Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1957

Vol. 163 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Free Trade Area and European Economic Community: Motion for Select Joint Committee.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I move:—

That, for the information and assistance of the Dáil and Seanad, it is expedient that a Select Joint Committee, consisting of 18 Deputies and seven Senators, of which the quorum should be eight, with power to send for persons, papers and records, should be set up for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting to the Dáil and Seanad on the following matter, namely:—

the economic consequences for Ireland likely to follow the participation or the non-participation by this country in (a) the proposed Free Trade Area, and (b) the European Economic Community.

At the outset, I would like to direct the attention of Deputies to the very careful framing of this proposal. In order that Deputies should understand both the object and the scope of the motion it would, I think, be proper that its implications should be very carefully studied. I should perhaps say, first of all, what the motion does not propose to do rather than indicate what it tends to achieve.

By its terms, the motion asks for the formation of a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad with the powers stated in the motion to inquire into and report on, for the information and assistance of the Dáil and Seanad, the economic consequences for Ireland likely to follow on participation or on non-participation by this country in the proposed Free Trade Area and the European Economic Community.

The motion does not propose to initiate a debate upon whether or not this country should join either of these organisations or communities. It does not intend to initiate a debate upon the merits of joining or not joining the Common Market or the proposed Free Trade Area. Still less does it ask the House now, and on the meagre information before the country at the moment, to come to any decision whatever on whether or not we should join either the Common Market or the Free Trade Area.

The object of the motion is to secure that all the representatives of the people, whether in the Dáil or in the Seanad, and through them the country, will have the fullest possible information upon these vital matters which will have such a profound effect upon our economic and social life now and in the future and so that the vital decisions that must be made will be taken in the fullest knowledge and by a well-informed people. The motion does not in any way seek to detract from the ultimate responsibility of the present Government, or any other Government that may be in office when vital decisions have to be taken, to carry out on behalf of the nation that ultimate responsibility.

There are, as will be observed, in the motion, references to the Free Trade Area and the European Economic Community. The establishment of the European Economic Community preceded the proposal for a Free Trade Area. Six of the important countries of Europe, on the 25th March of this year, signed a treaty, very elaborate in its provisions, very ambitious in its objects, and one which certainly stirred into activity, if not apprehension, many of the other countries that were not parties to that treaty.

The treaty came as a result of considerations and proposals that had been going on for some time and the rapidity with which that treaty was put into shape and form really gave food for thought to the other members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and made them wonder with some measure of alarm how their own national interests might be involved prejudicially by the establishment of the proposed European Economic Community or Common Market as it is more commonly called.

That Economic Community which was intended to be formed by the treaty had as its proposal the establishment of a Common Market for the members of the community. It envisaged that each of the members of the community would within their own borders have free trade and would abolish all impediments or barriers to free trade amongst the community. It further provided for the creation of common tariffs between the member countries.

The proposals for a Free Trade Area which emerged from the establishment of this European Economic Community differ somewhat fundamentally from the proposals dealing with the Common Market. Those nations in the O.E.E.C. who had not taken part in, or had held aloof from, the proposals for a Common Market endeavoured to discover whether or not it was possible to achieve some form of association or link between their countries and the countries of the European Economic Community. It was found as a result of an inquiry that it was technically possible to have such an association.

Great Britain rather hurriedly proceeded to announce her determination to take part in the proposed Free Trade Area, with certain reservations of a very important character. This country, in common with other countries affected, has to make up its mind as to what its attitude will be towards those proposals. It would be utterly impossible for the country to maintain an attitude of mere benevolence towards the proposal. It would be still less possible for this country to maintain an attitude of complete isolation.

There will be involved in these proposals the creation of a market or markets comprising something like 250,000,000 people and each of the countries involved, either in the Common Market, European Economic Community or the proposed Free Trade Area when it is set up, will be bending all their national energies towards capturing as far as they possibly can the biggest share of that large market for their own nationals. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be outside the scope of those proposals. The extent to which we will be involved or the conditions on which we may be allowed to participate are matters of vital concern for all of us. I think there has been no topic in recent years that has had such an impact upon the Irish public mind as these proposals for a Free Trade Area and a Common Market.

Incidentally, it is gratifying to know, as a further proof of the fact that our people are growing in political and economic strength and knowledge and education that they have realised the importance to the country and to them as individuals of the proposals that are agitating the financiers and economists of Europe, of which, incidentally, we form part. The impact upon the public mind has been such that there are in the country discussions in various groups, industrial, agricultural, scientific and educational, of the effects of these proposals upon us and of whether we ought or ought not join the Common Market or the Free Trade Area.

It is because, in one sense, that there has been so much discussion in the country, that we determined to put down this motion. It is because we felt that the decisions were being taken without adequate information, without sufficient advertence to all the difficulties and all the factors involved that we thought a lead should be given here in public by the members of the Oireachtas to the parties and organisations concerned in the country, either from their economic or social interests.

When these proposals were taking shape early this year the inter-Party Government sent a circular to agricultural and industrial organisations seeking their interest and stimulating their concern in reference to the proposals. I suggest to the Deputies that this motion is merely an extension of the motive behind the Government's action at that time in seeking the help and assistance of the people closely affected, either in their economic interest, agricultural interest or social interest, by these proposals for a Common Market and a Free Trade Area. If I may make a quotation from portion of that circular it may assist Deputies to understand the motive behind the present proposals.

A short history of the proposals was set out in that circular and the problems were indicated. Within one of the paragraphs was stated:—

"The Government are at present considering whether it would be in Ireland's interests to join such an area, and, if so, on what basis we should seek to have the area constituted in relation to the several matters referred to.

Whether we join the area or not, the formation of a Free Trade Area and the emergence of an integrated Western European market of 250,000,000 people are developments which would have significant implications for Ireland's economy requiring fundamental re-appraisal of economic plans and policies. The effects, favourable and unfavourable, of entering a Free Trade Area on Ireland's agriculture, industry and general economy, not only now but in the future, must be most carefully weighed. Amongst the specific considerations which must be borne in mind in this context are the following:—

(a) the effects of assuming an obligation to remove existing protection progressively over a period of years and of foregoing the right to impose further protection against countries within the area;

(b) the possibility of the inclusion in the agreement establishing the area of provisions for:—

(i) escape clauses related, for example, to balance of payments difficulties;

(ii) special arrangements modifying the obligations in favour of member countries like Ireland, whose economies are not fully developed;

(iii) investment and re-adaptation funds and

(iv) measures to avoid unfair competition (dumping, for example): and

(c) the benefits likely to accrue to Irish exports from the removal of tariffs and other trade barriers in the countries of the area."

It wound up by saying the notice was being circulated so that interested bodies would have the opportunity of putting forward their views to the Departments concerned.

