Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Nov 1967

Vol. 231 No. 5

Control of Imports (Quota No. 54) (Pneumatic Tyres) Order, 1967 (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of:
Control of Imports (Quota No. 54) (Pneumatic Tyres) Order, 1967.
—(Minister for Industry and Commerce).

In introducing this motion to approve the terms of the Quota Order made by the Minister, he mentioned the fact that discussions with the British Board of Trade were initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Free Trade Area Agreement and it was agreed that quota restrictions should be imposed on the importation of tyres from the United Kingdom. I think everybody in the House agrees that what is vitally important at the moment is that the workers in this factory should know what their position is. I said last night when Deputy Lenihan, senior, said that the Dunlop Company had three years notice of the advent of free trade and this Quota Order gave them another year in which to put themselves in a competitive position and that thereafter it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to meet any problems with which the company might be faced or any problem created by redundancy in the company as a result of the import of foreign tyres, that I demurred from Deputy Lenihan's view and Deputy Lenihan then began to backpedal and eventually fled out of the House and disappeared. He claimed to have a detailed knowledge which he subsequently said was a general knowledge in detail of the costings of the Dunlop factory and left me under the impression that he wished to add that, with that knowledge, he was in a position to say that it was perfectly easy for the Dunlop factory to make itself competitive and equal to any stringencies arising from a reduced tariff within the 12 months period remaining of this Quota Order.

My principal concern is to provide men who are working in this factory with some degree of certainty as to what the future holds for them. I do not think the Minister, so far, has given the kind of undertaking I think he ought to be in a position to give. In July, a statement was published. We have before us a very succinct introductory speech in which the Minister presented the Confirmation Order to the House. I have looked at Article XIX of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement to which the Minister refers. It says:

(1) If in the territory of either party—

(a) an appreciable rise in unemployment in a particular sector of industry or region is caused by a substantial decrease in internal demand for a domestic product, and

(b) this decrease in demand is due to an increase in imports from the territory of the other as a result of the reduction, modification or elimination of import duties, protective elements in fiscal charges or quantitative restrictions in accordance with Article I, IV, or VI,

the former party may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, limit those imports by means of quantitative restrictions to a rate not less than the rate of such imports during any period of twelve months which ended within twelve months of the date on which the restrictions came into force; the restrictions shall not be continued for a period longer than eighteen months, unless the other party agrees.

That is the proviso which limits the Minister's discretion in regard to this particular Quota Order. It cannot continue for more than 18 months, that is, until approximately next December, without the express consent of the President of the British Board of Trade. But the Article goes on to say:

The party applying the restrictions shall, if possible, inform the other before the restrictions come into force. The latter party may, at any time, propose measures designed to moderate any damaging effects of the restrictions or to assist the former party to overcome its difficulties.

Paragraph (2) of the Article says:

Nothwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if at any time after 1 July, 1966, either party considers that the application of Article I, IV or VI to any product would lead to the situation described in paragraph (1) of this article, it may propose and the parties may agree on other measures instead of, or in addition to, the restriction of imports in accordance with that paragraph, including, as may be appropriate, an alternative rate of reduction of the import duty or protective element concerned, provided that any such duty or protective element shall be eliminated not later than 1 July, 1981.

Paragraph (3) says:

The parties may agree, in the light of the review for which provision is made in paragraph (5) of Article 1, that the rate at which the remainder of the import duty or protective element shall be reduced in respect of imports of a product from the United Kingdom into Ireland shall be modified and, if necessary, that the period after which the duty or protective element is to be eliminated shall be prolonged, provided that any such duty or protective element shall be eliminated not later than 1 July, 1981.

Paragraph (4) says:

Before 1 July, 1975 the parties shall jointly consider whether the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article will continue to be necessary and appropriate to deal thereafter with difficulties of a temporary character and shall agree on such provisions as they may find to be necessary.

Now, in the White Paper circulated with this Agreement and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in December, 1965, there is an explanatory paragraph designed for the guidance of the House and presumably agreed with the other parties to the Agreement. That explanatory paragraph appears on page 24 of the White Paper. Paragraph 68 reads:

Paragraph (1) of this Article allows, on the initiative of the country concerned, the temporary imposition of quantitative import restrictions where an increase in imports due to the removal of duties or quantitative restrictions causes an appreciable rise in unemployment in a particular sector of industry or region. Such restrictions may be imposed unilaterally for eighteen months and may be extended by agreement. Imports of the goods affected cannot be restricted to a level below that which obtained during any period of twelve months which ended within twelve months of the date on which the restrictions came into force.

