At the outset I should like to express my gratitude to the House for facilitating me in this way. I was heavily engaged in the other House yesterday and I want to express my gratitude to the Seanad for the arrangements that were made.
The debate on this motion as usual has covered the very wide range of topics one has come to expect in this debate, although it has tended to concentrate mainly on three issues, namely, the situation in the North of Ireland, our entry to the EEC and the unemployment situation. Before dealing with these main items in the debate there are some other points which were raised to which I should like to refer.
Senator Jessop raised the general question in his contribution of what happens to the suggestions made by Senators in the course of this type of debate. This is a good question. I hope Senators appreciate that because of the number and variety of the points raised it would not be possible for me in replying to the debate to deal with all of them. However, I can assure the House that all the points raised are noted and are either considered in my own Department or brought to the attention of my colleagues for consideration, where they are matters with which they are concerned.
I need hardly add that the resources of the State are limited and that I cannot guarantee that all the suggestions made in the course of the debate for additional expenditure will be adopted. It is, of course, a question of determining our priorities. There were some other points raised which concerned my Department and affected individual cases. I would ask Senators who are concerned with such matters to send me details and I will certainly have them investigated.
There was a general question raised also by Senator Jessop in regard to pension increases. The Government announced in the 1969 Budget that they had accepted the principle of parity of pensions, that is, that pensions should be revised by reference to current pay rates. They indicated at that time that because of the substantial cost involved the move towards it would be spread over a number of years. As part of this policy pensions were revised upwards in each of the last three Budgets and, at this point, even the earliest pensioners have pensions which are related to the June, 1969, salary levels. The total cost of the three revisions is at present almost £4 million a year. The question of any further increase is one for consideration in connection with the overall budgetary position.
I might add in this connection that Civil Service pensions are non-funded and non-contributory. Contributions are deducted only in respect of the widows' and children's pensions schemes which came into operation in July, 1968. That means that in regard to the remainder of the pensions paid they have to be met directly from taxation. A query was raised by Senator Jessop in regard to the pension item which was listed after the Department of Health Votes in the Appropriation Act. The position is that this item which is Vote 50, is a composite additional Estimate in respect of the increases which were announced for public service pensioners in the 1971 Budget.
A number of Senators referred to the Devlin Report. It might be of some use if I were to mention briefly what has been done in this regard and what will be done on foot of the recommendations in that report. The mainspring for the introduction of the reforms recommended by the report is, of course, the establishment of a Public Service Department. Legislation has been introduced in the Dáil to provide the necessary legal sanction for this and, pending its enactment, we have been making the administrative changes that will be involved.
The functions of the Department of Finance have been divided between those which will be transferred to the new Department of the Public Service and those which will remain in the Department of Finance. The Government have designated the secretary of the new Department and I have appointed another officer to be deputy secretary in charge of remuneration. I am at present awaiting the results of an open competition recently conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners for the selection of deputy secretaries in charge of organisation and personnel. Incidentally, I would remind Senators that that was an open competition, in other words it was not confined to members of the Civil Service. I would hope that the enabling legislation would be enacted during the present parliamentary session and that the new Department would be formally established before Easter.
While the brunt of the task of reform will be borne by the new Department I have tried to get a good deal of the preliminary work under way. On internal organisation matters discussions have begun with representatives of the higher Civil Service staff on the question of promotion by merit. Departments have been asked to set up management advisory committees and to begin consideration of the reorganisation of their functions. On the broader scene, as soon as I have the legislative authority I shall be setting up a public service advisory council to provide what has been described as a window on the public service.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the Government have decided to experiment with the concept of separation of policy and execution in a number of selected Departments— this is the Aireacht proposition put forward in the Devlin Report—and I hope to be in a position to say something more about it when bringing the legislation before the two Houses of the Oireachtas.
Senator Crinion suggested, in the interests of promoting tourism and goodwill generally, that PAYE taxpayers should be allowed their full three weeks' tax free allowances in advance when they are paid three weeks pay before going on holidays. No doubt, since he raised it, he is aware of some cases of difficulty that have arisen. I would refer him to paragraph 64 of the Employers Guide to PAYE which provides specifically that taxpayers may, in fact, be allowed their full tax free allowances in those circumstances. If he is aware of such cases perhaps that reference may assist him in disposing of the difficulties that have arisen.
