When I moved the Adjournment I was concerned very much with the whole aspect of the balance of the institutions in the Community that has now been changed by the Single European Act. Now, the European Parliament and the Commission, by reason of the new initiatives available to them, have acquired greater and more effective powers of initiative and greater powers of amendment, and weakened the authority of the Council of Ministers as a consequence. It is quite clear from a reading of the Single European Act itself and from a reading of the Government guide, that this is the case. It is undoubtedly detrimental to the national interests of small countries such as Ireland where, in the Council of Ministers having the voice of a member Government on that Council has meant a stronger voice than the voice we have as a very small Irish representation in the European Parliament, and in the Commission as well where we are similarly very much in a minority. Taken in conjunction with the introduction of the qualified majority in a wide range of areas such as the CAP, FEOGA, the social and regional funds and other areas of research and technology, it means a substantial diminution in the power, authority and effectiveness of the institution on which we always could rely most for effective action. In addition any proposal arrived at by the Council of Ministers on a consensus basis can under the Act be referred to the Parliament. It can be re-examined again by the Commission and put to the Council of Ministers. If the Commission and the Parliament act in concert and agree on a re-examined proposal, that can only be rejected by a unanimous vote of the Council of Ministers so the Council of Ministers in effect, can be eased out of their decision. If they arrive at a consensus decision in which we have participated they can be eased out of that decision and their decision can be beaten by the new co-operation procedure which is envisaged in the Act involving the Commission and the Parliament, two institutions in which we, as a small State, will not have the same clout or the same authority.
That is a serious matter. I am not saying anything more than that. It is a serious matter to which we should give our attention. I appreciate that we are in the Community at this stage and we must stay with the Community. I realise fully the advantages and the benefits the Community has brought to us but we must recognise that this Act is not favourable, to put it mildly, to our interests as a small State. In fact, it is decidely detrimental to our position and one of the main reasons for that is the dilution of the power and authority of the Council of Ministers, particularly in regard to the ultimate allocation of the various funds involving a practical transfer of resources and investments to this country.
To bring it down to practicalities, the following sequence of events is likely to become the regular scenario in regard to administration by the three institutions working in conjunction. Parliament can amend the common decision of the Council of Ministers on some aspect which may be favourable to Ireland. The Commission takes into account the amendment proposed by the Parliament and submits the re-examined proposal to the Council of Ministers. The Council can adopt the re-examined proposal by a qualified majority and if they have to reject the re-examined proposal they can only do so on the basis of an unanimous decision. It is obviously that type of scenario which will be the common method of procedure. In fact, it is the method of procedure envisaged by what is called the co-operation procedure. It is obvious that essential Irish interests could be easily disregarded in that type of decision-making process.
I move now to one of the main purposes of the Act which is the completion of the internal market. This is one of the positive aspects in that taken on its own it will provide an opportunity to increase trade. There are consequent opportunities to increase investment and employment and diversify markets so that in the overall economic development of the Community and in providing an organised market in which there will be no barriers in regard to trade and investment, opportunities will be created not just for us but for everybody else in the Community. However, because of our location we are at a real disadvantage in such an internal market. It provides the opportunities but there is a problem in regard to our location on the periphery of the market. There is an obvious need for an adequate quid pro quo for peripheral States like ourselves, so that on the completion of the internal market by 1992 there will be recognition of the particular peripheral problems created for countries such as Ireland by reason of our location on the fringe of that market, with consequent increased transport costs.
This of course brings me to the real nub of my criticism. I have no objection to the completion of the internal market — there is a commitment that that market be completed by 1992 — but there is no similar commitment in regard to the economic and social cohesion necessary to bring all areas of the Community together in a rising level of prosperity rather than have one area, the central area in particular, becoming more advantaged and the outer areas becoming more disadvantaged. If the concept of economic and social cohesion, which is the phrase used in Article 23 of the Single European Act, means anything it means the very substantial transfer of resources to countries on the periphery of Europe, to bring up their standard of living, to enable them to overcome their regional disadvantages, and to ensure generally a transfer of resources to those peripheral areas and other disadvantaged areas. Apart from throwing out the rhetorical or cosmetic concept of economic and social cohesion, there is nowhere in the Act that I can see any adequate undertaking in regard to a proper and fully-geared regional development policy.