That was an effort to secure the interest, the experience and advice from interested parties in the country. It was an effort, not merely to stimulate the interest of the people in these proposals which would have such a profound effect on their lives and future economy of the country, but was an effort to get them in behind the Government so that whatever vital decisions might have to be taken would be taken with unity and courage, and any risks involved—and there would be risks—would be realised and fully understood if it was necessary to take those risks and necessary to override particular interests, or selfish interests, in the national interest.

I know from my own experience in dealing with that problem that the Government has a very difficult task and is engaged in harnessing the best brains that are available in diplomacy, finance and economics, to advise them of the facts and factors involved in all these considerations, so that the Government may determine its own policy and have its proposals ready for a certain date for submission to the Dáil and to the country. I do not think that is enough. I do not think it is right or proper that this policy should be considered, and the problems involved and the decisions taken, merely by the Government, however carefully they may make them or whatever expert advice is available to them, without every Deputy and every Senator being fully informed and fully educated on all the factors involved, and on the facts that would have to be faced.

Since these proposals emerged, further difficulties have arisen. Great Britain would appear to make it as a condition of her entry into the Free Trade Area that agriculture should be excluded. Agriculture is the basis of our hopes of prosperity in this country. It is vitally necessary for us, therefore, to know what policy we ought to adopt in reference to that proposal. It is of fundamental importance for us to bear in mind that we are living in a highly competitive world, that our whole hope of progress, political, economic and social, rests upon the development of our primary industry here, agriculture.

How is that going to be affected by these proposals? We do not know the facts yet and it is for the purpose of getting the facts that this motion is put down, so that Deputies of every Party may sit together as a unified body, leaving politics aside, leaving their own particular points of view aside, and collect and collate the facts and as a body representing the Dáil inform the Dáil of all the facts, so that all Parties may approach the consideration of these important problems, and the factors involved in this very vital and fundamental matter, in a detached way, thinking only of the paramount interests of the nation.

That is what this motion proposes to do, to ask the Dáil and the Seanad to appoint their representatives on a committee charged with the duty of ascertaining the facts, ascertaining the problems involved in all the considerations in the Common Market and Free Trade Area, so that all the factors, the facts and the problems may be collected, collated, assessed and put before Deputies here so that they may approach the problems with a full appreciation of these very fundamental matters.

We have had problems for many years but whatever Government has been in office since 1922 it has endeavoured, in very difficult circumstances, to make up for centuries of neglect in our own country, to build up our industries and agriculture to the level required. We may think, as we do think, that for many years too much emphasis was placed on one sector in our economy, to the disadvantage of other sectors, but whatever our views may have been politically we have all been endeavouring to build up our country.

These proposals for a Common Market present us with a challenge. Personally, I think they also present us with an opportunity but we cannot accept the challenge or avail of the opportunity unless every Deputy, every Senator and all the organisations affected throughout the country, know the problems, know the facts, and are able to assess what is involved and, if possible, leave aside their own particular selfish or vested interest in the nation's concern. It would not be possible, in my view, and in the view of many of my colleagues, to arrive at a really satisfactory national policy in this matter unless all sections of the country, and all Parties in the House, worked together in a unified effort to meet this challenge and to avail of the opportunities. This motion is put down for that purpose, as a method of achieving that very desirable aim.

Since the proposals emerged, further difficulties have arisen, as I have said. Great Britain is insisting on agriculture being left outside. How far that will be persisted in nobody knows. How are we going to be affected by these proposals? One matter that must be borne in mind in all our consideration and thoughts on this very vital matter is that there will be no sentiment allowed to operate in connection with the proposals for the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. There will be nothing but highly competitive effort on the part of each nation in each of the communities. We have to gird ourselves and arm ourselves for that highly competitive idea.

We have our trade agreements with Great Britain. We will get our agreements with Great Britain on the strength of the case we can make, not because we are either in or out of the Commonwealth. We have the emergence recently within the last few weeks of expressions of views from certain members of the British Commonwealth of Nations desiring closer trade relations between the members of the Commonwealth. How are we going to be affected by that? I know it could be said that they are matters for the Government. One phrase that irritates me—there is only one other phrase that irritates me more—is that "it is the duty of the Government to govern". The other phrase that irritates me is that "it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose". The duty of the Government is to seek views where it can and it is the duty of the Government to accept ultimate responsibility. In circumstances such as these the duty of the Government is to bring into close co-operation, consultation and effort every section of the community and every Party represented in the House.

I want this committee—I hesitate to use a phrase which I do not like either —to be more than a fact-finding committee. I envisage this committee as a committee that will work and work hard to educate each member of that committee and through that committee educate each member of the Dáil in the very vital interests that are affected by the Common Market or the Free Trade Area.

We have been concentrating, as I was about to say some few moments ago, on building up our country and, perhaps, we have unduly emphasised the building up of our manufacturing industries to the detriment of agriculture. That may not be the view of all Parties but it is certainly our view. At all events we can no longer afford to concentrate our efforts inwardly on the home market. This is a challenge to us as a nation. Decisions must be taken, decisions which will affect our country fundamentally for many years. Those decisions can best be taken by the members of a Parliament fully informed and fully educated. I envisage this committee as a means of informing and educating the House so that when the ultimate proposals come before the Government it will not be a case of people saying: "The Government have the means of ascertaining the facts. They have the diplomats, the financiers, the economists who should know what they are doing and we will just walk in behind them."

I want every Deputy to approach the proposals of any Government on a constructive basis but above all in an educated and informed fashion. If the committee do their work well, finding out what are the facts, what are the problems, what will be the effect on our economy of participation in the proposed Free Trade Area or the Common Market, and then, having done their work, present a report to each member of the Dáil and Seanad for study, then I think we will have the material for building up unified public opinion in the country and unified, informed and educated opinion in the Dáil. In that way we will know that in the very serious problems that are involved it will not be merely a Party decision that will be taken but a national decision in the national interest. Accordingly, I recommend the acceptance of this proposal by the Government.

Mr. Dillon

I second this motion, and reserve my right to intervene in the debate later.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass)

The Government is unable to accept the proposal in this motion. I hope the motion will not be put to a division but if it is we will have to vote against it. Our objections to the proposals of the motion are both practical and constitutional. I propose to deal with the practical objections first.

The motion suggests that consideration should start now through the instrument of a committee of the kind described in the motion of the probable economic consequences of a decision to join or not to join the proposed Free Trade Area or the European Economic Community. So far as the Free Trade Area is concerned, it would not be possible for any committee, no matter how constituted or how well informed, to assess intelligently the consequences of membership of the Free Trade Area until there was some knowledge of what the obligations of membership would entail for this country. We do not know now what will be the obligations of membership, nobody knows. No country in Western Europe is in a position of knowing what the obligations of membership of a Free Trade Area will be. Still less do we know now the extent to which these obligations may be modified to meet the special circumstances of our case.

Deputy Costello said he did not want to initiate a debate on the merits of the Free Trade Area proposal. Why not? I think Deputy Costello would answer that question by saying because we have not got now the knowledge, the information and the data needed to debate that question intelligently here. The committee will be in no better position. If such a committee were set up composed of intelligent persons it could do nothing at its first meeting except decide to adjourn sine die until it knew what it had to report about.