Senator Horgan referred to the position of missals, hymnals, prayer-books and books of a like description under turnover tax. The Senator may have been under a misapprehension in regard to a statement that was made by me on this subject in the Dáil on 28th October last when I said that books in the main, with the exception of such religious books as breviaries, missals and hymnals, are subject to 5 per cent turnover tax only. The position is that breviaries and so on are subject to a protective duty as well as turnover tax. The rates of protective duty are 24 per cent full, 9.6 per cent UK and 7.2 per cent Northern Ireland. As regards books which are imported in postal parcels, apart from those religious books that I have referred to, these are not charged turnover tax if the value is less than £2.60. The books of a religious nature which I have mentioned become liable to duty if, for example, the parcel comes from outside the UK or Northern Ireland and is valued at about 55p and upwards.
I have received a number of representations about the charging of turnover tax on books imported by parcel post where the value of the parcel is not less than £2.60. A number of problems of a very practical nature would arise in the application of the extra statutory remissions which have been sought but I can assure the House that the suggestions for relief which have been made are being very carefully examined at present.
There were a number of criticisms and suggestions in regard to education and I will pass these on to my colleague, the Minister for Education. First, regarding the position of some primary teachers with large classes in urban areas, which were referred to, I want to assure the House that we are very well aware of this problem. Indeed, the intake of student teachers into the training colleges has been stepped up considerably over the past few years in order to alleviate that problem.
Reference was also made to the fact that it was difficult to get sanction for new teachers for secondary schools. With an average pupil-teacher ratio of better than 20 to one, we have in our secondary schools system one of the most favourable pupil-teacher ratios in Europe. While I can understand that difficulties may have arisen in particular cases, it is no harm that Senators should recall that fact in this context. There are very few countries in Europe which are more favourably placed than we are in regard to pupil-teacher ratio in the secondary schools system.
Another comment made was that it appeared that the policy of closing small schools seems to have been abandoned. This is not so. But the rate at which they are being closed down is, as might be expected, slowing down, and already over 900 small schools have been closed since the inception of that policy. Since September last 30 amalgamations have taken place, and about 200 amalgamations are planned each year over the next few years.
Senator Quinlan asked to have the making of permanent appointments to the Higher Education Authority speeded up. The Minister for Education will shortly make an order under the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, naming the appointed day for the setting up of the Higher Education Authority as a separate legal entity, and concurrently will make permanent appointments to the authority.
Senator Desmond suggested that, if more of our industrial grant moneys being paid to new industry promoters between 1960 and 1969 had been directed into industries based on native raw materials, the present unemployment situation would not have arisen. Before I deal specifically with that point I should like to correct a figure which Senator Desmond used, to the effect that £94 million had been paid in new industry grants in the 1960s. In fact, the total amount of new industry grants paid out in the ten years 1960 to 1969 was about £30 million, of which it is estimated approximately 25 per cent went to Irish promoters.
The establishment of industries based on our native raw materials has, of course, always been in the forefront of our industrial drive. We have had considerable success in this regard, as is evidenced by the many new industries set up since 1960, notably in the food sector, which were based either wholly or partly on domestic raw materials. Some years ago the IDA carried out a survey. That survey established that about 40 per cent in value of the raw materials used in new grant-aided projects operating in 1966 came from domestic sources. The bulk of those projects were sponsored by foreign-based companies. Therefore, the inference in Senator Desmond's comment that the attraction of industries from abroad means the neglect of native raw materials is not well founded. Of course, the corollary of the Senator's suggestion, that is that grant-aided projects sponsored by Irish industrialists are necessarily based on domestic raw materials, is equally unfounded.
While I can assure the House, and Senator Desmond in particular, that every reasonable opportunity is availed of under the industrial development programme to promote the establishment of industries based on native raw materials, one of the facts of life in this technological age is that these types of industries often provide relatively little direct employment in relation to the investment in them. This is particularly the experience in the case of industries processing primary materials, such as those which were mentioned by the Senator, and which are now almost invariably capital rather than labour intensive. This is a major difficulty, but it is only one of the problems which is facing the IDA in applying its incentive resources to the best national advantage.
While on this topic, may I be permitted to comment on a statement that was perhaps not made in this debate, but Senator Desmond's remarks went very close to it. These were remarks recently made by one of her party colleagues and were to the effect— this is in the context of talking about unemployment—that our policy of attracting industry from abroad was being shown to be misguided because of the unemployment situation. This is a statement which just does not stand up to examination. If we had not followed that policy the amount of unemployment and emigration which would have continued right through the 1960s would have been intolerable. The vast bulk of new jobs have been created as a result of that policy. The area of greatest growth in the economy has been in manufacturing industry geared to the export market.