The point I want to make is this. It appears to me from reading and studying this Article and the explanatory note which I have read for the House that, in fact, the Article envisages the possibility that if the difficulties such as the Dunlop Company experienced in the recent past should re-arise after the lapse of this Quota Order which we are at present considering it is open to the Minister to open discussions with the British Board of Trade to continue quota restrictions for a further period provided always that such continuation is subject to the over-riding limit that it cannot extend beyond July, 1981.

I want to suggest to Deputy Lenihan and, more especially, to the Minister, that he has a duty and the duty he has is to face the implications of the Article of this Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and indicate to the House now what he proposes to do or what the Government propose to do if difficulties similar to those which arose in the recent past in regard to this industry should arise again. I want to say to Deputy Lenihan very categorically that I understand the responsibility on the Dunlop company to bring their company up to its maximum level of efficiency has been and is being fully discharged by the management of that company up to the limit of what it was humanly and what it is humanly possible to do. If Deputy Healy or Deputy Wyse, both experienced Deputies in this constituency, or Deputy Lenihan who says he knows the costings of the company intimately, have any information to the contrary, they ought to give it to the House. They should tell the House if they think the management of the Dunlop company failed in any particular. The House is entitled to know. My information is that they did not. They have done all that could be done. If Deputy Lenihan, who is now present, knows anything to the contrary, he has a duty to tell the House because we are being asked to determine what is to be done in respect of the Quota Order provisionally made by the Minister last July.

I want to ask the Minister if I am correct in believing, as I think I am, that the management of the Dunlop tyre factory in Cork has done all that it is physically possible to do. If I am correct in believing, as I believe I am correct in believing, that the workers in this factory are as skilled and as diligent as any industrial workers in this country, what does the Minister intend to do, under Article XIX, at the end of the currency of the present Quota Order? I ask that question on behalf of every employee, junior but more especially senior, the men with family responsibilities, the men who have been working in this firm for 20 or 25 years and who are now faced with the nightmare that they may be declared redundant in their middle age. I remember, several years ago, speaking as Leader of the Opposition, rebuking the Government on their failure to reassure workers when they were contemplating not only this Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement but the wider agreement involved in joining EEC. I remember saying to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass: "It is not enough shaking your gory locks at the manufacturers; the people who are really vitally concerned are the workers who went into protected industries with the approval of the Irish Government 20, 25 and 30 years ago and who are now middle-aged men with highly specialised skills for which there is not ordinarily any alternative employment." Redundancy payment for such men is no compensation for a life invested in a specialised industry at the urgent request of our own Government.

I want to renew that representation on behalf of the Dunlop factory and I want to submit to the House and to the Minister that they are entitled to hear from the Minister a categorical reply to the inquiry: "What are we going to do next September?" Now, I recognise that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in a somewhat delicate position because the relevant Article of the Trade Agreement says that next September his power to act unilaterally ceases. After his unilateral action, which we are now discussing, ceases to operate, his action thereafter must be in consultation with and in agreement with the President of the Board of Trade in Britain. Now, if I correctly interpret the spirit in which this Agreement was entered into, I understand it to mean that the British Government accept the proposition that there are certain specialised industries that have been set up here which might be very harshly affected by the operation of the Agreement without qualification and that they were prepared to admit, I imagine, in the case of commodities like tyres, and possibly unassembled motors cars or such exceptional industries, that exceptional steps were appropriate for their maintenance and the maintenance of employment in them.

It is wholly wrong, however, in your desire to stimulate further endeavour on the part of the management, to apply the screw to the management by threatening that they may find themselves out in the cold in 12 months time, because, to put it quite crudely, it does not matter a damn to the management. The management are all highly geared men of great experience and ability who can find alternative employment in other big industries. I am thinking of the man of 50 years of age with a family now at secondary school, who is mobilising his own domestic resources to see if he can put them through university and today, yesterday or tomorrow night, after the children have gone to bed, sits by the fire discussing with his wife: "What in the name of God are we going to do if 12 months from today the situation recurs such as existed last July? I may be out of a job and there may be no question of my son and my daughter going to university and completing their education as we had planned for them. If this is so, ought we to leave them in the secondary school or switch them to the technical school to try to get them trained to earn their living."