Deputy Costello spoke about proposals and because he used that term more than once I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is happening. The only decision which has yet been made was that taken by the council of O.E.E.C. in February last to begin negotiations for the bringing into being of a Free Trade Area which would on a multi-lateral basis associate the European Common Market, for which the six-nation agreement has already been concluded, with other members of the O.E.E.C. That is the only proposal we have yet of a definite kind—a proposal to begin negotiations to bring a Free Trade Area into being and to associate that area on a multi-lateral basis with the European Common Market.

For the purpose of enabling these negotiations to take place, O.E.E.C. set up three committees or working parties. The first of these working parties is concerned with the main problem, the technical measures necessary for associating the other countries of Western Europe as a group with the Common Market. The second is examining the possibility of extending the idea of the Free Trade Area to cover agriculture, and the third committee is dealing with the special situation of countries like Ireland which are in course of economic development.

These three committees are working, but none of them has reported. Nobody would even attempt at this stage to forecast when they may report. It is hoped that they will be able to submit their reports to the council of O.E.E.C. before the end of the year. There was an idea at the beginning that the planning would proceed more rapidly. There was a suggestion that these committees would be able to report this month. That idea has long since been abandoned—and even the estimate that the committees might complete their work and submit their reports before the end of the year is, in some quarters, regarded as optimistic.

Ireland is, of course, represented on all three committees. It is not even possible, from the work that has already been done by these committees, to reach a conclusion as to what probable form their reports may take. Divergence of views has already been revealed at the discussions. It has occurred on a wide variety of matters in Committee No. 1—"Committee No. 21", O.E.E.C. calls it—the main committee dealing with technical aspects.

The differences which have occurred are, firstly, those between a group of countries that want to confine the agreement to one removing tariffs, quotas and other trade restrictions and to go no further than that, as against another group of countries which wants a more comprehensive association like the European Economic Community which would cover not merely the removal of restrictions on trade but also such things as transport, social welfare services, wage levels, employment opportunities, invisible transactions and so forth. Secondly, in that committee other divisions have appeared between one group who want a rigid system of tariff dismantling with a minimum of escape clauses or with no escape clause at all, and those who want a more flexible system.

I do not think anybody would attempt to forecast at this stage which viewpoint will predominate within that committee and determine the character of the report it will submit. The second committee deals with agriculture and has a still more difficult problem. I do not know if it is appreciated fully by all Deputies that free trade, in the sense in which these words are usually interpreted, in agricultural production, is not contemplated even by the European Economic Community, although the Rome agreement between the six countries who comprise that community does envisage a common tariff against the products of countries outside that community.

The committee set up by O.E.E.C. in connection with the Free Trade Area proposals is considering whether that régime contemplated by the European Economic Community can be associated with the other members of O.E.E.C. in a way which will avoid the discrimination which is implied in the agreement. That committee has a most difficult task because these common market countries have not yet worked out a policy to achieve their aim. The agreement contemplates that an agricultural conference for that purpose will be convened after the agreement has been ratified.

It is therefore clearly impossible for the O.E.E.C. committee dealing with agricultural problems to make a report based upon any reliable knowledge of what will happen even in the European Economic Community. The British position in that regard is well known: the British Government has proposed that all agricultural production defined as food and drink for man or animal, whether raw or processed or packed, should be excluded altogether from the agreement. One of the tasks given to this committee of O.E.E.C. is to consider how that attitude of the British Government can be reconciled with the main conception of the European Free Trade Area. That committee has hardly begun its work and the discussions of the committee so far have not proceeded beyond the point of clarifying the problems that have to be dealt with.

The third committee, the committee which is dealing with the special problems of countries in the course of economic development, has been working and the case which we prepared for that committee has been considered by them. As the House is aware a delegation from that committee came here last week for consultations with Ministers. The negotiations are proceeding. It is not contemplated that they will be resumed earlier than the end of September or early in October and of course it is only a matter of guesswork when one tries to assess what the outcome of that committee's deliberations may be. At some stage, and before the negotiations with that committee can be finalised, it will be necessary to have discussions with the British Government on the implications, vis-a-vis the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, of the Free Trade Area. And, indeed, until such discussions have taken place it is clear that one very important factor bearing on the whole issue will not have been clarified.

Most of the organisations in the country which represent special interests, in response to the invitations issued to them, have submitted very useful memoranda of their views, but all of them, I think without exception, have referred to their inability to make more useful comment upon the proposals until the reports of these working parties are available. I do not think that these organisations are in any need of information about the interests they represent and yet it is clear that they have realised that action such as is proposed in this resolution at this stage is, from their point of view, completely premature.

It is clear from what I have said that the negotiations for the drafting of the European Free Trade Area Agreement are not nearly at the stage when it is possible for us, or indeed for any country, to assess with any precision the economic consequences of a decision to participate or otherwise.

I think it is in the public interest that that fact should be made very clear. No sudden or radical change affecting our trade is about to take place. Indeed, the setting up now by the Dáil of such a committee as is proposed would give a wrong impression by conveying a suggestion of urgency that is not justified. Even if the case we are making for a special protocol in the agreement modifying the obligations of membership in our case is rejected in toto I think we would still be a long way from the point of decision. I think that is a brief summary of the practical case that can be made against the proposal in this motion that a special committee should be set up to report upon the economic consequences of a decision to join or not to join the proposed Free Trade Area.

So far as the motion contemplates an examination of the desirability of joining or not joining the European Economic Community the idea is, I think, even more unrealistic. It is true that the agreement for the setting up of that community has been completed and signed and its terms are known. It is true that the process of ratifying that agreement has already started but in that case we could not join the community by our own unilateral decision. The agreement provides for the admission of additional states by the unanimous vote of the existing participants in the agreement.

I do not know whether we could or should in any circumstances, so long as the agreement is limited to those existing members, contemplate such an application. It is fairly clear now that we could not get into the European Economic Community on a limited liability basis. I understand Denmark has applied for admission to the European Economic Community so far as agriculture only is concerned and has been refused. That agreement signed at Rome for the establishment of a European Economic Community commits those who are in the community to maintain a common tariff agreed by all against the products of countries outside it. It contains also far-reaching provisions for economic integration as distinct from the mere removal of trade barriers, and for the harmonisation of social and financial policy.

The obligations involved in membership of the community are of a character which I believe it would be impossible for us to accept at the present stage of our development or to accept in circumstances in which our nearest neighbour and largest customer remained outside it. It is certainly not practicable to consider membership of the European Economic Community until the position regarding the Free Trade Area proposal has been made clear. It is obvious that the obligations of members of the European Economic Community are far more rigid and onerous than are contemplated in regard to the Free Trade Area. It would not be merely inappropriate but highly undesirable for the Dáil to set up a committee for the purpose of giving formal consideration to the desirability of joining the European Economic Community with these rigid and onerous obligations attaching to membership when the case we are making to the O.E.E.C. is that even the less onerous obligations of the Free Trade Area require modification in our circumstances.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I would direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the motion does not envisage considering the desirability of joining or not joining either of these organisations. That is not in the motion at all.