I do not wish to waste time on this, but I should like to remind Senators of certain basic facts in this regard. There are people who have the idea that the answer to our problem is simply to set up more and more State industry. If that were the answer to our problem we should have done it long ago. As far as the Fianna Fáil Government are concerned, we are not dogmatic in regard to State versus private enterprise.
Our main concern is to solve the problems with which we are faced, that is unemployment and emigration, and we are prepared to adopt whatever methods are most effective in dealing with this. However, to do this one must set up in the main manufacturing industries geared to the export market. In order to do that, you need money, know-how and markets.
I believe that we could produce the money, having regard to the extent of our resources, particularly our external assets. We could produce some of the know-how and we could hire some know-how that we did not have, although this is not a satisfactory method of dealing with this problem. By setting up a State company you cannot buy and you cannot produce markets for products abroad. This is a fact of life. People who make these kinds of statements ought to remember that fact of life.
There were some references, particularly by Senator McDonald, to the Irish Sugar Company and Erin Foods. Since Senator McDonald spoke, the quota arrangements for sugar within the EEC have been finalised. It has been announced that the operations of the Sugar Company and Erin Foods will be integrated under a single board. The basic sugar quota within the EEC will be 150,000 tons and the supplementary quota of 50,000 will be availed of to the extent necessary to ensure that there will be no drop in sugar beet production and that the current output and employment will be maintained in the sugar factories.
It is expected that the integration of food production with the other activities of the Sugar Company will achieve important cost savings which in the long term will improve the company's ability to expand and to trade successfully in the conditions in which they will find themselves on entry into the EEC.
A cutback in vegetable acreage in the current year is unavoidable because of failure to meet targets in export markets and, consequently, a high accumulation of stocks. Despite this cutback, however, all present fulltime employees will be retained and there will be no redundancies. The long-term objective, of course, must be to eliminate completely losses on food production. If these losses were to be eliminated now redundancies in the food factories would be unavoidable. Because of the national position regarding unemployment, the Government have decided to defer any further action at this stage and to reconsider the need for further rationalisation in the light of results obtained from the integration of the food processing with the other operations of the Sugar Company.
A number of Senators referred to the Buy Irish Campaign. I should like to endorse the remarks which were made that, as a practical expression of patriotism, Irish people in general should give more active support to the Buy Irish Campaign. The National Development Association, which have responsibility for the campaign, have been doing an excellent job in promoting the sale of Irish goods and services at home. Indeed, the slogan that one sees around which emanates from them summarises precisely what is involved here: "Put your money where your job is."
The degree of goodwill towards this Buy Irish Campaign is quite substantial. It is very encouraging, but what really counts is the practical application of that goodwill. This is certainly not by any means always evident, as was shown by a number of Senators. One of the major obstacles in this regard is the seeming reluctance on the part of some distributors and retailers to put Irish-manufactured goods on offer where these are in direct competition with similar articles manufactured abroad.
It is no harm to remind ourselves that Irish-manufactured articles have proved their quality and their worth by competing successfully on markets all around the world. I do not know in how many countries we are selling our manufactured goods at the moment but at the last count I heard of, which was a couple of years ago, it was 117 countries. You cannot have this kind of success in export markets unless you are producing goods of very high quality and good value. We have no reason whatever for having any sense of inferiority about Irish products.
It is quite true that entry into the EEC will mean increased opposition for our products on the home market. If our products are given the right promotion by distributors and retailers in an expanding home market, I am quite satisfied they will hold their own on the home market in spite of opposition. I have noticed that at times when there were some economic difficulties facing us—as, for instance, some years ago when the British imposed their import levies or, more recently, when we had these very high unemployment figures—there was an upsurge of interest in the Buy Irish Campaign. It would be far more effective if we did not have an upsurge, but rather a steady, continuing, practical operation of the Buy Irish Campaign. One can campaign vigorously but the real question is: "Is each one of us prepared to put his money where his job is"? Too many of us are not prepared to do that.
