I am calling Deputy Michael Keating.
Supplementary Estimates, 1986. - Single European Act — Neutrality and Protocol No. 30: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms Ireland's position of neutrality outside military alliances, and notes with satisfaction that the provisions in Title III of the Single European Act relating to the co-operation of the High Contracting Parties (that is, the Twelve member states of the European Community) on the political and economic aspects of security and the closer co-ordination of their positions in this area do not affect Ireland's position of neutrality outside military alliances.
That Dáil Éireann further notes and welcomes the provisions of Article 23 of the Single European Act on Economic and Social Cohesion, which enhances and strengthens the commitment of the Community to the achievement of the objectives set out in Protocol No. 30 on Ireland appended to the Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom to the European Communities."
—(Minister for Foreign Affairs).
On a point of order, we had expected that Deputy Collins as spokesman for the main Opposition party would be called upon to speak at this stage. There will be no problem with speeches as they are not of a very long duration. Only four speakers from the Opposition have been called today and the Chair is now proposing to call Deputy Keating which will mean that only two Fianna Fáil speakers out of four have been called this afternoon.
It is the duty of the Chair to see that there is a fair distribution of time among speakers and that each party get an opportunity to make a contribution. The Chair is satisfied that he has observed that rule and given fair play. The Chair understands that Deputy Keating will take between 20 minutes and 30 minutes.
On a point of order, as a Member of the main Opposition party I indicated my willingness to contribute to the debate on the Single European Act which is of great relevance to me and my constituents. I am disappointed and annoyed that a minority party in Opposition can get an audience in the House——
That is not a point of order. The Deputy is challenging the Chair.
I want to register my protest. I gave my name to the Whip of my party and expressed a desire to contribute to the debate. I want to speak on an issue that is important to the Irish people but it appears that I will not get an opportunity to make a contribution.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
I have no intention of doing that.
The Deputy had better change his mind.
On a point of order, Deputy Molloy will not tell me to sit down.
I should like to thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I should like to refer to the speech by the Taoiseach this afternoon. I concur with some of his remarks. With regard to the interjections I should like to say that I agree that some of the speeches were inordinately long but none of them came from our benches. If the Fianna Fáil Whip wishes to address that problem he should have a word with some of his colleagues, some of whom spoke for in excess of an hour and a half this afternoon.
The Deputy should deal with the motion.
As the point has been raised I want to deal with it fairly. This afternoon the Taoiseach said he doubted if there was any area of public policy in respect of which we had witnessed such consistent, ill-informed and misdirected criticism as there has been with respect to political co-operation as it has operated since we joined the Community and as is now provided for in the Single European Act. That is not an unreasonable statement.
On a point of order, I should like to know if Deputy Keating has indicated that he will take no more than 30 minutes?
The Chair has an understanding with Deputy Keating that he will speak for 20 minutes or a little more.
I am happy to curtail my speech to a reasonable length but I hope that example is followed by Deputy Brady's colleagues on all occasions and that we do not have a repeat of what happened this afternoon. I will agree to the arrangement I made with the Chair privately, that I will confine my remarks to approximately 20 minutes. I must point out that it is not my fault that time has been wasted today by inordinately long speeches.
The Taoiseach's reference to the degree of confusion and ambiguity that has arisen in this respect is reasonable. However, I submit that the principal reason for that lack of clarity of the issues relates to the fact that there has not been any rational comprehensive debate on this issue or on foreign policy issues in recent months. The public and interested parties have not been afforded an opportunity of debating these issues in a way that would ensure that there would not have been the kind of confusion it is now alleged exists. If we had had a White Paper on the Single European Act there might have been less confusion and ambiguity. We might have been able to deal with the issues more clearly. I do not blame the plethora of organisations, individuals or trade unions who have expressed their suspicion and cynicism about proposals in the Act.
Some of the provisions of the Act could leave themselves open to the interpretation that there are issues that need to be clarified. The Act, obviously, is extremely important for the country but its passage in the House is not facilitated by an absence of comprehensive clear foreign policy having been developed by the House and put in place by the Government. Our foreign policy appears to amount to crises management instruments implemented on a day to day basis. They are full of contradictions such as the type of conflict that arose in regard to the Government's policy on apartheid. However, time does not permit me to go into that matter in detail. A White Paper would have been a great help to those who are concerned about this issue and, in particular, about the possible implications of neutrality and defence. Had that been done the debate might have been a little more to the point.
Parties in the House cannot have it both ways. We are a member of the European Community and we opted for that membership. We have responsibilities in that respect as well as rights. I have more trust in the Irish people than I have heard ventilated this afternoon, particularly from the Fianna Fáil benches. I have heard a series of speeches that would lead one to the conclusion that the Irish people have to be protected at all costs from any kind of interface with our European neighbours, that we are liable to economic undermining if we are exposed to the whims of free trade. That is not the nature of the Irish people. The Act should not be seen as a threat but as an opportunity. The potential it offers should be grasped by the House and by the people we purport to represent. Obviously there are questions to be teased out and our party, in our support of the Single European Act, have made it clear that we do so on the basis, as mentioned by the Taoiseach this afternoon that there is not any implication about the neutrality of the country. There is no such innuendo in any part of the Act. If this was to be a slippery slope our support for the Act would not be in place.