I have said in this House time and time again that we get so involved in such broad generalities talking about the terms of trade agreements and the future prospects of free trade and the winds of change blowing in the world, that we are liable to forget the individual whose whole future, and the whole future of whose family, depends on what we say and do in this House. Now, if one were a member of the Federal Government of the United States and came from the State of Maine, one could be forgiven if one were not familiar with the problems of people in Alabama. Similarly, if one were a member of the British House of Commons, a member of Parliament coming from Sussex, one would not understand the problems of the Orkney Islands, but we in Ireland are not so divorced from one another that a member from Dublin or Monaghan or anywhere else cannot feel sympathy with the feelings of a parent in Cork. Our problems are all very much the same. There is not 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 80 per cent of the Deputies here of 50 years of age who have not got precisely the same problems: how are we going to be able to provide for the children now that the expensive time has come of finishing their education?

As far as I can understand the terms of the Agreement, the Minister has power to initiate discussions with the British Board of Trade to take such measures as may be requisite to maintain employment at its present or a higher level in the Dunlop factory certainly until 1st July, 1981. If I am right in that, I am asking the Minister to say categorically to the House, and especially to the workers of Dunlop's who have family responsibilities: "As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I am going to bring all the pressure I can on the management of Dunlop's to maintain a course of development and improvement in their methods and equipment. I am going to urge on the trade union representatives of the employees to give 100 per cent co-operation in raising the standards of efficiency in the production of tyres in Cork, but I am going to say to the workers: ‘There is no need to abandon your plans. If we all work together there are means available to us to say with virtual certainty nobody is going to lose his job as a result of redundancy in Cork this side of 1981.'"

Now, I see the danger of saying that. I see the danger of that being misinterpreted as a general licence to lie back, to take things easy and to go slow. I say this for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he is not one of the persons in respect of whom a credibility gap has begun to open in this country. I would be prepared to say, and I have no sympathy with his general political views, that if he said: "I want to make this proposition clear and simple. I will do my part and I have authority on behalf of the Government to keep this company viable to 1981, provided the other two parties play their part", that is, the management and workers in the Dunlop factory in Cork, but he is bound, in his own defence and to maintain his reputation for credibility, to say at the same time: "But I want to make this perfectly clear. If the management and workers are not going to do their part, they cannot look to me to create a situation in which they are certain of the maintenance of the industry which primarily depends on them."

I may be wrong, but I do not think I am. I think the management and the men in Dunlop's have been doing their part. I have not heard a single Deputy suggest that they have not. If they continue to do so, I invite the Minister, Deputy Lenihan notwithstanding, to discharge his obligation by giving that carefully measured reassurance which I bespeak from him, and say to Deputy Lenihan, either publicly or in private: "Do not open your mouth so wide about matters which you claim to know all about but in fact do not know so much as you think you do." Such a declaration would be of incalculable value to our neighbours who are working in Cork. I would like to think we are still a close enough knit society to feel for them, to understand their problems and to be resolute to assist them in their anxiety, whether we come from Cork, Mavo or Monaghan.

(Mr. Colley): For what is involved in this, we have had a relatively protracted debate. It has been protracted more than it might have been because of some Deputies speaking either without knowledge of the situation, but as though they had a full knowledge, or else deliberately misrepresenting the position. The first and most blatant misrepresentation, which was dealt with by Deputy Healy but which I want to nail again, was that allegation made by Deputy Murphy from the Labour benches that this order is coming before the House because of some interpretation which he places on the results of the Cork by-election. I need hardly say that this allegation is without foundation. This is proved by the fact that the order was made last May. Indeed, if Deputy Murphy did not know that, he quoted from my own opening statement and in this he can see that the quota period commenced on 1st July. But he chose to ignore these facts in order to make the point I have referred to.