In this connection I should like to say that there has been trade union participation in the Buy Irish Campaign. I have often felt that there is probably no more potentially influential body in regard to the Buy Irish Campaign than the trade union movement. They are the people who, both as customers in shops and as people behind counters, can exercise a great deal of influence. While I know that the trade union movement, as a movement, is 100 per cent in favour of the Buy Irish Campaign, I do not think that the influence of the trade union movement has been noticeable in practical terms in regard to the campaign. There are some people who would feel that this might be a far more practical method of expression of patriotism on the part of the trade union movement than the activities of some leading trade union officials in recent times. There has been participation by the trade union movement in the organisation of the campaign. What appeared to be missing was a really practical drive at ordinary member level to put this into operation. I would appeal to the trade unions to make a very special effort to get their members to support the Buy Irish Campaign and the Sell Irish Campaign.
Cases were mentioned here by some Senators of stores where, even if they stocked Irish goods, one had to go to enormous trouble to get them. The shop assistants invariably produced foreign goods. It seems to me that such a store does not deserve support. Where it can be shown that this is true, anybody who knows of such a policy ought to make a point of not patronising that store. I should like to see a store which operates such a policy getting due publicity. I am not advocating any illegal boycott of such stores, but the customer has the choice of where he is going to spend his money. Any Irish customer who thinks for a moment will realise that he should not spend his money in a store which, as a matter of policy, pushes foreign goods. Indeed, that would be the most effective form of the Buy Irish Campaign one could get. There is nothing that is more quickly understood by owners of stores than a drop in sales.
I now come to what I described as the three main themes in this debate. First, I want to deal with the unemployment situation and the Government measures to combat it. Before I go into it in detail, I want to refer to certain criticisms which have been made from time to time in regard to the development of this situation in our economy. I have heard people who should know better saying that our present unemployment problem is due, according to them, to the fact that the Government have in the past year or two had to spend their time looking over their shoulders at problems within their own party. I heard other equally silly arguments being put forward by people who should know better. I would ask such people to consider and, indeed, to tell us how they explain, for instance, the record unemployment in Britain? Was Mr. Heath looking over his shoulder at problems in his party or was he looking at problems in the Fianna Fáil Party? Was President Nixon looking over his shoulder at problems in his party or, in fact, was he looking at the Fianna Fáil Party and so diverted that he ignored the American economy? Let us get this thing into perspective. These kinds of remarks may sound all right for cheap political capital but not for long-term political capital, because the public are not as unintelligent as all that. They can see that there are a number of factors which have gone into the making of this problem. Many of these factors are common to economies around the world and not merely to ours.
In the course of the debate on unemployment in Dáil Éireann the Taoiseach analysed the difficulties which have arisen. He has placed them in perspective. He has outlined the means of solving them. I do not propose today to go over that same ground again. I should say, however, that in regard to unemployment in 1971 we were unfortunate in that we had to contend with nearly every adverse influence imaginable. Demand conditions in foreign markets generally were very poor and in relation to certain commodities in which we deal a lot there were recessions on an international scale. In addition, unemployment in Britain rose steadily throughout 1971 to reach a post-war peak. This had a marked reaction on our labour market. Moreover, in 1971 we continued to experience deteriorating competitiveness and declining tourism. In such circumstances a rise in unemployment in this country was inevitable. But the idea that the Government sat back complacently and let events take their inevitable course is simply untrue. In October last we took measures to conquer the rising tide of unemployment involving an increase of £20 million in expenditure on the 1971-72 Public Capital Programme. We had already at that time settled the allocations for the Public Capital Programme for 1972-73. We have now increased these allocations by £22½ million as a further measure to increase economic activities and to adjust the programme for the effects of the October measures.
As the Taoiseach has already announced, Departments and public bodies may draw immediately on their 1972-73 allocations in order to get work going and activity stimulated right away. The additional £22½ million expenditure consists of £4 million extra for housing and ancillary services, £1½ million extra for educational buildings, mainly national or primary schools in widely dispersed areas; £250,000 more for hospital and construction work, £½ million extra for expenditure on tourist amenities at minor resorts throughout the country; £320,000 more for forest development work which has a high employment content; £3.9 million more for agriculture and fisheries; £3.9 million more for the ESB, CIE and the B & I; £8 million more for the Agricultural Credit Corporation, bringing that body's total lending capacity to £18 million for 1972-73; and £250,000 more for telephone capital development, which will enable extra men to be employed. The combined result of these measures and the earlier October measures is that the Public Capital Programme for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 taken together will amount to £460 million, or £50 million more than was envisaged last year.
To give some idea of the growth and employment which this programme is generating, let me give you some figures. Next year the State will invest more than £50 million in housing and ancillary services. Housing output will be raised to record levels by this expenditure, which will give a strong fillip to employment and building in the construction sector of industry. That sector is also benefiting from the increased hospital and school building programme. During 1971-72 and 1972-73 almost £38 million will be spent on this programme—an increase of £7 million, or nearly one-quarter on the high level of expenditure which was achieved for the two preceding years. It will give some indication of the rapid pace of industrial advancement of our economy if we note that the expenditure of the Industrial Development Authority in each of the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 is double that which was carried out in 1969-70. The jobs created by new industry grants, and safeguarded by the moderisation grants, give employment in the main of a secure kind which is unlikely to be jeopardised by the rapid advancement of free trade, because these industries are geared for free trade and for export markets.
Agriculture will profit from the substantial allocations made in 1971-72 and 1972-73 for agricultural credit through the Agricultural Credit Corporation and through the various farm investment schemes of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Other important areas of public investment are also being expanded on a selective basis, as was mentioned, such as forestry, tourism, transport, telephones and the ESB. This money has been and is being directed to areas in which it will have an immediate return in terms of output and employment.
In addition to these measures which are affecting the capital programme, the Government have taken some specific measures affecting non-capital expenditure, which are also designed to help the employment situation. First, they have allocated a further £100,000 for expenditure this year, that is 1971-72, on the Local Improvements Scheme in addition to the £1 million already provided. They have allocated an additional £3.75 million on increasing the strength of the Army and Garda Force. The announcement in regard to the Army and Garda force was criticised on various grounds. I want to make it clear that the Government decided quite some time ago to increase the strength of the security forces. I am not saying, and the Taoiseach did not say, that this is being done to solve the unemployment problem. What I am saying, and what the Taoiseach did say, is that in the context where one is discussing an unemployment problem and the expenditure of public money, it is relevant, and very relevant, to refer to these plans which not only relate of course to the recruitment of men but also to the provision of such things as uniforms, furniture, and so on for them in their barracks and which has a direct effect on industry and on employment in industry. It is in that context that this was mentioned by the Taoiseach and is being mentioned by me.
Although it is true that it will take some time for these measures to have their full effect on activity and employment, it is significant, I think, that the latest returns show that there has been a marked slow-down in the rate at which unemployment has been growing. I think that in discussions on unemployment, of which we have had quite a lot recently, it is understandable but regrettable that our achievements in the realm of employment have tended to be forgotten. I am, of course, referring to our record of job creation over the last decade. By any standard, even the very crude one of the total level of employment, Government policy has succeeded in raising the numbers at work in this period. There were more people at work on the last census date than at the corresponding date in 1961.
I would remind Senators that this was achieved in face of very daunting difficulties. Entering the 1960's we had an economy that was predominantly agricultural with a small industrial sector which was mainly oriented towards the home market. In the space of little more than ten years we have transformed that economy into one which is industrialised and export-orientated. In achieving this transformation we had to find work not only for those workers who were becoming disemployed in declining sectors of industry but also for the massive efflux of underemployed workers from the agricultural sector. It must be remembered that we had to contend with this problem in the face of demand for ever-increasing standards of living from the population at large. Lest anybody thinks that these demands for an increasing standard of living are irrelevant to the question of employment, I should like to point out that employment could be found for far greater numbers of people than are in employment at present if all of us were prepared to accept a subsistence level of existence. Of course we are not. It is very relevant in any discussion of creation of employment to take into account the standard of living which we as a people demand.
Between 1951 and 1971 the number at work in the non-agricultural sector rose by 117,000, or almost 20 per cent. This was the net increase in employment. That is a figure which conceals the movement of people from poor jobs with an uncertain future to better-paid employment with more secure prospects, which is something which has characterised the 1960's. The total number of new jobs would greatly exceed 117,000. I would be the first to admit that this is not nearly enough, but it is the highest in any decade since the inception of the State and it is infinitely better than the record of the dismal 1950's when the actual number of jobs in the non-agricultural sector declined by 7 per cent.