However, it is too easy to take up schizophrenic opposition attitudes, the type of attitude exemplified by some of the speakers this afternoon. The Irish Council of the European Movement have, helpfully, supplied us with a series of scripts and data on the issue. That material has been counteracted by an equal volume of information from the opposing view. I wonder if Deputy Collins will comment on the literature from the Irish Council for the European Movement because I was intrigued to read its call on all political parties to ratify the Single European Act before the end of the year and, by so doing, to reconfirm to the people of Ireland and to our European partners the willingness of the country to play a full and active role in the development of a strong independent Europe.
At the bottom of that submission there is a list of the officers of the Irish Council of the European Movement. I note the President of the Council of the European Movement happens to be the Leader of the Opposition. If, as I suspect, he is suggesting — in any case his spokesmen have been suggesting it — that we should oppose this Act, I would be interested to know how that can be reconciled with what I consider to be a rational, sensible approach by him as President of the Irish Council, urging it to embrace the potential of this Act, to examine every aspect of it for any risks or any price we may have to pay to the Community, instead of taking the negative, obscurantist approach that some of his colleagues gave voice to this afternoon. I think his voice as President of the Council is much nearer to what he believes than those spokesmen of his party who have spoken this afternoon.
The Act has potential for us. There are political questions that are being addressed. I regret very much an increasing tendency in the House to enter into arrangements between both sides of the House without referring to the general body of their membership or any party or Independent in the House, a tendency to exclude systematically speakers on motions and Bills, particularly on one as important and fundamental as this. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of TDs will not be able to participate in this very important debate. That is wrong. I do not know why it has happened but it is fundamentally wrong that important views and concerns that should be voiced are being ruled not to be entitled to take their logical and appropriate place in the debate.
I include speakers from all sides of the House. I hope this will not be part of a pattern that we will be confronted with, because that would be an issue some of us would have to address in whatever way we could. None of us would tolerate a system through which arrangements are entered into with lists of speakers cobbled together outside the House, systematically excluding people with a genuine concern from making even a 15-minute contribution. This party would not tolerate that, and I am sure those in the major parties would not.
We take the view that the people of Ireland face a better future because the potential this Act offers them is a great deal more loaded with advantage for them. The concerns voiced have been and are being evaluated but I should like to see them teased out in greater detail by the Minister in reply on this Stage and later on Committee Stage. There are some legitimate concerns.
One relates to defence. The concerns expressed on this seemed to me to be largely groundless. Nevertheless, it is an issue that has been raised publicly and it needs a full and thorough answer. Endeavours have been made to answer it but I am not convinced that the full answer has been given.
The Act is timely in so far as it maps out the way ahead. It is an indication of the Community's achievements to date and underlines the need for us to assert that a revamped and more vigorous approach to regional policy will go hand-in-hand with the passage of the Act. It should not be the subject of some pious aspirations that within 12 months of its passage there will be unanimous agreement that major steps forward will be forthcoming. We take the view that the fundamental question of addressing the disadvantaged peripheral areas of the Community should be at the heart of the agenda, not something that is packed down to the bottom. The Act is not a perfect document any more than the Treaty of Rome, 30 years ago. Some of its shortcomings may become evident only as time passes.
The Chair understands there will be no objection if the Deputy wishes to speak until 9.20 p.m.
I am grateful.
A Christmas gesture.
I appreciate it and I trust the Christmas gesture will be reciprocated by Deputy O'Kennedy when he next comes in to speak.
I had nothing to do with it.
The urgency of this issue has manifested itself on a number of fronts, some of which have been dealt with. For example, there is the decision-making process of the Community which, ever since the crisis in the Council of Ministers in the mid-sixties which led to the French "empty chair" policy and which was only resolved by the introduction of the veto, increasingly has revealed its inadequacies. It is a nonsensical way of doing business. There is nothing wrong in moving towards a more flexible approach to taking decisions at European level. We are represented at every level in that process and we have enough self-confidence in ourselves and in our representatives to ensure that our voice will be clearly heard in that process. The vast majority of benefits, economically and socially, have been to our advantage since we became members of the EC and there is no reason to believe that will not continue. It follows logically that if the decision-making process within those forums are made more expenditious and more efficient the advantage to us will be all the greater for it.
The insistence in the Council of taking decisions by unanimity, even though the treaty provided for qualified majority voting, has meant that important decisions were continually long-fingered by the Council; others were watered down to the point of being meaningless; and all-night sessions of the Council frequently ended in wrangles and pointless arguments. Customs duties were eliminated between member states, but a vast array of non-tariff barriers remain to frustrate traders and undermine European industry by depriving it of a single market on which to base its international competitivity.
It is of fundamental concern to Ireland to be part of a major market, as a nation to a large extent depending on attracting investment and with huge potential, a nation that is still importing £750 million worth of food per annum, that exports £2 billion worth of agricultural produce every year, largely unprocessed. This has major potential for investment by organisations, enterprises and corporations.
Customs posts still exist at internal frontiers because of different tax rates. Goods legitimately manufactured and marketed in one country often may not be allowed on sale in another because of different technical standards. A single transit document to be used by haulage contractors was agreed only recently. Just to underline the nonsense of it, until now a lorry driver passing through the Community needed up to 70 different pieces of paper. There is still a plethora of paperwork, but the recent agreement will go some way to get rid of it. A report commissioned by the European Parliament in 1980 put the cost of that approach to business at 2 per cent of GDP, or £8 billion a year, an incredible waste of money in needless bureaucracy. The interests of all of us dictate that we should move rapidly towards ridding ourselves of these needless economic barriers, to help our consumers, our trade, our balance of payments and Irish entrepreneurs to be able to compete in the European market.
