have to dispel this anxiety because we can solve our employment problems in the Community, but we cannot solve them outside the Community. It is important that this message should get across to the workers.
The Minister has not as yet been successful in what he describes as, and which they believe are, genuine fears.
I know that. I have been dealing with these matters for some time—not so long as the Deputy—and I know that it is quite difficult to dispel anxiety. In this case it is absolutely essential that we should dispel it because if the workers take the wrong decision and do not realise that membership of the Community is the way to bring about full employment, then we have a really difficult problem.
Has the Minister invited these people to come to consultations?
I have asked them to come to consultations and I have also asked that they would invite me to come to these meetings so that I can talk to them. I will do anything to dispel these anxieties.
What facility does the Minister offer to vocational organisations to accompany him to Brussels for the purpose of discussing technical aspects which arise during negotiations?
I want to make it clear once again that negotiations take place at Government level. At these negotiations there are foreign Ministers with their staffs and the applicant country's Foreign Minister. Nobody else is in the room. It may be that a technical matter will arise on which one will need the expert and, when that happens, one asks that the expert shall be there. In our case, this is something for me to decide. Things have gone very well.
20.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the soft fruit industry has been considered in his negotiations with the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position.
Transitional arrangements have been agreed for soft fruit and most other horticultural products which are somewhat slower than those which will apply to the agricultural sector in general. It is considered that these arrangements should give adequate protection to our soft fruit industry while adapting to the Community system.
Has the Minister read the book issued recently by his Department on agriculture in the Common Market in which the soft fruit industry is written off in a small paragraph by saying that there is not much hope for the existence of the industry in view of the fact that Common Market countries are able to supply better and cheaper fruit?
The industry will meet competition. I do not think anybody has written off the possibility of our not meeting that competition.
Has the Minister read this paragraph in his own communication?
I am not aware of anything like what the Deputy has said.
Perhaps the Minister will get a copy this evening and read about the death knell of the soft fruit industry.
If the position is not as the Deputy has stated will he take back his remarks?
Any time I have made a mistake I have always been ready to take it back but unfortunately Fianna Fáil have not learned that lesson yet.