Next I want to say a few words about the EEC. Quite a number of Senators referred to this in the course of the debate. The White Paper which the Government have published gives detailed information on the outcome of our negotiations and the terms agreed for our accession. It assesses the economic, constitutional and political implication of membership. I feel that any fair-minded person must agree that the terms of accession which have been negotiated are satisfactory and that they will enable us to make the necessary adjustments to the obligations of membership without undue difficulty, while at the same time giving us the opportunity of taking full advantage of the undoubted benefits which membership will provide for us. The White Paper clearly demonstrates that membership of the EEC will provide the conditions in which we can best pursue our economic and social development. It is estimated that economic growth will average nearly 5 per cent per annum during the transitional period and it is expected that this figure will even be exceeded thereafter. Employment in manufacturing industry will, it is estimated, increase by about 50,000 giving much higher average annual increase than we achieved during the 1960's, which was by far our best decade to date.
There will, of course, be very substantial benefits for our farmers, with the volume of agricultural output increasing by one-third by the end of the transitional period, at which stage family farm incomes should on average reach a level of about double what it is now. Notwithstanding the great benefits we can derive from membership, there are some who will think that we should not join and that we can achieve our economic and social objectives equally well outside the Community, and outside a Community which includes Britain, which, as everybody knows, is our major export market. I would ask such people to study very closely and objectively the analysis contained in the White Paper of the possible alternatives to membership. I would suggest that if they study it closely and objectively they must conclude, as the Government have done in the White Paper, that any of the possible alternatives that might be open to us would cause us serious damage in relation to our economic growth, with great consequences of unemployment and depression in our standard of living. It is very important that everybody should realise that we do not have the choice of going in or staying as we are. That choice is simply not open. The choice is : do we go in or do we take another road? The reason why we cannot stay as we are is that Britain is going in. In the enlarged Community including Britain 80 per cent of our exports would then be going to the EEC.
Anybody who gives any thought to this subject admits that in the industrial sector if we were not to go in the only way in which we could get any concessions in regard to our industrial exports would be by giving concession on our part, so that effectively, whether we go in or not, there would be free trade in the industrial sector. I have noticed that the area of greatest vagueness to those who talk about alternatives is the agricultural sector. They like to gloss over very quickly some very important facts. One of them is that about 50 per cent of our exports are agricultural. Some of the countries who have concluded or intend to conclude agreements with the EEC, such as Sweden and Switzerland, have about 5 per cent of their exports consisting of agricultural goods. This is a basic and very important fact for us, and there is no use comparing our situation with theirs, having regard to that fact.
Furthermore, in all the agreements that have been concluded by the EEC there is no evidence whatever of any worthwhile concession being made by the EEC to non-members regarding agricultural products which the EEC produce on any scale; in other words, the agricultural products we produce. To suggest that we could get some special terms in relation to agricultural exports is cloud cuckooland. The people who tell us about the hard-faced businessmen in Europe who will grind us into the ground turn round and apparently expect us to believe that those gentlemen will act as fairy godmothers to us regarding agriculture, that they will give us a special deal which will be practically as good as we would get by becoming members of the EEC. Nobody in his senses can believe this and this matter is far too serious for the future of our country to have this kind of nonsense being spoken.
It would be honest for some people to say that they recognise that the economic consequences for us of not attaining full membership would be extremely serious but that they still think we should pay the price. They may think that by going in we are giving up our independence and our sovereignty. I do not agree with this view, but I respect it. I do not respect the view that suggests that we will lose our freedom and our sovereignty and by staying out we can retain them and be at least as well off economically as we would be by going in. That does not stand up to examination.
On the question of sovereignty, entry to the EEC as a full member is something I have always supported. One of the reasons for my supporting this is because I believe that in our circumstances it will increase our sovereignty. By increasing our sovereignty I am talking in practical terms, not about some theoretical sovereignty. You could have a little island somewhere in the Atlantic in which one person could live alone and have complete sovereignty, but it would not be much good to that person.
People are not really concerned about some political theorists' idea of sovereignty but about real freedom. This may be unpalatable to most of us, but such a high proportion of our trade is with Britain that when we come to negotiate with Britain on economic matters Britain holds the whip hand. I have taken part in negotiations with British Ministers and on the whole they have been very pleasant and suave but I knew and they knew that when it came to a crunch they held the whip hand.
One of the main attractions of membership of the EEC is that we will continue to have the bulk of our exports going to Britain. So far as agriculture is concerned, we will get a good price in the EEC; but the really important point from my view is that in any arrangements made about trading between us and Britain the rules will not be dictated by Britain. They will be dictated by the Community and will have to be of equal application to all members. This is a vitally important question when one is discussing sovereignty.
What it means in reality is that by entering the EEC we will increase our sovereignty, not reduce it. I do not want anybody to tell me about the theory of sovereignty. I want them to tell me about the practical situation we are in today and about our economic sovereignty. I am always amazed at the people who talk about sovereignty, who want to keep us in a situation in which we are unreasonably dependent on Britain in economic terms.
I am also amazed at people who say that they are against entry to the EEC because it will destroy our language and our culture. These people seem to me to be arguing that our present situation, in which we are sandwiched between the two poles of the English language and of Anglo-Saxon culture, is one which we must retain in order to improve the position of our own language and our own culture. It seems self-evident that anything that can get us out of that plane must be to the advantage of our language and our culture.
I should like our people to get the opportunity to assess all of the arguments involved in this as clearly and as fairly as possible. I am not suggesting that there is a paradise waiting for us in the EEC. Far from it. Nobody in the EEC or outside it owes us a living. We will get a decent living only if we earn it. What I am suggesting is that the circumstances which would be available to us in the EEC are such that would enable us to earn a decent living for ourselves and to improve our social services in a way we have never been able to do up to now. When people understand what is involved in this I have no doubt they will vote in the referendum to enable us to enter the EEC.
Finally, I should like to speak on the situation in the North of Ireland which was a prominent theme in many of the contributions in this debate. I do not think it is possible when speaking of this subject to say anything which has not already been said by a number of people. That does not make certain matters less true. Apart from the appalling practical problems which are involved for all Irish people, North and South, in the present situation, there are a number of people who are confused and are not clear in their minds on the principles involved in these problems. I hope the House will bear with me if I spend some time talking about the fundamental principles which are involved.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the Unionists in the North are a minority of the Irish people. When the Irish people got the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to achieve freedom and independence from Britain, they voted to the extent of about 73 per cent in favour of that. The Unionists opted out. They were a minority and they said: "We will not accept the majority rule and if anybody tries to impose majority rule, we will fight it."
So, by threat of violence they opted out and as a result of that threat and the bowing to it by the British Government, the Six Counties was set up and in setting it up the Border was drawn in such a way as to ensure for the foreseeable future what the result of any election would be.
It was not drawn up in such a way as to separate those who wanted to opt out of Irish independence and those who wanted to opt in. There might have been some kind of logic in that. It was drawn up to bring in the maximum number of people who wanted independence consonant with ensuring the permanent result of any election in the future. When you have that situation, where the result of any election is clearly foretellable, you have not got democracy. All the set-up of a Parliament, a Prime Minister, a Government in the Six Counties is only a facade and a sham when you have not got democracy.
Another principle involved here is that any country has the right to fight for its freedom. If our problem were only to achieve our freedom, if it were only to get the British out, certainly we would have the right to use violence. We would not have a problem now, it would have been solved long ago. It is grossly dishonest of many people who today are suggesting that what is involved is to get the British out. That is not our real problem. We can do that. Our real problem is to achieve reunification of our people. Anybody who tells me that the reunification of our people is being advanced by violence will find that he has a listener who does not believe him.
It is convenient for some people to cloud the issue that is involved here, but my party from their foundation have been quite clear on this. My party were founded by men who had fought the British, who knew what was involved. They learned some lessons. They learned first of all that you can win a guerilla war where you have the support of the local population and that you cannot win it if you do not have that support. They learned also that force was not the solution to the reunification of our people. Reunification of our territory might be achieved by force in some cataclysmic circumstances. That is not what we want. We want reunification of our people. Anybody who holds back or stands in the way of the achievement of that objective is not a patriot. He may be misguided. He is not a patriot and he is not helping this country.
It may be argued, and justly, that when you have the kind of set-up that you have had for 50 years in the Six Counties you cannot change it except by force. I agree. But when I speak about force I am not talking about violence. There are different kinds of force. There are different kinds of pressure which can be brought to bear. I believe that the use of violence to achieve reunification is self-destructive. If you create a situation in which you put the people you are trying to reunite with you in the position where they feel that in order to protect their present situation they have to fight, or if you succeed in forcing them into a supposed reunification, they are then going to have to fight for their lives. What can they do but fight back? That kind of tactic cannot succeed.
There are different kinds of force. One of them is diplomatic. To the extent that that force or pressure can be brought to bear, the Government have been doing their utmost. There is the pressure of public opinion throughout the world which can be very powerful especially in certain circumstances and in relation to certain Governments. That is operating on this problem. There is also pressure which is brought about by passive resistance, by the demonstration to the world of the bankruptcy of the set-up in Stormont, of its unreality and its non-democratic nature. This is the kind of pressure to which Stormont cannot stand up and the British Government simply cannot resist.
If we look back over the past few years and see what happened when that kind of pressure was brought to bear and what was achieved by it and compare that with what has happened since the situation escalated into violence and how little has been achieved in that situation, surely we can see for ourselves what is the right road to achieve Irish unity. That kind of pressure, although resented of course by those who are subject to it, can bring about a situation in which, as far as the Northern Unionists are concerned, if they find themselves, in their view, being let down by Britain, at least they do not feel they have to fight for their lives against us in the South. What is more, they will start off on the right foot if they are resentful of Britain in their dealings with us.
It is quite clear that the end is in sight for the Stormont regime. The end was in sight a couple of years ago and the life of that institution has been prolonged by what has happened in the last few years. I have seen no achievement as a result of the violence, only delay in achieving the ultimate solution that we all want to see brought about. One can see many achievements of the earlier non-violent campaign. I have mentioned this but should like to refer to it again. Can anybody imagine that the B Specials would have been disbanded as a result of the kind of campaign that is going on at the moment in the North? They were disbanded as a result of a non-violent campaign. That is only one example.
We ought as public men to say very clearly where the interests of this country lie. There are many people who are swayed by emotion. I understand that. I am swayed by it myself on occasions, especially when I see the deplorable conduct of the British Army in the North. Many people here do not know the full extent of what is going on in some areas in the North with regard to British Army raids. It is a deplorable record for any supposedly disciplined force to have to live down but the responsibility is not that of the British Army. The responsibility rests on those who direct them and that responsibility is clearly that of the British Government. They may be acting on the advice of the Stormont Government but that is no excuse. The responsibility is Britain's and there can be no solution to this problem without the first move coming from the British Government. We can contribute substantially, I believe, to a settlement of the problem but only when the initiative has been taken by the British Government which control and are responsible for the situation.
There are many possible steps that could be open to us in achieving a solution, both interim and long-term, given the will to achieve that solution. I do not propose to spell out those details except to say that any interim solution must produce a situation in which neither community in the North can dominate the other. You cannot expect to get people to think rationally about their interests and about their future if they are living in continual fear or in continual reaction against domination. Therefore, to reach a stage at which the whole problem can be considered rationally and a long-term solution arrived at, whatever that long-term solution might be, you must first reach the stage in which neither community can dominate the other. There are different ways of achieving this, but I would remind the House that proposals were put forward for the setting up of a commission which would be equally representative of the two communities and which would administer the area for an interim period.
The reason for the proposal of equal representation was to ensure that there was no domination and that it could be seen that there would be no domination of one community by the other. The whole set-up of Stormont is a facade. The reality is that it is British law which is being administered in the Six Counties. If we recognise, and if everybody concerned is willing to admit openly, that that is the situation, then you could have the kind of commission that I have mentioned administering laws which are dictated from Westminster as an interim solution to create the climate in which the people in the Six Counties can get an opportunity to think rationally and without fear about their future. I am quite certain, given that kind of condition, that it would not be very long before the majority of the people in the Six Counties would see where their interests lay.
I have no doubt that representatives of the Unionists would endeavour to drive a very hard bargain in such a situation but that is the kind of bargaining situation in which I should like to find myself. I think they would find that we here in the South would not be trying to drive a hard bargain on our part but rather that we would be leaning over backwards to try to assure them of their place in the Irish nation, a place which they have and which is vacant at the moment and which only they can fill. We would endeavour to assure them that there is no substantial body of opinion in the South which wishes in any way to dominate them, to interfere with their traditions or with the celebrations of their traditions but, rather, that the vast majority of us here want to welcome them back into the Irish nation, to weave the strand which they have made for themselves in our history in with the other strands in our history and to create the new Ireland which we all want to see but a very old Ireland as far as the dream and hope of it are concerned.
I do not think that that Ireland is too far away. I think it can be achieved but it requires courage on the part of a number of people. It is easy for us to call for courage from other people but we should call for courage from ourselves. That courage involves a number of things but in particular it involves public men here in the South taking a firm stand, without equivocation or without ambiguity, as to where the interests of the Irish people lie.