Some Deputies asked for certain information on various questions and I propose to give that now before I deal in more detail with the other points raised. In regard to a query by Deputy Barrett, I want to tell him that the £3 specific minimum duty imposed on non-UK imports of tyres is regarded as sufficient to reduce or eliminate any danger of excessive imports of such tyres. I understand it is so regarded by Dunlop's as well as other people.

Why did the Minister say "minimum"? Is it not an actual duty?

No; it is £3 or 45 per cent.

It would be more than £3 on a large lorry tyre?

It would.

It is 45 per cent, with a minimum of £3?

Yes. Deputy Flanagan inquired as to the size of our home market for tyres. It is approximately 650,000 tyres.

That is, motor tyres?

It does not include tractor tyres?

Motor tyres.

The ten per cent is now reached? It is commencing?

Yes. Deputy Larkin wanted to know what were the tyre imports in the period from January to June, the first six months of this year. The total tyre imports during that period amounted to 95,268 tyres, of which 61,543 came from the United Kingdom and 33,725 from other countries.

It is a very serious situation.

Some Deputies allege there was undue delay in taking action in this regard and accused me of negligence. Indeed, Deputy Larkin in particular developed this theme at considerable length. He seemed to think that by looking at the figures for imports of tyres, it should have been perfectly obvious to me that the situation was becoming dangerous and that I should have acted more quickly. Looking at the figures for imports of tyres is not the whole story at all because, as has been mentioned in the course of the debate, Dunlop's were exporting tyres. Therefore, the figures for imports in themselves mean nothing. The real question is the impact of imports and exports and the net position in relation to the home market. It was quite some time before the warning signals emerged, having regard to these factors. The only people who could know about this were the management of Dunlop's, not the Minister for Industry and Commerce. When the management in Dunlop's approached me and told me what the position was, I proceeded, as far as it was possible to do so, to take the remedial action taken.

There has been some suggestion that really the credit, if "credit" is the right word, for the action taken in this case should be given to Deputy Barrett. I do not wish to take anything from Deputy Barrett but I want to point out that the first question Deputy Barrett put down in regard to the volume of imports was on 8th February of this year. His second question, which concerned redundancies, was on 31st May. That is four days after action had been taken to re-impose the quota.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding of what I said when introducing this motion. As I conceded to Deputy Dillon last night, that misunderstanding of the wording was not confined to him but other Deputies seemed to have misunderstood it also. It is in regard to the length of time this order will operate. I said specifically in the first paragraph on page 2, second last sentence:

The first quota period was fixed at six months ending on 31st December, 1967.

Therefore the point which I interjected last night that this was operating for a six months period was, in fact, set out in my introductory statement. The other matter, and the one which apparently led to confusion, was the statement at the beginning of the second paragraph on page 2 which was to this effect:

Under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement the period during which such restrictions may be maintained is limited to 18 months unless the other party agrees otherwise.

It says "limited to 18 months"; in other words, this is the maximum period available unless the other party agrees. It does not mean, nor does it say, that the protection being imposed in respect of Dunlop's will last for 18 months. I am rather hopeful that it will not, because while we do intend to renew the protection for a further six months, all the indications at the moment are that this will be sufficient and that it will not be necessary to have a further period of six months.

It will be necessary to continue to exclude tyres not from the United Kingdom, I should imagine.

The protection in regard to these third country tyres will continue during the period of the quota, and at the termination of the quota, we shall review the position as to the protection which should exist in that regard.

It will be necessary to continue it, too.

This may well be.

Deputy Healy is getting ready to blow a gasket behind the Minister.

Not at all.

That was exactly the point I made last night, that they will not need protection for 12 months.

That is the point. I shall tell the House a little more about that in a moment. I want to make it quite clear that this quota was imposed after the fullest consultation with the Dunlop management, and all the information available to me from them is that, while a further six months period of protection is necessary to exhaust the excessive amount of tyres which came in and were in stock when we imposed the protection, as things are going now, it is unlikely that a further period of protection such as this will be needed after that.