We have a commitment to the completion of the internal market by 1992. There is no equivalent commitment to stepping up towards a meaningful regional development policy to take care of the more disadvantaged areas of the Community.
An analysis of Article 23 of the Single European Act reveals no improvements in the structure and purposes of the present regional policy that was written into the original Treaties on which we agreed back in 1972, apart from the invention of this new phrase, which is meaningless, unless there is a positive follow-up in regard to timetable and the mechanics of implementation in regard to such a regional policy. I would contend that the Preamble to the existing Treaties establishing the European Economic Communities — that is the Preamble to the 1972 Treaty — has a more specific commitment in that it referred to the need to ensure the harmonious development of the member states by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured. In so far as words mean anything, they mean a lot more than just the cosmetic rhetoric of economic and social cohesion which is introduced here as a new concept, particularly when it is seen that that concept was quite clearly written into the 1972 Act.
As this Act stands, there is undoubtedly no practical commitment to increasing in a real way the economic and social cohesion of the Communities to which lip service is paid. As it stands, it is just a vague concept with no real meaning. We can contrast that attitude with the very definite commitment to complete the internal market by 1992, a definite time limit established in the Act in that regard. There is no concomitant obligation to step up the Regional Fund, the levels of expenditure and the appropriate allocation criteria needed to benefit the less-favoured regions. In the case of the internal market there is a specific commitment. There is only a generalised obeisance to a concept in regard to social and economic cohesion.
As far as Ireland is concerned this whole area of transfers and investments for regional and social purposes is essential. We cannot continue to rely on mere rhetoric as satisfying our essential requirements in this respect. There has been very real failure on the part of the Government in their negotiations on the Single European Act in this area. Important concessions have been made to complete the internal market but no practical concessions have been obtained by us in regard to our vital interests in the social and economic areas. That is the reason we want incorporated in the declaration we want annexed to the Treaty, to the implementing instrument of the Act, the specific commitment in regard to the special social and economic problems basic to our requirements and which were written into the 1972 Treaty of Accession we signed. It was written into the Treaty, as a protocol, that there would be ongoing recognition of our special position because of the need for a transfer of resources under the various headings I have mentioned such as the CAP, FEOGA, and the Social and Regional Funds. This declaration should really incorporate the 1972 protocol as an annex to this Act. We want nothing more and nothing less than that. It appears to be a very reasonable proposition.
As Deputy Haughey said earlier, there is no reason, in international law, that that cannot be annexed to the Treaty as a declaration, as the Government have already done in regard to a technical aspect of insurance law. There is no reason a similar declaration restating the position in regard to Ireland's special requirements to secure the transfers I have mentioned — thereby removing the inbalances caused by our regional position — should not be agreed to by the Government and be annexed to the Act. It may be said here that such a declaration is not meaningful but, as two Deputies present who have European experience know, the fact of the matter is that it is very important for a country to put down its marker. The value of inserting a declaration of that kind is that at some future date — hopefully sooner rather than later — in discussion, in negotiations, in the sort of bargaining that goes on in Europe, we can always return to that marker and say: "there is our declaration, we went along with this improvement in European union incorporated in the Act on the basis of a declaration of this kind to do something meaningful in the way of transfers of resources under all of these headings so as to ensure that the less developed areas, such as ours and those on the peripheral fringe could benefit; that is our position, we made that quite clear and it is written in as a declaration annexed to the Single European Act."