Mr. S. Lemass

What the motion says and what the motion means may be two different things, and I will come to that in a minute. Any question of joining the European Economic Community would obviously have very profound implications so far as our trading relations with Britain are concerned and I think most intelligent people will accept that, if we are at any time to consider the question of joining the European Economic Community, it will be after the negotiations for the Free Trade Area have been concluded and the nature of the agreement for the establishment of a Free Trade Area known and fully understood.

These are the practical objections to this motion, but there are other objections to it also. I think, whether Deputy Costello intended it or not, this motion has got constitutional implications which are undesirable. The Deputy may not have intended to propose the transfer to a Dáil Committee of what is constitutionally a function of the Government, but I think that is what the setting-up of this committee at the present juncture would mean. The Constitution puts squarely on the Government the responsibility for negotiating and concluding international agreements. There is no doubt that, when the terms of the Free Trade Area agreements are known, the Government, the members of the Dáil and the public generally will have to take an important decision. There is no doubt also that that decision will have to be based upon an assessment, such assessment as may be possible, of the economic consequences of going in or staying out.

It is not now a question of whether it is desirable that the members of the Dáil or the public should be fully informed on all these matters and should have the knowledge and the information which will enable them to help in making that decision. The question is whether a particular committee of the kind proposed in the motion under discussion here is the best means of informing them and, as an argument against the setting-up of that committee, I urge that it would constitute a very dangerous and undesirable precedent.

Deputy Costello has declared that he does not desire to detract from the responsibilities of the Government, but the establishment of the proposed committee would inevitably have that effect. It is contemplated by him that there should be a Dáil Committee which would have power to send for persons and papers. I do not know if he contemplates that this committee which he proposes should have the right to ask the officers of my Department, or of the Department of External Affairs, or the Department of the Taoiseach, or the Department of Agriculture to come before them and to express personal views there, or to reveal the instructions they get from their Ministers, or to answer questions designed to find out whether they are of a different viewpoint from that expressed by their Ministers in the Dáil. Any such arrangements would undermine the whole theory of ministerial responsibility.

Ministers are here responsible to the Dáil, entitled to be questioned by any Deputy on any matter affecting their administration. Members of the Dáil have the right to table motions for debate here. That is the way that democratic Governments should work and not that private members of the Dáil should have the right of access to departmental files, the right to examine into the processes by which ministerial and Government decisions are taken. Many of the documents which have been received from O.E.E.C. relating to this Free Trade Area proposal are marked as intended for confined circulation to members of the Government only. Is it contemplated that members of the Dáil should have access to these documents? The motion does apparently contemplate that, irrespective of the intentions of those who framed them or sent them to us, they should be made available to Deputies outside the Government.

Now this is not a question of Government versus Opposition. It is not a question of the Opposition sharing the burdens of Government. The Government Party, presumably, would have in any committee set up in accordance with the procedure of this House a majority and would, therefore, be able to protect itself against the submission of a majority report which might be prejudicial to the interests of the Government or to the interests of good government. The question here is not a Party question. It is a constitutional question whether a Dáil Committee is a more suitable instrument for the making of policy decisions than the constitutional Government. We feel that would be a most undesirable precedent to establish.

I have said that it is not a question of making information available to Deputies. Deputy Costello defended his proposal on the ground that it would be a means of informing Deputies and, through Deputies, the country, about the issues involved in this matter. It would be an instrument of education. I have as much enthusiasm as he displayed for the giving of the fullest possible information to all members of the House and to the country and for ensuring that the information is properly assessed and understood and used intelligently to help in the making of right decisions. We have every desire to give to the Dáil and to the country the fullest information on this matter and to promote discussion on it.

Deputy Costello mentioned that when he was Taoiseach a memorandum was circulated to interested organisations, associations of traders, trade unions and so forth setting out the facts as they were then known. I have since then circulated another memorandum to all these organisations bringing that information up to date, and the intention is to keep on supplying all members of the Dáil and the organisations interested, directly or indirectly, and the people generally with the information available to us from time to time, as soon as anything definite has happened. I do not know at what stage we may decide that further informative memoranda of that kind can add anything to those already circulated. The committees of O.E.E.C. have to make progress reports to the chairman before the end of this month and I doubt if these progress reports will be very informative.

The important stage of these negotiations will be reached when the committees make their final reports and there will be a considerable interval between the submission and publication of their final reports and the actual preparation of the Free Trade Area Agreement for discussion and possible amendment by the Council of O.E.E.C.

In so far, therefore, as there is any desire to improve the machinery by which information concerning the proposal or the progress of the negotiations on the proposal can be supplied to the House or to the country, we will welcome suggestions. The desire is to give the fullest possible information, to provoke the widest possible discussion on the proposal. We are at all times prepared to hear the views of Deputies, particularly the leaders of Parties in opposition, on the position as it develops. We might at some stage consider methods of consultation but it would be difficult to provide for more formal consultation without appearing to prejudice or weaken the Government's responsibility.

In so far as Deputy Costello has recognised the need for maintaining the responsibility of the Government in this matter, he will also, I am sure, appreciate the difficulty of having any formal means of consultation. In the last resort, the Government must make its own decisions.

We recognise, of course, that the policy decided now in regard to this Free Trade Area idea will affect the economic position of this country long after those of us who are now debating it will have received our temporal or eternal rewards and, therefore, it would be very useful if general agreement upon the approach to the whole issue was found to be possible. So far as we are concerned, we will certainly try to promote it but even there it is necessary to put in a qualification because no Government living up to its responsibilities will take decisions that it does not believe to be wholly right merely for the sake of getting agreement or avoiding the possibility of controversy. All Governments must eventually stand and act upon their own judgment.

We have, of course, the obligation under the Constitution to bring to the Dáil for ratification by the Dáil any international agreement that we may make. The last word is spoken by Parliament. We will have the responsibility, and can easily find means of discharging it, of giving the Dáil an opportunity of discussing and passing judgment on a decision not to make an agreement or to join in an agreement if that should be the decision.

Whatever decision the Government will take will be based upon its assessment of the economic consequences for this country likely to follow on it.

I do not know that it is realistic to think that it will be possible for the Government, with all its expert advisers behind it and all the trade organisations of the country conveying their views to it, much less a Dáil Committee, to assess with any precision what the economic consequences of such a proposal as this may be. It would imply an ability to look forward ten, 15, 25 years, to understand what would happen, not merely in this country but in other countries. I do not know that it would be possible ever to do more than decide upon a general line of approach to the whole issue of economic development and methods of economic development and to take a decision upon the specific proposals relating to the Free Trade Area in the light of that general approach.