The Community is running out of money. Although agreement was reached at the European Council meeting in Fontainebleau in 1984 to increase from 1 per cent to 1.4 per cent the contribution of VAT receipts to the Community's budget, this amount, exacerbated by a fall in customs duties on imports from third countries, is not even sufficient to cover next year's budget requirements. We have an ailing economic programme and that is not facilitated by the kind of haphazard, lackadaisical, almost inept, approach to revolutionising our attitudes to trade relations within the Community. The failure of the Council to agree to the Commission's request for a supplementary budget to meet this year's shortfall means that the deficit will have to be carried over not just into 1987 but in all probability into 1988.
I honestly believe it is not too difficult to establish a link between the reluctance on the part of the wealthier member states to agree to greater financial resources for the budget and their perception of a diminishing return for them in a Community rapidly losing its inner dynamics, loaded with the kind of tired, cliché jargon that filled this Chamber this afternoon, jargon based on the belief that the Irish people do not have the mettle to make it among their European counterparts. Such jargon is based on a reactionary, backward-looking view that our people are not equal Europeans. We reject that view. We believe it is a sad indication, a sad symbol, of failed politics, locked in the past, afraid to believe in ourselves, afraid to go out into the market places of Europe and sell our goods, not just equal to but better than the next. The Irish people can do that. It is in our interests to create an environment in which our people can make that investment and develop that potential to its maximum.
As we know, the Common Agricultural Policy, at least since the beginning of this decade, has been in a state of manifest crisis with over-production, mounting food surpluses, virtually unsaleable stocks and aimless production that has naturally aroused the ire of taxpayers. As the Common Agricultural Policy's share of the total budget has increased, seemingly inexorably, Finance Ministers have become increasingly reluctant to yield up the money to pay for it. Reform in that context also is unavoidable and is being increasingly demanded by taxpayers who will refuse to foot the bill in the future.
There are other areas where progress has been slow because of the failure of the Council to act on perfectly reasonable Commission proposals. These areas alone would be sufficient not only to bring the Community to a standstill but to threaten its very existence. It is time for us to repledge ourselves to the ideal of being European, to embody in that idealism all of the best that is Irish, not shutting our minds to the reality of the world that exists around us, not locking ourselves away in an insular, geographic sense as an island but psychologically an an island also. That is wrong for all of us, wrong for future generations, for our young people coming out of school and colleges and wrong for this House to adopt as a viewpoint.
The Single European Act emanating as it does, in the context of a background of no White Paper on foreign policy, carrying the ambiguities it does, nevertheless is a genuine attempt to come to terms with these realities. Like most Community documents it represents a compromise between the interests and priorities of the different member states. No doubt, in years to come, it will warrant updating, review of reform in some way or another. For the moment it represents the highest common denominator to which the member states were prepared, collectively, to permit themselves, and we are one of those member states.
In the White Paper on the Completion of the Internal Market — the Commission hope to achieve completion by 1992, though its targets to date would not exactly imbue one with confidence that that could be achieved — 300 major decisions are listed, decisions unable to be taken because of an outdated attitude to decision-making. Surely it is in our interests to assist in the efficiency of that process? The original Treaty provided for those decisions to be taken by majority vote or by unanimity. We know what happened in that respect. The Act attempts to overcome these problems by designating certain areas, where unanimity was required, henceforth to be subject only to qualified majority voting. Those are areas in which it is in our interests to have fast, efficient but nevertheless considered decisions. It is not that we are simply throwing away our right to be part of the process and accepting what others dictate for us. To imply that is to misrepresent the facts.
This arrangement represents a satisfactory outcome for Ireland. It is in our interests to have an internal market in goods and services speeded up by the application of majority voting. At the same time the retention of unanimity in the fiscal field will be an important safeguard for a country whose Exchequer's reliance on indirect taxation is sharply out of line with the Community average.
Therefore, the increased usage of majority voting need hold no fears for this country. Indeed, since we joined the Community in 1973, we have threatened to use the veto far less often than most of our partners. That is one of the reason we are a respected member of that group and that our voice is listened to. It is my view that we have little to fear from the opening up of the internal market, and a lot of benefit. Anybody engaged in industry or commercial activity today should attend to the market opportunities Europe presents and should, over a period of time, make appropriate changes in their processes of production, in their marketing and management attitudes, not in the context of being afraid of what might befall them but in terms of opening up the huge market that Europe represents, and the huge employment opportunities it offers to a country whose self-will and morale is being denuded by the incredible unemployment problem we are expected to bear.
Although there were widespread fears echoed by some Members of this House when we joined the EC that Irish industry would be crushed by competition from Germany and other powerful member states the reality has been different. Irish industry has expanded three times more rapidly than the Community average, albeit from a lower base. Our economic problems are not predominently of European-making; they are of our own making. We know what is wrong, we should have the courage to face up to it and not pretend that it is foreign competition or international trade, of which we represent half of 1 per cent, that causes us these difficulties.
There are major potential opportunities for us under the provisions of this Act. I had hoped to develop some of these points at greater length. I do not want to continue too long because I know there are other Members wishing to contribute. However, it is important to say that the way in which the Single European Act is implemented is at least as important as what it contains. In my view that is how it should be judged. It offers opportunities. I would hope an imaginative approach to exercising and developing that Act would be put in place and exploited by our representatives in that context and that the new Act would fare better than did the Treaty in terms of the way in which many members shied away from exercising its full potential. The Single European Act should offer us a potential springboard for a qualitative leap forward in building a united Europe. The unity, from our vantage point, can be one in which our mutual role is not just something we take out of the closet when it suits us but rather an opportunity for showing the world that we have a particular view about the way the world should be, small as we are. That is a view which says that Ireland should not just be neutral but should be a sufficiently large light in the world in which there are so many conflicts, and should offer people opportunities to see us as a potential vehicle for helping in international conflicts, for developing further our much respected United Nations role. Incidentally, in that context, this Parliament and country had no problems underlining our commitment to security in the context of the United Nations. It means no more in this Act than it did then. We have obligations to think in those terms too and we cannot shy away from them.