We did refer, in the course of the debate and interjections, to what appeared to be the strange position that Dunlop's were exporting tyres and at the same time were suffering from excess imports of tyres. I cannot tell the House with certainty what the explanation for this is, but the explanation is, I think, this: it is well known and is something that was learned a long time ago that when there is a quota in existence for a considerable time and when it is terminated, the termination is automatically followed by a spree of what might be termed novelty buying. People who have been used for many years to only one type of commodity will, when they get the opportunity to sample other varieties of the same commodity, tend to experiment with these and to buy substantial quantities of these novelty ranges. This is something that has turned out time after time in respect of many other commodities. In this case the imported tyres which were selling in this country and which led to the difficulties here were selling at a higher price than Dunlop tyres were on sale. As I say, I cannot say with certainty that what I have said is the explanation for the position, but it is true that the tyres which were being purchased here were higher in price than those of Dunlop's, and it is also true in respect of many other commodities that when quotas were terminated, this spate of what I call novelty buying occurred.

I mentioned to the House last night that one of the effects of the Free Trade Area Agreement was to give to Dunlop's for the first time right of free entry to the British market for their exports, and indeed they have availed of this provision to a very considerable extent. It may be that some of the things that have been said in this House and outside it are quite unfair to Dunlop's, because to some extent some people appear to have had the impression that they were operating for many years under protection, that they were suddenly caught out when the quota disappeared and that they have made no preparation for free trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the Dunlop firm embarked some years ago on a programme of modernisation and adaptation for free trade, and in that programme they received a substantial adaptation grant of £167,000 or £187,000. The total estimated cost of their programme of modernisation and adaptation is £2 million, of which they have already spent approximately £1 million. This is a long-term programme which was proceeding according to plan, but the plan was upset or interfered with, if you like, not because of the abolition of the quota but because this coincided with a very substantial reduction in the number of motor vehicles sold throughout the world in 1965 and 1966; this reduction in the number of motor vehicles led to over-production of tyres, so that the world market for tyres was extremely difficult and was much more difficult than it had been for a very long time. That coincided with the removal of the quota and it meant that the export opportunities which, perhaps, would have been available to Dunlop's were very much less than they might otherwise have been, though they were exporting in the normal way. If the market had been as it has been for years, they would have been able to expand their exports very considerably and continue on their programme of adaptation.

It is also true that as part of their programme of adaptation, they have had very detailed consultations with the trade unions concerned, and they agreed with the unions on a scheme of re-organisation. This scheme of re-organisation has involved, I understand, a reduction in the work force, which has been agreed by the unions because they recognise it is a question of making Dunlop's as efficient as possible in order to enable them to compete, and that with the work force they had this would not have been possible.

Deputy Dillon in particular spoke as though few people on the Fianna Fáil benches, and particularly the Deputies from Cork, really knew what was going on in Dunlop's. I want to assure him, as I think I told him last night, that they knew a great deal more about the situation than he did. He accused the Government, and me, and all the Fianna Fáil Deputies from Cork of bad faith, of concealing from the workers in Dunlop's the fact that this protection was temporary. He dwelt, at very considerable length and with his usual eloquence, on this point. I tried to point out that he was basing his whole premise on something that was not a fact, but he was so taken with his theme that he did not want to abandon it. He ignored the situation and carried on. I want to repeat that what Deputy Dillon said in this regard is not accurate. On 3rd May of this year I received a letter from Deputy Wyse from which I now want to quote.

By his authority?

By his authority. He said:

I have received a deputation from the workers of Irish Dunlop, Cork, asking me to request information regarding dumping of foreign tyres in this country and to inquire what action you intend to take to safeguard the workers in the tyre industry.

The date was?

3rd May. I replied to Deputy Wyse on 31st May, saying:

I delayed writing to you with regard to the representations which you made on behalf of the Irish Dunlop Co. Ltd. on the question of the imports of tyres. Certain remedial action was about to be taken but it was important that no prior publicity should be given as it could result in substantial forestalling by importing interests.

You will have seen the recent announcements regarding the action taken. This is as follows:

UK tyres have been brought under quota restrictions with effect from the 27th day; imports can now be effected only under licence; there will be a further announcement shortly regarding the size of the import quota which will be appointed; the minimum duty on tyres made in countries, other than the UK has been increased from 12s. 6d. to £3 per article. The full position now is:

UK tyres—Duty of 45 per cent or 11s. 3d. per article plus a quota restriction.

Other Country tyres—Duty of 45 per cent or £3 per article.

I feel sure that this action will be effective in removing the excessive import pressure on the Irish Dunlop Company.