But, in so far as it is possible to assess what the economic consequences may be, can we hope that a Dáil Committee or the Government or anyone else can do better than note the conclusions of specialised trade organisations as to the effect of the operation of the proposal upon the trades and economic activities that they know intimately? I do not think so and, therefore, I think that part of the process of educating the people and informing the Dáil about this matter, of giving them the material which will enable them to take a decision in this matter, will be the making available to them in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time and, of course, with the permission of the organisations concerned, the views which they have expressed to us.

I urge that this motion be not pressed to a decision. If it is pressed to a decision we will have to oppose it. I have tried to indicate the very practical reasons why it is impossible to establish such an inquiry at this time. I have indicated the theoretical objections to a committee, as is proposed here, at any time, but I want to make it quite clear, in conclusion, that it is not because there is any desire on the part of the Government to withhold information from the Dáil or to deny the Dáil access to the knowledge which will enable them to assess the economic consequences of this proposal but because we do not think that this is a good way of serving these ends and because we believe that these ends can be better served by the methods now being used. In so far as these methods are concerned, we will, as I have indicated, always be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made by any of the Parties in the House.

Mr. Norton

I want to approach this motion and the consideration of this whole question in a scrupulously non-Party way because I realise that the issue which is now before us transcends all lines of political demarcation. The concept of a European Free Trade Area and its ramifications is the most stupendous challenge that has ever been thrown down to the economic stability of this country. The Free Trade Area concept and its possible evolution will call into question the ability of this country to maintain its economic and political independence. I think the issues raised are so tremendous that we cannot afford to look upon this matter in a Party way. What we must try to do is to distil the collective wisdom of all Parties, sections of our people, and specialist organisations in order to give us as much material as possible to enable us to build up a case, vis-a-vis the Free Trade Area in regard to our special position, having regard to our economically weak position and having regard to the industrial giants with which it is suggested we should merge in Europe.

The issue before us to-day, having regard to our limited economic development, is one which, no matter what we do, will have a very serious impact on the economy of our country. If a Free Trade Area, consisting of six European countries, comes into fruition and Great Britain decides to associate herself with that undertaking, then in accordance with the concept of the Free Trade Area Britain will be obliged, if we stay out of the Free Trade Area, to impose tariffs against our imports to Britain. That would mean we would lose the benefit of the trade agreements which we have with Britain. It would mean that approximately £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 worth of goods of a non-agricultural kind that go into Britain duty free would all be taxed by Britain, because of the fact that under the free trade scheme the countries concerned bind themselves to trade freely with one another but to impose an agreed tariff on those countries outside the area.

If we were to go into the Free Trade Area it would mean we would be obliged to let down all the protective barriers that have been built up over 30 years and behind which it has been possible to develop to some extent an industrial fabric. Has anybody contemplated for one moment what the letting down of the protective barriers would mean to Irish Industry? I know it was calculated in the Department of Industry and Commerce that the letting down of the protective barriers would involve the disemployment of 60 per cent. of our industrial workers. Taking the number of industrial workers at approximately 154,000 in 1955 that would mean disemployment for 100,000 workers, or possibly fewer if food and drink were excluded from the commodities covered by the Free Trade Area. At all events that was the estimate of the Department of Industry and Commerce of the possible disemployment if traffic barriers were let down. Going into the Free Trade Area on the basis now visualized means, according to the architects of the area, letting down those traffic barriers and having free trade within the area.

We have trade with that European area but at the present time it is a lopsided trade. I think the figures of our exports to European countries amount to £5,500,000 and our imports from these European countries represent over £34,000,000 so that the difficulty of establishing ourselves in regard to trade in these countries is overwhelming. As a matter of fact, a good deal of the export trade to these countries is in non-industrial goods. It is in agricultural goods, simply because these countries want agricultural goods.

No matter what we decide to do as regards the Free Trade Area, go in or stay out, the emergence of such an area represents a challenge to our economic and political independence. It represents a challenge to our ability to sustain ourselves as a weak unit within a highly industrialised orbit. Therefore, I look upon this as a matter which is a challenge to each and every one of us to see what it is possible to do to ensure that the Irish case is made with cogency and reinforced with the logic which may make that case irresistible. When are we going to get the case made?

This motion suggests that a committee of the Dáil and Seanad should be set up for the purposes of reporting upon the question of economic consequences which are likely to follow the participation or non-participation of this country in a proposed Free Trade Area and the European Economic Community. With all respect I do not think that a Dáil Committee, or an Oireachtas Committee of this kind, is the best medium for extracting that information. If I were Minister for Industry and Commerce, I would say that such a committee is not the best manner of getting that information.

I think what is needed is an economic secretariat to ascertain all the information we can get on this matter, then distil it and let us try to present a case for our special position in the light of the information we thus obtain. When I was Minister for Industry and Commerce I suggested to the Government that we should circulate the trade unions and employers' organisations of all kinds with whatever information we had, in the form of a memorandum, so that they could consider the impact of the Free Trade Area in relation to their economic activities here. I said at that time that the officials of my Department would be available to elucidate any point on which clarification was wanted and to give these organisations as much information as possible.

I did that because I believe we have got to get the greatest possible measure of co-operation from all these organisations. We have got to get as many people with us as possible in the formulation of a policy which will not represent just the policy of a particular Government, which policy rarely represents much more than half the community. Rather should we get a policy which represents the whole community. In the Department of Industry and Commerce there was a committee which represented not only that Department but also all other Departments. It was the Foreign Trade Committee, and that committee did a great amount of work on this question of the Free Trade Area. As far as Free Trade Area discussions have progressed, I think there is a vast mass of material available on what is intended by the concept of a Free Trade Area, and what the consequences are going to be, on the assumption that what is in the minds of the architects of the scheme at the present time will ultimately be carried into the final scheme when it is in operation.

I think this matter of a Free Trade Area has a significance not merely for those in the European Economic Community but also has a significance for other countries outside it. Countries like Greece, Spain, the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Austria will all be affected by this idea of a Free Trade Area. They have their own particular views and some of these views are common to more than one country. All their cases will presumably be put in due course.

I do not think, on the information available to me that we would normally think of joining the European Economic Community, but once the Free Trade Area comes into being, we cannot ignore its existence and our policy in this respect may be shaped, not even so much by our own consideration— because you cannot decide your attitude in this matter objectively—but in very large measure by what Britain does. We have a market in Britain for our exports, and that is the country in which we sell most of our products. That is the most valuable market we have got to-day. Therefore, we must watch all these Free Trade Area developments with an eye to what the British do in relation to that area. I do not think it is possible for us to stay out if Britain goes in nor do I think it is possible for us to go in if Britain stays out. Therefore, the relationship of the British attitude to our attitude is one which in the long run will profoundly affect the ultimate decision we take.