In the context of developing a policy toward neutrality it seems to me that we should develop a healthy, positive, active approach to this philosophy of ours, which is not a question of expediency — as some Government speakers have been hinting — but rather a question of principle for our people. It has potential for us and, small as we are, we should develop that potential. Ireland, with its lush grassland, its natural marketing edge on Europe and with a green, clean environment, can become a major innovator in European markets. Ireland can become a major focal point for a neutral, respected stand in international affairs. In short this Act affords us an opportunity to develop on those fronts.
Accordingly, we endorse the Act based on the assumptions that nobody is trying to sell us a pig in a poke, that we are being told the truth, all of the truth. We must accept that this constitutes a major opportunity for the country and I believe it should be seen as such. It would help us on a number of fronts. It is an opportunity we should grasp along the lines I have suggested earlier.
I share the regret of perhaps many others that I do not have more time to develop some other points I had wished to make but I am grateful to have had the opportunity of addressing some remarks to this subject.
The Single European Act which is before the House today represents a small step forward by the Community. It was negotiated by the Governments of the member states in response to what they realised were major shortcomings in the operation of the Community. The Single European Act does not fully satisfy the needs of the individual member states in relation to the future of the Community but it meets our concerns in several important aspects and does not represent a threat to Irish interests.
It is important to say that we are not at this stage debating Irish membership of the European Community. We are debating amendments to the Treaties and the additional formal elements of European political co-operation. The Labour Party stated their position on the EC and their reservations but in 1972 the Irish people spoke very decisively and the Labour Party fully accepted the people's decision and determined to work effectively inside the Community. There have been both many advantages and many disappointments from membership of the Community over the past 13 years. Other problems which have arisen, including two major recessions and two oil crises, have compounded difficulties which we have experienced. In Ireland, the Labour Party, and I think, all political parties, have set out to play a full part in European affairs, while at the same time seeking to secure vital Irish interests. We have developed close links with European socialist parties and this has been very important in communicating and publicising matters of vital importance to Ireland.
The Labour Party in 1984 co-operated in the preparation of the manifesto of the confederation of Socialist parties in the EC. This document which was passed by all the parties dealt with the issue of Irish neutrality, and made it clear that; the Community has no competence in military matters; matters of a military nature involving the other member states are to be dealt with in NATO and not within Community structures; Irish neutrality must be fully respected.
In the approach to the Single European Act, the protection of Ireland's neutrality is, of course, a major concern to us. We are not prepared to compromise on this issue. We see no conflict, however, between a neutral position and membership of the European Community. Ireland, a country with a distinctive perspective on international issues, has been able to contribute fully and effectively to the process of European political co-operation.
Our neutral position outside military alliances is not changed by the Single European Act. The Act takes account of Ireland's position. In the first instance, it is provided that the scope of security discussions in EPC will remain limited to the political and economic aspects of security. The European Community has always had a legitimate interest and role to play in solving the major issues of international peace and security, notably the conflicts in southern Africa and the Middle East, as well as the promotion of peace and security in Europe through participation in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). It is provided, too, that nothing in the Act shall impede those of our partners who wish to co-operate more closely on military and defence questions from doing so in NATO and the Western European Union. They do so already in these bodies and will no doubt continue to do so. That is their business. However, military issues are excluded from the scope of EPC. This has always been the situation since we joined the EC. The Single European Act sets that position out in black and white.
The Single European Act is not a sinister plot to undermine our independence and neutrality by stealth, as has been said by some speakers. There is no truth in the assertations that by ratifying the Act the Irish Government will no longer be able to pursue an independent foreign policy. Apart from the account which the Single European Act takes of our neutral position, it also formalises the long-standing principle on which European political co-operation decision-taking has been based — the principle of consensus. No decision can be taken by the Twelve in EPC unless all partners agree. This principle has a two-fold benefit. It means that no decision will be imposed on Ireland. It also means that the process of achieving consensus must take account of our concerns. Thus, our particular viewpoint on foreign policy issues will have a part to play in the formulation of a European consensus.
I refer the House to the positive motion in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the neutrality question. I am glad to be able to reaffirm our commitment to Irish neutrality and to be able to state categorically to the Dáil that Ireland's ability to maintain a position of neutrality outside military alliances is in no sense affected by the terms of the Act.
Claims have been made that the Single European Act represents an erosion of our sovereignty. We should recall that when the people of Ireland decided in 1972 that Ireland should join the Community it was in the clear knowledge that membership represented a sharing of sovereignty. The people decided that membership presented opportunities which made a sharing of sovereignty in certain respects worthwhile. The Single European Act does not change the position with regard to our sovereignty, which was accepted in 1972. What the Act does is to give the Community a better defined role and an enhanced means of action in a number of areas.