If Deputy Dillon would care to have a look at some of the back numbers of the Evening Echo in Cork, he will find that Deputy Wyse had that letter published.

I have no doubt of that.

What does that prove?

If the Deputy cannot see that, he cannot see much.

Fianna Fáil made sure that their Deputy got any kudos that were coming.

I will give the Deputy the message since he has not got it yet, but I want to give more evidence in this regard. I have in front of me two cuttings, one from the Irish Times and one from the Irish Independent, both dated 26th May, 1967.

What about "Truth in the News?"

I do not want to confuse the issue by any argument from the Opposition as to that. The heading of the cutting in the Irish Times is: “Colley and Jay agree to import quota on tyres”. The heading of the cutting in the Irish Independent is: “Quota to be fixed for tyres”. I want to quote briefly from the cutting in the Irish Times. This summarises something I said at a press conference when I returned from a visit to England. I quote:

Under Article 19 of the Free Trade Area Agreement, he said, there was a provision that if either country found that imports from the other were operating in such a way as to seriously damage a particular industry, the agreement could be invoked to enable a quota to be placed on the goods in question for a temporary period so as to enable the industry concerned to try to rectify the position.

"The British Government," stated Mr. Colley "have agreed to our invoking that article in regard to tyres. The effect of this is that we will now be imposing a quota on the import of tyres for a temporary period, possibly as long as 18 months."

In the face of this, how can Deputy Dillon or anyone else suggest that we concealed in any way from the workers in Dunlop's or the people of Ireland exactly what we were doing? How can that be suggested? I suggest to Deputy Dillon that he should examine his conscience in this regard. Last night I pointed out to him the iniquity of his ways but he persisted, and he cannot now object if I pursue the matter somewhat. On the basis of the argument he was putting forward, he talked about the fact that we were lowering the standard of public life in what we were doing. I am putting it to Deputy Dillon that in the face of what I have told him, it is quite clear that the basic premise on which he was operating is not true. If it is not true, is Deputy Dillon not quite unjustified in lightly talking about what we were doing and saying that we were lowering the standard of public life? Deputy Dillon is concerned about the standard of public life.

The Minister is, too.

I am very seriously concerned about it and that is why I object to any lightly-made allegation that the standards in public life are being lowered. I endeavoured to point out the facts to Deputy Dillon but he persisted, despite that, in making his allegations. I suggest to him that he was not justified and that the facts——

Would the Minister look at his own statement:

Under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement the period during which such restrictions may be maintained is limited to eighteen months, unless the other party agrees otherwise.

Is there not a clear implication that there may be an extension: "unless the other party agrees otherwise"?

I was explaining the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement.

This could apply to any commodity. It does not apply only to tyres. This is the provision of Article 19. I think I have made it clear to the House in relation to tyres, and the quota imposed on tyres, that every effort was made to make it crystal clear to everyone concerned that the protection being applied was temporary and that it was most unlikely that it would extend beyond 18 months. This is clear from what I have just said and from the fact that Deputy Wyse had this letter published in the Evening Echo. It cannot be alleged that no effort was made to make the position clear to the workers in Dunlop's and the people of Ireland.

Deputy Flanagan talked about the necessity for all of us to buy Irish goods, with which I thoroughly agree. He expressed horror—I think that would be the word—at the thought that there were Irish people who were prepared to buy foreign tyres when they were perhaps placing the livelihood of the workers in the Dunlop factory in jeopardy by so doing. I agree entirely with this sentiment. I want to let Deputy Flanagan know that in the recent by-election in Cork one gentleman—I understand he was representing the Labour Party; in fact I think he was a Member of this House—endeavoured to fan the resentment of the workers in Dunlop's because of the situation which had developed and that he did not have Dunlop tyres on his car.

He said this?

No, I understand that he did not and that the workers in Dunlop's found out about it.

Did you look at the tyres?

They did. Deputy Dunne would cover this up.

Mention his name.

No, I will not mention his name.

Because he told me himself.

You are talking about standards. Be honest and forthright. You are always talking about standards.

My standards are these: the Deputy told me himself and I do not think it would be in accordance with my standards to reveal his name.

In other words, you are repeating a personal conversation.