As I said, what we need above all is the maximum amount of information on the repercussions of the establishment of the Free Trade Area on the whole Irish economy. As the Minister admitted, the question of our participation will not arise until such time as agreement has been reached with the Free Trade Area and then presumably we may endeavour to secure our association with that Free Trade Area on terms which will be least onerous so far as we are concerned. Having regard to the number of committees which are meeting to deal with this problem, I imagine it will be quite a considerable time before all the problems which are thrown up for solution are dealt with by these committees. The scene will change from week to week and from month to month. Many difficulties not now foreseen may very well arise before we are in a position to come to any decision, and it is only when final decisions are taken vis-a-vis the Free Trade Area and Britain determining our attitude to the Free Trade Area that it may be prudent for us to come to a decision.

Referring this matter to a committee of the Dáil and Seanad is not likely to advance our knowledge on the subject to any great extent. I do not think the members of a Dáil and a Seanad Committee can be got to apply themselves energetically and dynamically to an examination of this problem with the care and zeal that are necessary if they are to be a fruitful fact-finding committee. It would be better to get together an economic secretariat, to get the best brains we can in the Civil Service and outside for the purpose of constantly surveying and detailing the various moves and the variety of voluminous documentation which is being thrown up by an examination of this problem in Europe. That is the kind of committee that will give the best results. I do, of course, think that there is an obligation on the Government not to stand on any starchy rights in this regard.

Whatever Government is in office when this matter is decided will be making a decision which we probably will not be able to change for a very long time, if indeed ever. Therefore, it is essential that whatever we do should be done with the greatest possible number of people sharing responsibility for the decision which is taken. Therefore, the Government has the obligation of consulting with the different Parties from time to time, not in any detailed way but in a broad informative way so as to keep those Parties informed as to the moves which are being made on this whole question. If the Government were prepared to do that, to give us the benefit of research by an economic secretariat, that would be the best type of machinery at this stage by which we could get at all the known facts as they affect or will possibly affect our relationship with the Free Trade Area.

We have a case to make and I think the officials who went to Paris to make the Irish case made a good case. They have put before the working parties the special position of Ireland and they have been able to make it clear that this means for us something vastly different from what it means to those who are in the European Economic Community. Perhaps they can still make a stronger case in the light of the developments which take place before the Free Trade Area is established, if it is established.

This whole concept of the European Free Trade Area was one which arose out of a desire to promote greater economic co-operation between the countries of Western Europe. It would be a sad thing if the O.E.E.C. became an instrument of what could only be economic catastrophe for this country. If the Free Trade Area means greater co-operation, a great integration for the mutual advantage of Europe, then the advantages ought to be obvious. If those benefits are obvious and if they are applicable to all, well and good; let all share in them. However, having regard to our undeveloped position, to the economic backwardness of the country vis-a-vis those countries with which we are asked to associate, we are entitled to say to the authors of the Free Trade Area that if the Free Trade Area requires the promotion of co-operation, the promotion integration that is to bring European countries closer together for their mutual advantage, then we ought not to be asked to bear the grievous burdens in the way of letting down our protective barriers until we are at least shown the corresponding benefits which we will get by association with the Free Trade Area.

If the authors of the Free Trade Area say this is good for European co-operation, good for European integration, there is no reason why we should be excluded from the good. But it would be obviously unfair that we should be expected to drop all our protective barriers causing, as it would, catastrophic disemployment of our people while our economy and our industrial machine were not geared to take advantage of whatever benefits are available in the Free Trade Area.

It may well be possible to secure agreement to allow this country to continue its special trade relations with Great Britain. These trade relations are vitally and fundamentally assailed if Britain goes into the Free Trade Area, because Britain then must drop the trade agreement with us and will be compelled to impose tariffs on our goods while all our friends in the Free Trade Area will be able to send their goods, tariff-free into the British market, whereas at the present time, even with no tariffs on our industrial goods, we are finding it extremely difficult to keep our place in that market with the competition that exists not only from within Britain but from some highly tariffed goods coming in from other countries.

I think we have a special case to make. I believe that whatever Government is in power when a decision is finally taken will do the best they can to protect the interests of the country. At the moment our concern is what is the best machinery through which a report could be made on the matter. I do not think the Dáil and Seanad Committee suggestion is the best. I think that the mover of the motion was mistaken in that, because I believe that an economic secretariat would be better able to serve the purpose by producing, from time to time, a memorandum which would be available to the different Parties. The different Parties could themselves examine the material that would be available to them in that way and bring to the Government, in the course of periodic consultative conferences, their views on the problems, having been educated by such an economic secretariat.

I would therefore propose that, as a result of this discussion, we would have some positive assurance that the different Parties in the House will be kept in touch through summaries of documents and of reports on happenings of importance in Europe on this subject of the Free Trade Area. If we get that I think it will be possible for the Government, or whatever Government is in power at the time, to arrange for conferences to be held with the different Parties here so that, as far as possible, all the Parties will lend their aid in the preparation of the best possible case, treating us in a manner which takes cognisance of our economically weak position.

If, in spite of the best possible plan we can get or hire on this question, our case is rejected by the architects of the Free Trade Area, the choice before us will be a bitter and a cruel one, whether we go in or stay out of the Free Trade Area. Whether we do one or the other, unless we can get adequate safeguards for the maintenance of our present trade, the decision to be made will be one which, as I said at the beginning, may undermine speedily the economic and even the political independence of our country.

Mr. Dillon

Let me say at once I have no desire to press this to a division. Our principal desire was to raise the issue and have it ventilated. I do not think the Leader of the Labour Party is quite conversant with the proposal we have in mind. I entirely agree with him that the Minister for Industry and Commerce must fortify himself with an economic advisory committee drawn from the staff of his own experts, of his own colleagues in the Government and, very possibly, outside advisers whom he may wish to consult or employ from time to time.

The purpose of this motion is something rather different. For instance, Deputy Norton, when speaking, dwelt on various aspects of this question which I am sure are quite novel to most members of the House. The purpose of the motion was to provide a machine whereby the members of Dáil Éireann and of the Seanad would be informed of the fundamental facts. The Minister for Industry and Commerce rightly said, when speaking, that the exclusive constitutional function of the Government is to formulate policy. He said that in the last analysis that policy is brought to Dáil Éireann. The sole purpose of this resolution is that when the present Government, or any other Government in power at the time, does come to Dáil Éireann with a grave decision of the character envisaged by the Leader of the Labour Party, it will get an informed Dáil who will know something of the problems that the Government has been digesting and confronting and which the Government's proposals are designed to meet.

The Tánaiste seemed to take fright at the idea of sending for officials of any Department of State outside his own and of subjecting them to an examination. That, he thought, was a constitutional monstrosity. Does the Minister forget that I, a member of the Opposition, will preside to-morrow morning over a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee when I shall send for all the officials of his Department and when I have the right to send for the most junior official of his Department and question him most closely on any figure I may require some information on as regards administration? I may not ask his opinion on policy but I am entitled to question him as closely as I please on any matter of administration. If I am not satisfied I, as chairman, supported by a majority of the members of the Opposition, can require the Minister to bring before me any departmental file. Accordingly, I do not see any very shocking constitutional horror in suggesting that a committee of Dáil and Seanad should be set up for the purpose of getting information—nothing else, no question of policy.