There is one further point that I would like to make, speaking as Leader of the Labour Party on the subject of neutrality which has been much in the news in recent weeks. In the Labour Party's view, Irish neutrality should be enshrined in a constitutional amendment. This should be seen not just in the context of the debate taking place here at present and the Single European Act but represents a fundamental statement of Ireland's role internationally. A full public debate on this matter would be essential. Perhaps an all-party committee of both Houses would be an appropriate forum for detailed consideration, and the appropriate wording and its consequences would no doubt, have to be evaluated carefully by lawyers and others. That idea is worth pursuing and should at a later stage be put on the floor of this House. The Labour Party will be looking for progress in that area.
The chapter on regional development, which is designed to bring about what is described as "economic and social cohesion" in the Community, is in the Single European Act partly at Ireland's insistence. To date Ireland has benefited very considerably from the Community's structural policies. Between 1973 and 1985 we obtained £1,315 million from the regional, social and agriculture guidance funds. These transfers have had real effects on the ground which are of practical benefit to our people. AnCO are heavily dependent on the Social Fund for the financing of their operations — operations which are vital if we are to train our young people and our unemployed for jobs. The Regional Fund has made a substantial contribution to infrastructural and industrial development here in the last number of years.
In our approach to the Single European Act negotiations, the Government were very conscious, however, that — despite the Community's efforts — the gap between the more prosperous central regions and the periphery had not narrowed appreciably since 1973 and that a new commitment in this regard was, therefore, necessary.
The Single European Act contains a commitment to the reduction of economic and social disparities in the Community which is much more explicit and detailed than the reference in the preamble of the original treaty. Moreover, because it is to be incorporated in the body of the treaty it provides a much firmer basis for pressing for Community action in this regard. From now on, all Community policies will have to take account of this dimension. Thus, not only is the regional policy as such to be strengthened, but a regional dimension is to be built into all other Community policies.
This is one of the major achievements of the Single European Act from our point of view. It will provide the Government with a clear basis for insisting on Ireland's specific interests, as a less developed region, in future negotiations. We will not, of course, be relying on transfers from the Community Budget for our economic development; but where these transfers are necessary to achieve the aim of reducing regional disparities, an aim is now formally enshrined in the Treaties, and we will have every justification in pressing for them and a much sounder basis for demanding an adequate response from our Community partners.
However, this is one area where we will have to fight hard as the Act does not make any explicit reference to providing major additional financial measures for the Regional and other funds. The onus will be on the Government of the day to fight hard as we have had to do since we took up our membership of the European Community.
Disadvantaged regional areas such as Ireland must be tackled in a broad and comprehensive manner. We must press for a series of major actions on this point if the Act is ratified; these will involve
—an increase in the "own resources" of the Community by increased contributions from the member states.
—a major and planned reallocation of financial resources towards the peripheral and less prosperous regions of the Community including Ireland.
The internal market is defined — Article 8 (a) — as comprising "an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty". The aim is to establish it progressively over a period expiring on 31 December 1992, but this time target does not have any legal status. The Commission is empowered to take into account "the extent of the effort that certain economies showing differences in development will have to sustain" and may propose appropriate provisions including temporary derogations during the period of establishment.
Economic recovery in Ireland will require a strong growth in exports. Full and fair access to EC markets is essential. Ireland is one of the most "open" economies in the world. We require similar treatment elsewhere, and it is in our interest that artificial and bureaucratic obstacles are eliminated as soon as possible. Ireland exports 66 per cent of its output of its manufacturing industry — 80 per cent of that to the EC. According to a report commissioned by the European Parliament — the Albert and Ball report — technical, fiscal and bureaucratic barriers to trade are estimated to cost European business £8 billion a year or 2 per cent of Community GDP. New and high technology industry is essential for Ireland's future and this needs full access to the largest possible markets.
Where the bringing about of a single unified market might create problems for Ireland, the Single European Act contains protection for our interests. The provision that in the completion of the internal market the cohesion dimension must be taken into account is obviously very important in this regard, as is the provision that the Commission should take account of the different levels of development among the member states in making its proposals. Where we anticipate problems with particular measures we will be able to rely on the Single European Act to ensure that these problems are overcome.
Concern has been expressed about the effect of tax harmonisation on the Government's capacity to raise revenue. It has been alleged that the Single European Act will reduce our capacity to raise the revenue needed for our development programmes and to fund social welfare payments to the weaker groups in our society. As has already been explained, on many occasions the Single European Act provides that unanimity will continue to be required to take decisions on tax harmonisation. Obviously before giving its consent to harmonisation measures the Government will ensure that such measures do not affect our capacity to maintain social welfare policies or damage our interest in any other way. Fears about the effect of the Single European Act in the fiscal harmonisation area should therefore be allayed.
The Single European Act is designed to facilitate completion of the internal market largely by making increased provision for majority voting in the Council of Ministers in the internal market area. This increased provision for majority voting has been singled out for criticism by those who wish us to reject the Single European Act. Such criticism not only ignores the safeguards built into the Single European Act but assumes that somehow we will always be isolated in the Council with only three out of seventy-six votes on every issue. This has not been our experience over the years in the many areas where majority voting is already provided for in the Council. There will always be an alliance of interests on major issues between groups of member states and we have been able to protect our interests fully through the normal negotiating process. Fears of Ireland being regularly outvoted are unjustified.
Nevertheless, we continue to recognise that in certain exceptional cases it may be necessary to defend our essential interests by invoking the "veto". The right to invoke it will continue to exist as a last resort where genuine vital national interests are involved. The Single European Act does not affect the veto in any way. Indeed it was not even discussed at the Conference which negotiated the Single European Act. Contrary to what has been claimed by critics, the option of exercising the veto remains firmly in place.