I understand it was talked about from the platforms in Cork but I do not know this of my own knowledge, so I am not, therefore, using the Deputy's name.

You are like all people who parade their standards. You are noticeable for what you have not got. You are like all people who make a parade of their so-called standards. You have not got the fundamental one of the privacy of a private conversation. I do not know what you are talking about but you are trying to make political capital out of a private conversation.

I have explained the circumstances of that conversation, and indeed some of the Deputies who may have repeated this situation from the platforms in Cork would feel it right to say who the Deputy was but Deputy Dunne need not worry because as far as I am concerned if I find that the Deputies of his Party are, as they did in this regard, going to get up and shed crocodile tears about the situation of the workers of this country in a situation like Dunlop's or other difficulties that may arise and to talk about the failure of the Government in this regard, let them be honest——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——and if they are talking about the workers of Dunlop's, let them use Dunlop tyres. That is a minor thing to ask them to do.

We have had from the Labour Party Deputies who spoke in this debate and from Fine Gael Deputies——

Mr. Barrett

Is the Minister saying that Fine Gael Deputies are not using Dunlop tyres?

No. I said we have had from Labour and Fine Gael Deputies in this debate a peculiar attitude in regard to the Free Trade Agreement. I say "peculiar" because, first of all, there was quite an exchange between some of them. Deputy Donegan will remember that between himself and Deputy Tully in particular.

Which pleased you, I would say.

I was not displeased.

That is your line.

Let us examine why this——

Deputy Donegan should not have any private conversations with the Minister. He would want to watch himself.

The Minister must be hurting them; they will not let him speak.

They will let me speak. I said Deputy Donegan will remember that the dispute between himself and Deputy Tully was on the question of who supported the Free Trade Agreement and why it was supported. Deputy Donegan said it was supported——

This is the Minister's definition now.

As I understand what Deputy Donegan said, he indicated that Fine Gael had supported the Free Trade Agreement but with reluctance and because they felt there was no other course open to them in the circumstances.

Not at all; I made it clear that it was Hobson's choice. We could not live in an economic island here as Frank Aiken, at one time, said we would when every ship was at the bottom of the sea. I said that we realised we were going towards free trade, which was inevitable, but that did not mean we liked every aspect of it.

Arthur Griffith said that, too.

Deputy Tully said the Labour Party opposed the Free Trade Agreement and that this situation now justified them in their action on the Free Trade Agreement. What I want to say is that the point which has been made by Deputy Donegan is self-evident, that if this country is to survive, it does not matter if we make any free trade area agreement, or if we do not go into the EEC. If we are to survive, we will survive on the basis of our foreign trade on which we are more dependent probably than any other country in the world and if other countries with which we trade are in a free trade era, we cannot survive except in that era.

Nobody has to varnish that and place me in a false position. What the Minister is saying is the truth.

That is perfectly true.

Absolutely.

He did not always say this.

I always said this.

Fianna Fáil did not always say it. The Minister's Party was founded on the concept of doing away with any trade with Britain.

Not at all.

Yes, at all.

"Burn everything British except their coal".

That is not——

You do not remember but your fathers would.

A late conversion.

My Party was founded on and built up on a policy of protection for Irish industry and because of that policy, we have an Irish industry today that we can go into a free trade era with and depend on because of that policy. The point I am getting at is that the fact of having to be prepared for free trade is clear to anybody who will open his eyes. Deputy Donegan has opened his eyes: he accepts this without question. The Labour Party adopt the attitude: "We did not want this agreement; we are not going to have it." They ignore the facts of the situation but then they say: "Why do managements not gear for free trade? Are the workers' livelihoods not at stake and they cannot do anything about this?"

What good has this Free Trade Agreement done this country?

I am about to tell you.

It has done harm, we know.

I am about to tell you but before we get to that, I want to point out that this double-think attitude on the part of Labour Deputies is not really getting us very much further. They go on saying, on the one hand, that we should not have a free trade agreement and, on the other: "Why are we not gearing up for free trade?" As far as the Fine Gael people are concerned, it seems to me that they are saying: "Yes, we must have a free trade agreement," but they are not prepared to accept the consequences.

That is not true.