While listening to the Minister speaking to-day, I got the impression from him that one of the practical objections, apart from the constitutional objection, was that there was nothing to inquire into yet, that it was all, as yet, in the air. Here is the treaty. The Minister must have a copy of it if I have one. I can read him the article under which any European State may ask to join the community. I submit to the House that the Minister himself must have known——

Mr. S. Lemass

I said the terms of the agreement were known.

Mr. Dillon

This is the treaty of the European Economic Community which has been signed by six powers.

Mr. Aiken

That is the Common Market.

Mr. Dillon

The European Economic Community Common Market. Article 237 says that any European State may ask to join the community, exactly as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said. The treaty exists for the Common Market. I was present in Paris at the meeting of the O.E.E.C. at which the concept of the Free Trade Area was born. I heard Mr. McMillan say, when presiding as chairman, that while Great Britain could not contemplate joining the Common Market, he would ask the British delegates—Mr. McMillan was there only in his capacity as chairman—to propound their views on it. He was authorised by the O.E.E.C. to open communications with Mr. Spaak as Secretary of E.E.C. to get information for O.E.E.C. The British delegate then declared that while they were not prepared to contemplate joining the E.E.C. they were prepared to consider very favourably being associated with it on certain terms which he then proceeded to outline. These are the kind of facts that the members of the Oireachtas should know.

Another interesting statement which seemed to involve a certain inconsistency was made by the Tánaiste when he said that Denmark had applied for admission to the O.E.E.C. on terms. The Minister tells us he is informed that Denmark has been turned down flat. That is something I have no doubt the Leader of the Labour Party would hear with interest, that Denmark has put this thing to the test, has tried to gain admission on the basis of agriculture only, and the Tánaiste tells us now that the answer is categorically "no".

These are the very facts we thought it was so desirable for the ordinary member of the Dáil and Seanad to know. I have certain reservations in my mind of a constitutional character, which I think also trouble the Tánaiste himself, regarding the proposal of the Leader of the Labour Party about constant consultation. I agree with the Tánaiste, and I am a bit of a purist on this issue, that the Government has its responsibilities, that they are responsibilities of a kind nobody can share with them and that in the last analysis they have to come to Parliament and say: "That is what we recommend and if you do not like it, turn it down. No hard feelings, but you will have to get another Government."

I do not see how in our system of government—and I think it is the best system of government—that ultimate responsibility can be shared. I think the Government has to come to Parliament with what it proposes and believes to be right, and if Parliament does not like these proposals, then, without any hard feelings, there must be another Government or a general election. Somebody else must take over and run the show. I do not think we can have a situation outside wartime emergency—when there is in effect a national Government—where there can be a substantial abrogation of the ultimate responsibility of the legitimate Government of the country to come to Parliament with their proposals and stand or fall by them.

I want to emphasise that our proposal is of a much narrower character and is designed merely to get information for everybody so that when the Government does come with proposals, or has any interim proposals to submit to the Oireachtas it will be confronted with an Oireachtas which knows what it is all about. Is there anybody in the House who will maintain that the majority of us know the essential facts of even the existing situation? I do not think we do. If our scheme for giving that information does not commend itself to the Dáil, has anybody else any proposal to make whereby we can get for the members of the Legislation the information——

Mr. Corish

Scrap the Minister for the Gaeltacht and make a special Minister for this.

Mr. Dillon

Seriously, I do not think——

Mr. S. Lemass

Do not try to kill two birds with one stone.

Mr. Dillon

——that would provide what we are aiming to get. We are not aiming to get information for a select coterie of our various Front Benchers. What this is aiming at getting is information for the generality of members of the Dáil and Seanad so that they will constitute an informed deliberative Assembly when decisions have to be taken which, as the Leader of the Labour Party rightly said, may be of a most fundamental and irrevocable character. I want to press this view. Some machinery is wanted whereby membership of this House and, through it, the people, may be informed of the facts. If this plan does not commend itself, will somebody else propose some other plan?

In conclusion, I want to leave this thought with the House. Our system of Government is not the easiest system to operate but it is the price of freedom. It would be much easier in situations of this kind if you had an executive and nothing else, from the executive point of view but the ordinary Deputies of this House constitute a two-way channel that not only brings, or ought to bring to this House, the feeling of the people at large, but ought also be able to channel down from this House to their own constituents certain essential information about the vital business of this State. They cannot do that if they are not given the facts. It is not necessary to adopt a special procedure to get that information for them about the vast majority of business transacted in this House because debate to and fro here ordinarily provides a Deputy with all the factual information he requires in respect of any issue that may be raised.

Here is a Treaty of some 246 or 248 Articles; here, as the Tánaiste has rightly said are three committees of O.E.E.C. operating in circumstances in which the strangest divergencies are beginning to emerge; here, as most of us know, are Governments which are parties to this treaty, who are in a chronic condition of inability to survive; here, as the Leader of the Labour Party said, is a situation in which our judgment might require to be very profoundly influenced by the decision taken by the British Government. All these are facts which the members of this House should know and which they do not at present know.

All these matters are facts on which members of the House should be able to have access to advice similar to that which a Minister has, because naturally a Deputy on this side will not accept from a Minister of the present Government as wholly objective a view expressed, because we naturally feel that the Minister's view of the proposal is influenced by his general political philosophy and outlook, but all of us—certainly those of us who have been in Government—know that if one approaches the public servants of the State, they have been trained in the art of providing objective, factual information, not biassed one way or the other, awaiting their Minister's decision and thereafter operating policy.

I think it would be very helpful to members of the House if, by some machinery, that kind of information were available to them purely on the factual basis on which it is available to members of the Committee of Public Accounts. Let us remember if we did adopt a procedure—and I entirely agree it should be looked upon as quite an unusual procedure and should not constitute a precedent for ordinary transactions—in a very radical matter like this we would not be doing something which was inimical to democratic institutions or anything of that kind because, in fact, what we would be doing would be adopting a procedure closely analogous to that which is in daily use in the Congress of the United States.

I think that, to employ that procedure in regard to every piece of legislation which comes before a Legislature, is a bad business, tends to make legislation almost impossible and creates a highly undesirable situation. But the Americans like it.

Mr. S. Lemass

They have a different system of Government.

Mr. Dillon

I quite agree, but it is a democratic system.

Mr. S. Lemass

But their Government is not responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Dillon

I agree there is that distinction, but it is a recognised procedure not only in America but also in the French Assembly where they have regular committees on foreign affairs, finance, and a variety of other matters. The fact that it is done elsewhere does not necessarily mean that we should do it here, but the fact that it is done elsewhere in democratic Parliaments, in the French Assembly where the Government is responsible to Parliament, in the United States Congress where the Executive is not responsible to Congress, is worth considering before we reject as unfavourable the terms of this proposal.

In any case, if this is not accepted between now and next autumn will somebody think up a scheme whereby ordinary Deputies will get the kind of vital information they ought to have in order to keep intelligently abreast of this problem and, not least important, in order to be equipped to tell their constituents, who may ask them for a broad outline of what the problem is, what the facts are? We have not got that information at present and I certainly would like to devise some machine which will supply it.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy understands we have circulated memoranda which have dealt with all the facts up to date. Admittedly, they did not contain opinions or interpretations of the facts, but rather mere statements of fact. It is intended to continue that and, indeed, I would welcome suggestions as to additions that might be made to the memoranda but, at the moment, I find it difficult to see at what stage something which could be described as a fact and which should be communicated is likely to emerge. I should think that will not be for some time.

Mr. Dillon

In principle, there is not radically any large difference between us and it is very largely a matter of devising some suitable machinery to achieve a common object. If we cannot do it through the medium of this motion, then I hope that between now and the autumn some machinery will be discovered which will give effective purpose to what we all have in mind.

Mr. J.A. Costello

The putting down of this motion has produced some useful results, though perhaps not the result we would wish for. But there is one thing upon which we all appear to be agreed and that is that the problems involved in the Common Market or the Free Trade Area should not, so far as our country is concerned, be approached on a purely political basis. We are all agreed that everybody so far as possible should be educated on the facts and informed fully of the facts. I do not think it is a derogation of Deputies to say that there is not a handful of them who have the remotest notion as to what the difference is between a Common Market and the proposed Free Trade Area, not to talk of having an informed view on what is involved. I am quite certain also that if this motion had not been put down the facts that Deputies do know now, meagre as they are, as a result of the Tánaiste's statement and possibly as a result of my own contribution, would never have been disclosed to this House. I do not think there can be any controversy about that.

I do not suppose the Government or the Tánaiste had the slightest intention of ever taking the opportunity of informing the House in relation to the position regarding the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. The very form and content of the Tánaiste's reply to the arguments I put forward rather make the case for information, if not through the machinery suggested by us or that suggested by the leader of the Labour Party, then by some other sort of machinery.

Deputy Dillon has just said there should be some method devised by which Deputies should be kept fully informed and, if I may again emphasise it, fully educated on the very vital issues involved in this matter. I do not propose to go through the Tánaiste's arguments advanced against this motion. They were very largely make-believe. He read into the motion matters that are certainly not in it and most decidedly were not intended to be in it. The motion was carefully framed to avoid any suggestion that we should discuss here on the motion whether or not it was desirable that we should join either the Common Market or the Free Trade Area. Certainly, the arguments put forward as to the constitutionality of the proposals were, as put by the Tánaiste, singularly indecisive. To me, they smacked of officialdom—I nearly said bureaucracy. Nothing is so abhorrent to the Civil Service mind as the creation of a precedent, and out comes the Tánaiste saying that this would create a dangerous precedent.

Mr. S. Lemass

I am always in favour of a good precedent.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I should like to see the official memorandum because I would be prepared to make a bet that that phrase occurred in an official memorandum from some of the Minister's advisers. Deputy Dillon has dealt with this alleged unconstitutionality; it is all shadowy make-believe. There is no such thing as any breach of the constitutional principle of Government responsibility, none whatever. The motion was carefully framed to avoid that and I said so at the outset. I said it was a fact-finding commission, although I dislike that phrase, intended to educate Deputies who, I repeat again, know nothing whatever about the difference between the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. I am sure 99 per cent. of Deputies and Senators are not properly informed of the issues and the arguments involved.

If I were to go through the Tánaiste's various points I think I could explode most of them. He said there is nothing to be considered. Deputy Dillon has referred to this Treaty. How many Deputies knew that a Treaty of that bulky character existed? It has 248 Articles, several Annexes, a Convention dealing with overseas territories and 11 Protocols attached to it. In addition to that, how many Deputies know that this is one of the proposals contained in it? How many know that the proposal in relation to the Common Market deals specifically with tariffs on agricultural produce? Would it not be a matter for some consideration by this committee if it were set up, or some fact-finding committee, to find out what effect that would have on our exports to the Continent:—

"For the signatories have agreed what the common tariff is to be in respect of certain items in list F, which includes some of Ireland's possible exports to the Continent. It is provided, for example, that the common tariff on cattle will be 16 per cent.; on fresh, chilled or frozen meat 20 per cent.; on dead poultry 18 per cent.; on live horses 11 per cent., and on butter 24 per cent."

Surely that is a matter that could be inquired into? Surely that is a matter upon which it would be proper for a committee, or some body, to inform the House? That is something that has been agreed upon.

The Tánaiste says there is no danger of any sudden or drastic decision being come to in reference to the Free Trade Area. I think the answer to that is that the very concept of a Free Trade Area arose from the panic almost, certainly the apprehension, in the minds of those nations in O.E.E.C. who were concerned with the creation of European economic unity because of the effect it would have upon them and because of the rapidity with which this European Economic Community was brought into operation.

I think everybody thought when it was brought into being that the nations and their spokesmen, their economists and financiers would be holding committees and working parties in saecula saeculorum before a Common Market was brought into being. The fact is that it was brought into being with far greater rapidity than was ever thought of. So quickly was it brought into being that the Treaty itself, big and comprehensive as it is, was framed with most remarkable speed.

That Treaty has not yet been ratified. It has been signed by the six Foreign Ministers of the six nations that propose to form the community but it is about to be ratified by France. It is only in the last day or two that it came before the French Assembly and from the account I read last night in the Manchester Guardian, it is highly likely that this Treaty will be ratified in a very short time by France and will then be in operation. So that the very community, whose creation has brought into being the concept of a Free Trade Area, is itself being brought into operation with quite remarkable and unexpected rapidity. The Free Trade Area, which is the answer to this by the nations who are not members of it, may be brought into operation with rather greater rapidity than we bargained for and we have got to be alive to all these implications.

It may be that better machinery than we suggest in this motion could be devised. We thought that it was desirable to educate Deputies and Senators. It may be that Deputy Norton's suggestion is a better one for general purposes, but what I think does emerge from this debate is that there should be some sort of machinery created by the Government which will not affect their precious constitutional right of having the last word in policy, but which will, at least, have the advantage of telling us what is going on.

Again I repeat, and I end on this note, that I have no doubt whatever— I will understate it—that 80 per cent. of Deputies had not the remotest notion about the things that have been brought into discussion here, and would not have had it and would never have been told it, if this motion had not been put down.

We agree fully with Deputy Norton that this matter should be approached from an entirely non-Party and nonpolitical point of view, that the paramount consideration before our minds, in all our thoughts and conceptions about the matter is the national interest. In case there should be any suggestion that we put down this motion for any reason other than those I have stated, in case it should be suggested that there was any political notion behind this, we do not propose to divide; we accept the invitation of the Tánaiste not to divide.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.