andMr. McQuillan asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that it would be possible for Ireland to accept the full implications of tariff removal in the EEC within the specified period; and if he can now form an estimate of the total number of persons likely to be redundant as a result of the removal of tariffs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Removal of Tariffs.
12.
The Government consider that it is in the country's interest to join the European Economic Community. We recognise, however, that the removal of tariffs within the Community will create some difficulties in the industrial sector, and, accordingly, we have proposed to the Community that, in our case, a special rhythm of tariff reductions should operate which will be different from the rhythm which has been applied among the present members and that, in addition, provision should be made for dealing with cases of basically-sound industries which might find it too difficult to comply with the general rhythm of tariff reductions. The Government, in co-operation with industry, chiefly through the Committee on Industrial Organisation, are taking all necessary steps to encourage and assist industry to adapt and reorganise itself so as to be prepared for freer trading conditions. The extent to which redundancy will occur will depend on the success of these adaptation measures. It would not be possible, at this stage, to give a reliable estimate of the size of the redundancy problem. The extent to which this would be offset by the expansion of other industries, which is now taking place and which is expected to accelerate when the uncertainty about our membership of the Community is ended, is a relevant consideration. There is no reason to believe, having regard to experience in other countries, that the problem will be of other than manageable proportions.
In view of the situation, according to to-day's paper, that it is decided that between the members of the EEC all tariff barriers will be removed by 1967, does the Taoiseach contemplate in his statement put forward to the European Commission that Ireland will get a substantial extension of time beyond the 1967 date?
I refer the Deputy to the statement I made in Brussels, which has been published in a White Paper, and which sets out in detail the proposals we have made to the Community.
Apart from statements made outside this House, may I ask the Taoiseach to make the statements in this House? Is he in a position to state that there will be given to Ireland exceptional treatment in the matter of tariff barrier removal beyond the date of 1967 set for those countries which are already members of the European Economic Community; and can he tell us now whether the extended period will be sufficient to enable the Government to make alternative arrangements to absorb into employment numbers who are about to lose it between now and 1967?
In view of the statement made by him, I think since the House adjourned, that it might be desirable to commence the dismantling of some tariffs in advance of our actual admission to the European Common Market, would the Taoiseach now indicate whether he proposes to introduce a process of that kind before we are actually admitted to the Common Market or whether he intends instead to wait until such time as we are admitted before considering any reduction in existing tariffs?
We have not taken a final decision in that regard yet.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach, does he not think it might be of material advantage to say at this stage that whatever the problems of redundancy that may arise consequent on our entry into the European Economic Community we would all regard it as a first charge upon our resources to place redundant employees in alternative employment or, in the alternative, to acknowledge their right to compensation on generous terms as a first charge on our resources?
When I speak about measures to deal with the problem of redundancy I have in mind the practicable steps we could take here to ensure the placing in other employment of those who may be displaced, their retraining for that employment and the maintenance of incomes during the period of retraining.
The maintenance of——?
Incomes.
We can obtain help in such measures of adaptation as members of the Community from the Social Fund provided for in the Treaty of Rome.
Is the Social Fund confined to adaptation? Does that provide for an income during the transition period?
It is not possible to be precise on that yet. We have not yet completed our examination as to the assistance that will be available to us from that source, nor is it possible to finalise our own conclusions as to the measures that are desirable until our examination has proceeded a bit further.
Would the Taoiseach be prepared to expand on the expression he has just used—"the maintenance of incomes"?
One of the proposals put forward within the Community for handling a similar problem where it arose within the Community countries, involved the maintenance of income for workers during a period in which they were being retrained for other occupations. As I said, we would naturally wish to do something along those lines but the extent to which we can be assisted in so doing from the funds of the Community is still somewhat uncertain.
The Taoiseach knows that the fund provides for the retraining of workers. In respect of those who will not be retrained and who will be rendered absolutely unemployed, do I take it the Taoiseach says now that their incomes will be maintained until such time as they can find employment?
We have at present a Committee working upon this problem and I hope in the course of a few months to announce our conclusions.
Is it not a fact that approximately 70,000 to 100,000 new jobs have been created behind tariff walls in the last 30 years, which it is now proposed to remove in the next five to seven years?
It is not a fact.
Further, is it not a fact that a conservative estimate of the number of people likely to become redundant in the next five to ten years is anything from 70,000 to 100,000?
I think that is just nonsense.