Protocol 30 was negotiated in 1972 on our accession to the Community. We should reiterate its terms. That whole principle is incorporated in the first half of the declaration amendment we propose. The other half of the declaration, reservation or amendment — call it what you will — deals with the question of foreign policy co-operation. Again we want to see our position emphasised here in regard to our approach to military neutrality. There is a real distinction there between military neutrality and neutrality generally. We always had a stance in regard to military neutrality, initiated by us as a Government and observed by subsequent Governments and we feel that, again as a declaration, it is necessary to put down a statement of that kind as a marker. There is nothing awkward in European terms about doing that. Denmark's attitude in this area is very similar to our own. There is nothing that makes us bad Europeans in this respect; in fact, we are being very good Europeans by ensuring that declarations are incorporated in the Single European Act which quite clearly make our position plain to the other member states. Regarding the transfer of resources we are implementing stated European policy in regard to our attitude on military neutrality and as regards an independent foreign policy, which is the larger aspect of it, we are reiterating what has been there as far as we and Denmark are concerned over a long number of years.
The notion of formalising foreign policy co-operation raises the question of an independent foreign policy on the part of Ireland and the implementation of our policy on neutrality which is part of that independent foreign policy. We have had that foreign policy and as part of it we have implemented a policy of neutrality which has served us well in these terms. I have always found that it suited the larger European powers to have a country like Ireland within the EC which they knew had the appropriate contacts outside the Community and had a certain entree into other countries outside the Community within the UN framework, and thereby we were often spoken to and our advice was often taken as regards what the approach should be to countries outside the Community with which Ireland had friendly UN contact by reason of our essentially neutral position within the UN and the essential record of having an independent foreign policy. That role is particularly appropriate to a small country which is not likely to have the muscle to engage in military adventures. There was a recognition of that within the Community. It was a certain foreign policy strength that we had and it should not in any way be jeopardised. It is a foreign policy bonus that has served us well in practical terms, for instance in dealing commercially and in trade with north Africa and the Middle East. It has helped us to deal commercially and in trade with many African countries. It has helped us in practical terms and it has been the proper moral and sensible attitude for a small country that has no armaments clout but has a chance to use its independent foreign policy position and its policy of neutrality in a practical way to help out and co-operate with its friends, to do the right thing and act as an honest broker both between fellow member states within the EC and the outside world and within the whole world at the UN. Deputy John Kelly sought to denigrate our UNIFIL contribution. I feel very strongly that our UNIFIL contribution has been part of that approach. The fact that we have in the Lebanon, Cyprus, the Congo and all over the world over a number of years now made a very positive contribution to world peace under the aegis of the UN has resulted largely from the fact that we have had this approach to our foreign policy and in regard to military neutrality.
Here we are seeking as the second part of the declaration to have written in as a positive marker our commitment to an independent foreign policy and to military neutrality. Here again there is nothing whatever to be defensive about in regard to our European friends. In my experience as Minister for Foreign Affairs they have always understood our position fully in this respect, and I see no reason why that marker should not be put down in the declaration along with another marker concerning the transfer of resources. It takes not one whit from the Single European Act; it adds to by stating quite clearly what our position is and makes that position quite clear for future negotiators who will be discussing and bargaining and maintaining our position. We can always refer back here and say that we went along with the Single European Act subject to these two reservations being incorporated in this declaration. In the light of the history of this matter I cannot see why the Government are not accepting this declaration which does not in any way take from the Single European Act but enhances and amplifies that Act, makes quite plain where we stand and is there to stand as a marker so that in any subsequent discussions or negotiations our position is understood clearly.
We have very serious reservations about various aspects, particularly the one I referred to first, in regard to institutional changes and the diminution of the Council of Ministers which are not helpful to us. We feel strongly that, along with the creation of the single internal market, there should be a positive improvement in regard to the various funds which are involved in the transfer of resources to this country, particularly in regard to the Regional Fund. A reservation should go in on that aspect and our traditional attitude with regard to independent foreign policy and military neutrality should be incorporated in that declaration. I hope that these remarks will be regarded in the spirit in which they are meant, as a constructive attempt to improve the Single European Act in the knowledge that our future lies within the Community but that it is important that we make our position quite plain and apparent to our friends in the Community so that they know where we stand. That is without any respect to our capacity to get along with them in creating a better Europe in the future.