This is a Free Trade Agreement. Let us make no mistake about it. Free trade is what it says. It means free trade between us and Britain and it provides for a graduated application of free trade as far as our industry is concerned. The moment there is the slightest difficulty arising as, for instance, in this case of the tyres in Dunlop's, we get a situation where the Fine Gael Party say: "This is one of the disadvantages arising from the Free Trade Agreement," and by implication, say: "You should not have signed it."

That is not true. On a point of order, the Minister may, if he so desires, say anything he likes about what he thinks we think, but he cannot know in his mind what we think.

Would the Deputy agree to tell me what he was really saying?

The Minister is saying we want to be for free trade and against it. We will draw our own implications.

The Deputy will appreciate that this is not a point of order?

I fully appreciate that but I got it home.

From Deputy Donegan's speech and from Deputy Dillon's, if not from others, that was the impression.

The Minister cannot know what is supposed to be inside my mind.

I go on what the Deputy says.

The Minister cannot think ahead on what I say.

Mr. Barrett

We expressed our anxiety that the Minister should try to get an extension of the period in question in the quota restrictions. That was our point, that you allowed this thing to develop too quickly.

I think any perusal of the speeches made by Fine Gael Deputies in this debate will show that what I have said is not misrepresenting their attitude. It is true, as Deputy Barrett says, they also spoke about the question of acting quickly. I have explained that nobody could know the situation except the management of Dunlop's, because you have to balance their exports against their imports and against their production. As soon as they notified me, I proceeded to act and it could not have been done faster than it was done, but no action could be taken until I heard from them that the situation was becoming difficult. As regards extending the 18 months period, I have already explained to the House that I am hoping the period will not last longer than 12 months. I am not giving any undertaking subsequently to that because the situation which may arise in the second six months will be reviewed and whatever the position is then will decide what action may need to be taken.

The attitude of Deputies on both the Opposition benches in telling us that we have had no benefits from the Free Trade Area Agreement—this was said by both Fine Gael and Labour— is just not true. I am not going into agriculture because it has nothing to do with us on this debate, but on the industrial side, as Deputies are aware, in 1966, we had record industrial exports and in this year so far, our industrial exports are up 13 per cent on 1966. Do they think that the Free Trade Area Agreement had nothing to do with this? If they do, it would be interesting to know how they explain, because they keep telling us that not alone has it done no good but that it has had a disastrous effect, to the workers in the factories who are creating an enormous increase in exports that the Free Trade Area Agreement has done harm to them.

We did it in Cork and you lost 3,000 votes.

Tell the workers who are getting enormous increases in production that if the Labour Party were to have their way, this Agreement would be cancelled and their jobs would be in danger. Tell them that and see what they will say.

The farmers would not be fooled, either.

The Deputy was otherwise engaged when I said that I did not want to go into agriculture, but as he raised the point, let me point out to him that but for the Free Trade Area Agreement, the price of cattle would be a hell of a lot lower than it is.

The Minister knows nothing about agriculture, if he says that.

We had free entry into Britain since 1956.

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

I am about to conclude. The point I was making was that right through this debate. I have had to listen to Deputies on the Fine Gael and Labour benches telling us about the inequities of the Free Trade Area Agreement and pointing out that Dunlop's was an example of this. I want to repeat that this Agreement has been of enormous benefit, particularly to Irish industry. If you do not believe that, explain to the people how those spectacular increases, especially in our exports, have come about. If you can do that, you are better and more effective politicians than I take you for, but either way, it seems to me that the debate has ranged far beyond this Quota Order. If it has served to highlight some of the effects of the Free Trade Area Agreement, it is all to the good. If it has, as Deputy Donegan said, operated as a warning to all manufacturers and to all workers, this is a good thing, although it might be misinterpreted how it would, but if it has the effect on our management and on our workers of getting them to realise that unless they gear themselves to free trade, they might find themselves in difficulties, might have redundancy and might have to close down, then it will have done good.

Let me make it clear in this particular case of Dunlop's, that both management and workers were well aware of the dangers of free trade. They co-operated, and are still cooperating, in gearing themselves for free trade, as I explained to the House earlier. If this is an example to others, it is all to the good, but I do not want the idea to go forth that Dunlop's, either the management side or the worker side, were not prepared for free trade.

It will not matter what you want. The single member constituency will finish you.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn