For the purpose of our discussion here I think it is fair to say that the matters referred to as the third and fourth orders by the Minister, namely, a correction because of a change in the nomenclature in Brussels and the changing over to decimal currency provision could be ignored. It is not worthwhile discussing those two orders inasmuch as they are mechanical things which had to be done.
The other orders should certainly be discussed and should be the subject of some consideration by this House. The gravamen of this Bill is that we have the fifth reduction of protective tariffs in line with the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I do not want to weary the House by repeating ad nauseam what I said the other day, although it is in order on this particular measure, but the point must be made that there has been in certain instances some hardship and loss of employment because of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and the reduction in tariffs.
There is provision in section 19 of that agreement for unilateral action and for bilateral action in section 2, subsection (5). There is also the question of the year of review—I referred to this the other day—which ended in July last. These safety clauses were, in fact, included to enable a much weaker nation, industrially, to defend itself, as I see it, from what could be, with the gradual reduction of tariffs, a temporary attack which could be extremely dangerous for our employment here.
It seems to me as if the Government are predisposed to automatically reduce these tariffs without considering at all the areas of damage and the areas of difficulty. The Minister in his opening speech on the Estimate for his Department last Thursday in Volume 256, No. 10 of the Official Report made very strong play of the fact that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement had not affected trade here and that the increase in redundancies here had not been a very serious factor. He said at column 1833:
I will not deny that the freeing of trade has been a factor in some of these closures but it is only one of the factors involved.
Later on in that column he said:
Other factors leading to redundancies have been product obsolescence; difficulties in external markets (a number of well publicised cases of closure earlier this year involved firms which were selling entirely in export markets); market depression externally and at home (this has affected the textile industry in particular); cost inflation; and management difficulties highlighted by more demanding trading conditions and by the incidence of free trade.
In that column we get two references to the incidence of free trade. Today we are debating what the Minister referred to as the second of these orders, the fifth reduction in the freeing of trade under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I suggest that the Government are at fault in not taking advantage of the clauses in that agreement to produce here an Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1971 which would contain lesser reductions or no reductions in tariff in respect of certain items. I assert that it is possible to do this even unilaterally for a period of 18 months under the agreement. It is the duty of the Government to see to it that redundancies are obviated or are avoided if at all possible. If the Minister admits in his speech that in certain sectors there was some effect from the freeing of trade then it would appear to me that the rather global nature of what the Minister referred to here as the third order is in my view not a correct procedure and that there should have been a lessening of the degree of reduction.
The Minister last week referred to the position in the textile industry. At column 1834, volume 256, No. 10 of the Official Report of the 11th November, 1971, he said:
Wool textiles as an industry is notoriously subject to cyclical depressions and short-time working but, up to 1970, the industry in Ireland had, for more than a decade, been largely free of this difficulty. However, the industry, world-wide, has recently been subjected to what is stated to be the worst depression for 40 years and this has affected most of the Irish mills in varying degrees. The continuously growing competition from materials made from synthetic fibres and from materials made from processes other than weaving, does not help the situation.
On top of this, there is the fact that excess capacity exists in this industry and, so far, efforts to induce the industry to rationalise its production have not succeeded. One obstacle is the likelihood that no such rationalisation could be achieved without the closure of some mills. Unpalatable though this may be in particular cases, I am afraid that it must be faced. If not, there is a danger that mills, which might otherwise be viable, would be forced out of business along with weaker and less efficient units.
These quotations direct from the Minister's speech last week indicate to me that in one sector of industry at any rate there is need for very kindly treatment. There is provision in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement for the lessening in the degree of tariff reduction. This in my view should have been done and it is a fault in this Bill that it was not done.
In order to defend the jobs that are at risk, even the short breathing period under unilateral action could have been availed of. Perhaps even the changing of jobs completely and the creation in an area of a new industry to supplant one that was going to go to the wall would have meant the difference between misery, unemployment and a continuance of a fair life for many Irish families.
My main criticism of the Government is because of their global and wholesale approach to all these agreements and I bring to that criticism the personal knowledge I have of the manner in which continentals have acted in relation to the Rome Treaty. The continentals read, as it were, the small print and have recourse to the very last action that can be taken to defend their jobs. They are utterly unashamed about this. They could not care less whether they appear before the Court of Justice in Brussels or before any other international body, so long as they keep their people working, even for a temporary period, while they rearrange their own economies and their own budgets. They do their utmost to provide jobs to replace the jobs that will be lost and they make every use they can of that far more complicated agreement than we do of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.
I accept that this Bill is necessary. I accept that free trade must come. Britain has decided by a large majority in the House of Commons to go into Europe. From the economic point of view we must enter into free trade. We are a very small trading entity whose maximum exports of any product, with the possible exception of beef, will have no impact on the huge trading block into which we will probably enter fairly soon. Most of our products will have very little effect. In that position of weakness it is our Government's duty, as I said last week, to nurture the weaker among us. As the Minister said, there is a danger that mills, which might otherwise be viable, would be forced out of business along with the weaker and less efficient ones. I have gone to considerable trouble, expense and effort to equip myself with all the knowledge I possibly could about the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the workings of the Common Market institutions and this is not the way in which smaller countries in the Common Market approach these problems; the smaller the country the harder they bargain. An té nach bhfuil láidir ní folair dó bheith glic—those that are not strong must of necessity be clever —and that is the way these small countries approach their problems.
This Bill should have had provision in it for individual industries where tariffs are concerned. That can be done under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I know that it can be done and so does the Minister and his officials. It should be done. I suggest we should make every effort to defend every job. My hope is that the Minister will take heed of my words and the words of other Members of this House and, when the review takes place, I hope we will see a lessening of the tempo in tariff reductions in certain sensitive areas. In this instance the Minister will be dealing with just one partner. In Brussels he will be dealing with nine, and that at a time of very serious change. He will have to take individual action to protect individual industries. Everybody in this House must accept that we are going into Europe. There will have to be time to enable our people to take their place in a free trade situation and to fit themselves to meet the competition which will be there even while the removal of tariffs is proceeding.
There is no individual provision in this Bill to safeguard individual industries. It is just a readymade, reach-me-down, blunt instrument. It could have been something far more selective.