In conclusion, there is no realistic prospect of renegotiation, pending ratification by Ireland. Special provisions were inserted to accommodate Ireland's major concerns before the Act was signed. To raise the issue of renegotiation now is to invite the others to go ahead without Ireland. If the Act is not ratified by Ireland, the most likely outcome would be that the other states will go ahead. Ireland's relationship with the Community would then have to be redefined. Where that would lead is itself uncertain. The responsiveness of the rest of the member states and Community institutions to Irish problems would be likely to be greatly lessened.
The Government approached the negotiation of the Single European Act with clear objectives. In general, we were determined that the Community should make progress in overcoming the problems which have beset it for many years. The Single European Act, which represents a pragmatic advance rather than a major leap forward in the process of European integration, offers a realistic opportunity to make such progress. More particularly we were determined, while ensuring the full protection of Ireland's interests, that the Community should be equipped to overcome the economic malaise which has beset it for many years and to translate its enormous potential into economic growth, technological development and ultimately employment for our people.
The development of the Irish economy, the rapid transformation of Ireland's position as one of the less developed regions in the Community and, in the final analysis, the protection and creation of Irish jobs is a prime objective not only of the Government's domestic policies but also of its approach to Europe. The Community has enormous potential to contribute to Ireland's economic development and thereby to create the conditions necessary for the improvement in the living and working conditions of Irish workers. The Community has already made a very significant contribution and demonstrated its potential in that regard since 1973. The Single European Act equips the Community better to overcome the obstacles which have prevented it from attaining its fundamental objectives. In so doing, it provides this country with important opportunities which we must not only welcome but also exploit.
First of all, I would like to say that I regret very much indeed that this debate has been most unsatisfactory from the point of view that there are many Members who would like to have contributed but who did not get an opportunity to do so. The amount of time provided for this debate, though generous, has shown itself not to be sufficient. I say that with regret. There were quite a number of Deputies who wanted to contribute and it is unfair to them. There was no attempt whatsoever on my part to keep Deputy Keating from having his say. I had no interest in interfering with him in any way nor, indeed, had the Tánaiste. Deputy Keating was facilitated in every way possible.
If any Member of this House or the Irish community believe that the passing of the Single European Act will allow the European Commission to overcome their well known problems of stagnation they are in for a very rude awakening because that will not happen. I say that with regret. On every occasion that we had a debate on the European Economic Community in this House I said that the major problems were not being tackled. I urged then and always urge that until such time as we have an economic community the political aspects, which were highlighted in the debate, should be left until another day.
The Single European Act represents a step of considerable importance. It contains some positive elements; there is no doubt about that; but there are also elements which could create difficulties for us. We have said and we must continue to say that we do not believe the Government have adequately safeguarded Ireland's position. The Government have adopted in public a naive and uncritical approach to European economic developments and are not prepared to recognise the difficulties for Ireland which the Commission recognise. The Taoiseach has set out the positive opportunities the single internal market creates for us but he barely referred to the reverse side of the coin and there is a reverse side to the coin.
The Government have also given false assurances in relation to neutrality which do not stand up to critical examination and which have already been refuted by things which have happened even before the Act was ratified. In the view of the great majority of the people in this country the Government did an exceptionally poor negotiating job. The House will remember that there was a debate on the Dooge report. There was a useful report produced by the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities which identified where our interests were likely to be affected by the developments similar to those incorporated in the Single European Act but the Government did not take adequate account of the points made in that report or in the debates.
There is little reflection or understanding shown in either the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach's speech of the problems experienced by peripheral economies. The Government are inclined to knock any concern expressed as a begging bowl mentality, a phrase which has been much used during the course of this debate, or as defensiveness, which is not merely insulting but foolish in the extreme. The Taoiseach this afternoon regretted the passing of the buoyant and aggressive spirit with which we entered the Community. I would like to remind him and his party that that was at the end of 16 years of the most successful Government this country had ever experienced. If the Taoiseach and his collegues were to look at the mess that they have made of the Irish economy over the past four years they would not express surprise at the passing of a buoyant and aggressive spirit.
If members of the Government were to be believed, Ireland is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the EC. I want to say that I do not in fact believe that that is the case. Such thinking only takes account of visible transfers and no account of invisible losses. Does the Minister honestly believe that the German Federal Republic is the biggest net loser from Community membership? Is it not rather the case that the German economy has prospered from Community membership more than any other? Does that not show the superficiality of the Government's approach, that they take the visible transfers as the criteria of how great a beneficiary Ireland is of Community membership? One could argue that the Regional Fund is modest enough compensation for the fact that industries in larger countries are able to wipe out jobs in firms in Ireland as a result of free access to our markets.
I am not disputing the benefits of EC membership for our farmers and workers but we have to insist that there is another side to the coin which is by no means one of all benefit to us. If the Government would only agree with us publicly that that is the case — if they are in any doubt let them consult with their officials in the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism — we will have the basis of a common approach. One of our vital interests relate to taxation and industrial policy. It is vital that we should be able to afford to maintain our investment incentives to industry. The harmonisation of indirect taxation by depriving us of massive revenue could very well jeopardise our position. The Taoiseach claims that we have made it clear that harmonisation would be impractical in the foreseeable future but, unfortunately, the Single European Act contains a legal commitment in principle agreed to by us to harmonise indirect taxation. That is why this party argue that it is essential to ensure the position as set out in Protocol 30 is safeguarded.
Our view in this party is shared by the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, the majority of whose members are supporters of the Government parties. At a recent meeting of that committee it was unamously accepted that a declaration appended to the instrument of ratification is something our partners would have to take cognisance of whereas the motion proposed by the Government parties would be largely ineffective. In fairness to the Tánaiste, it was really only for domestic consumption. That is not good enough. We want to ensure that it is brought to the attention of our partners. The Government have sought to maintain that the Single European Act gives additional protection to our neutrality. The attempted issuing of a statement on NATO's position on arms negotiations and Mrs. Thatcher's speech to the European Parliament as President of the Community calling for closer ties between the EC and NATO surely must show that disregard for Ireland's position will be even greater when the Single European Act is passed.
Some Governments will try to blur the distinction between the European Economic Community and NATO. If defence matters are excluded, as the Government claim, do they intend to protest to the British Prime Minister about her speech to the European Parliament? I would sincerely hope that those who are in this House tonight representing the Minister in a political or advisory capacity would bring that question to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that the might answer it when he replies to this debate. If defence matters are excluded, as we are led to believe, do the Government intend to protest to the British Prime Minister about her speech in the European Parliament?
The joint committee also endorsed the position of the Fianna Fáil Party in wanting to see a clear declaration of neutrality attached to our ratification. I very much regret that the Labour Party have refused to support our declaration of neutrality. It seems they have fallen down once again on their principles and are prepared to sacrifice the possibility of safeguarding our neutrality in defence of Coalition with their Fine Gael partners.
We have very great concern and reservations in the area of economies and neutrality. On the economic front, it is all too evident that ours is a very weak economy. We can do something about that and I would like to think that we as a party will in the very near future be in a position to so something about it. Geographically we are on the periphery of Europe. There is nothing we can do about that except to make sure that the difficulties created by this fact are recognised by our European partners. The completion of the internal market, the reorganisation or, to put it more honestly, the dismantling of the CAP, the giving of more power to the Commission under the Single European Act, the harmonisation of taxes and the possible consequences and changes in the method of voting — all these will undoubtedly combine to the detriment of our well-being. These are the reasons for our amendment, which is based on what has already been accepted in Protocol 30. It is necessary to restate Protocol 30 on Ireland, annexed to the Act, concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the treaties of 22 January 1972:
The High Contracting Parties,
desiring to settle certain special problems of concern to Ireland, and
having agreed the following provisions,
recall that the fundamental objectives of the European Economic Community include the steady improvement of the living standards and working conditions of the peoples of the Member States and the harmonious development of their economies by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions;
take note of that the Irish Government has embarked upon the implementation of a policy of industrialization and economic development designed to align the standards of living in Ireland with those of the other European nations and to eliminate underemployment while progressively evening out regional differences in levels of development;
recognize it to be in their common interest that the objectives of this policy be so attained;
agree to recommend to this end that the Community institutions implement all the means and procedures laid down by the EEC Treaty, particularly by making adequate use of the Community resources intended for the realization of the Community's above-mentioned objectives;
recognize in particular that, in application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, it will be necessary to take into account the objectives of economic expansion and the raising of the standard of living of the population.
There is quite a lot of food for thought in Protocol 30 which was laid down during our accession in January 1972. Nobody in this House could be convinced that the objectives laid down there are not more urgent now than ever before. The situation has not improved. We acknowledge that there were enormous benefits to this country, most of which were carefully used for the development of agriculture, infrastructure and modern industry. Nevertheless it must be admitted that there is a negative side. Our agricultural incomes are now between 10 or 15 per cent below the 1973 level and about 100,000 people have left the land since 1973. Our industrial employment is badly hit. When we joined the Community there were 60,000 people on the dole. I am not blaming the EC for the fact that today we have 240,000 people unemployed nor am I adding to that figure the 100,000 young people who have left the country in the past three or four years. I am saying that the EC benefits have not done much to curb that trend.
There are difficulties for us which are well known in this House but surely it would be in our national interest if Protocol 30 could be restated for the benefit of our partners in the EC? This Protocol, which they accepted in 1972, is more important now than ever because the situation has deteriorated considerably since then.
On the question of the completion of the internal market, there is doubt that the new target will be achieved. This doubt was cast recently by the President of the Commission. There is a fear of possible difficulties here and in other countries on the periphery. Ours is a weak economy and we will suffer to some degree. There is no real protection for us in the Single European Act to cushion us against the full thrust of the more prosperous nations.
Somebody told me yesterday that it is cheaper to buy a box of Irish-made biscuits in Northern Ireland than it is here. Biscuits are exported from here to Northern Ireland and can be bought there for about half the price. If we operate such crazy systems, many people are in for a rude awakening.
We are not satisfied with the way the Government are approaching the agricultural scene. If Deputy Ned O'Keeffe had the opportunity to speak he would spell out very clearly the difficulties facing the agricultural community. The Government made no effort during the negotiations on the Single European Act to protect the farming industry. The latest reports coming from Brussels indicate that decisions will be taken which will have a strongly detrimental effect on Irish farming. Our Government did nothing to protect these interests, as other countries protected theirs on similar occasions. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that our very genuine concerns are brought before our partners in Europe. That is why we recommend our amendment to the Minister.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Energy mentioned earlier that during the course of negotiations the Government were very conscious that, despite the Community's efforts, the gap between the most prosperous of the central regions and those of the periphery had not narrowed appreciably since 1973 and that a new commitment in this regard was therefore required. I cannot disagree with that. Of course, the gap has not narrowed in any significant way; in fact, the gap has widened. Of course, a new commitment is required. Is not the weakness of the whole Single European Act that there is no commitment whatsoever to provide the finance to close that gap? There is simple, idle talk but no real commitment. Unless the heads of State and Government at their weekend conferences decide to increase considerably the finances of the European Community we will be only playing about with the whole matter. We are just passing another Act, certainly not for the purposes of building up an economic Community as we want it to be, but perhaps that is not the real reason. Perhaps it is the political side that may be more important to the European partners. Having regard to statements of recent date by the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, one can legitimately say that could well be the view of others also. Unless the money is provided to meet the commitment, you are not going anywhere at all. We want to see the gap narrowed.
The Minister for Energy suggests that Ireland must press for a series of major actions on the increase in own resources if we are to tackle the disadvantaged regional areas in a broader, more comprehensive manner. Is it not a little late in the day, after four years for the Deputy Prime Minister of an Irish Government to say that Ireland must press for an increase in own resources? Would we not all be happier if he could say they have succeeded in convincing our European partners that they have to increase own resources of the Community by increased contributions from the member states? Is that not what we would all like to hear? Basically the message from the Minister for Energy is that the situation after four years and many meetings with heads of Government and of State is that we do not have enough money to meet our financial commitments. There is little point in suggesting that a major plan for the allocation of financial resources towards the peripheral and less prosperous regions of the Community, including Ireland, is something that will happen overnight. Until such time as we provide the wherewithal to do it, we are not going to do it.
The Minister for Energy talks of the Single European Act as perhaps causing problems for Ireland, but he says it contains protection for our interests. He is making a reasonable effort to try to deal with the realities of the situation. We have not had spelt out in the detail we would like by the Government in their White Paper what these real problems could very well be. It is far too vague and not good enough, recognising that there is a likelihood that problems will arise for us. We must take the necessary protective steps at this stage. We must put down the marker once again more firmly by restating Protocol 30 in full for the benefit of our colleague members there.
I have on occasion differed with Minister Barry on the question of harmonisation of taxes. We recognise that unanimity is required on this issue and it is as well for us that it is. If it were not, we would be destroyed financially overnight. Our whole economy would be turned head over heels overnight. The fact of the matter remains that in accepting the Single European Act's commitment to the harmonisation of taxes during the course of negotiating the Single European Act, we have accepted the principle of the harmonisation of taxes. We have accepted in principle that it will take place. How long can we block the other 11 members if they want to go ahead, even if we have the veto? Is it not going to happen sooner than later? Otherwise why would the others insist that it be part of the Single European Act? Unanimity is required, but once the principle is established the Minister will find that the stand he will take on behalf of this country will be chipped at and he will be isolated to such an extent that he will not be able to defend his position. That is another reason why it is necessary for the Minister, not for the sake of the parliamentarians of this House but for those in the European Parliament, to state the full contents of Protocol 30.
On the question of the change in the method of voting, criticism has been made by the Minister for Energy and other members of the Government that those of us who criticise that the increased provision for majority voting do so because they want to reject the Single European Act. I do not wish to do so, I know that I cannot. I never said that. However, I reserve the right to criticise the contents of that Act which was negotiated by this Government. That right I must have and it cannot be taken from any Member of this House. This Government failed on a number of fronts during the course of the negotiations to get us the protection we need under the Single European Act. I accept the argument made about majority voting, that we will not just be three out of 76 on the weighted voting system. As it is, we will be one out of 12 which is fairly good when compared with three out of 76. I accept that when the weighted voting system comes into operation we will have help from others with whom we will have a good deal in common.
I again suggest very strongly that we must try to see, particularly with regard to the Mediterranean countries, what special interests we have in common with them in an effort to try to help us at times when we need that help. The weighted voting system may not be as advantageous for us as we are being led to believe by the Government. I heard criticisms earlier from Deputy Keating of the Progressive Democrats to the effect that one should stop the spectacle of members of Governments haggling through the night. There are Members of this House who have sat through all-night meetings on prices and such. I have done so and I am sure Minister Barry and others have also. If a decision is to be made I do not care how long it takes. If I am to be given an opportunity of pushing my case for my country. I do not care how long it takes. I would not like to see my case swept aside. I am not convinced we can accept without some fear this weighted voting system.
I recognise the problems of the Commission and the difficulties in arriving at decisions. Originally there were six members, subsequently increased to ten and now to 12 member states. I can understand that the family is getting bigger and bigger and that it creates a major problem. However, I see the need for speedier decsion-making and I am concerned that this weighted voting system will not be everything we are told it will be.
I object to the assertion by the Minister for Energy and other members of the Government that only those who want to reject the Single European Act criticise its contents. That is nonsense and it is very naive of the Minister or anybody else to suggest such a thing. We must criticise——
I wish to inquire what the order of the House is in relation to speakers and the Minister.
The Minister will be called at 10.30 p.m.
In view of the fact that the party of the Deputy who is on his feet and the Government put on this debate for far too short a time by agreement, and agreeing fully with his assertion that he as a Member of the House is entitled to express his disagreement, will he make it possible for me to express my agreement or disagreement, as I choose fit, before the Minister is called?
I will facilitate Deputy Blaney.
There is not much time left.
I am prepared to give the Deputy ten minutes of my time.
Deputy Collins will make better use of the ten minutes if that is the case. Will the Acting Chairman ask the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if my name has been listed to speak since 4 o'clock?
Acting Chairman
I cannot do anything about it. Deputy Collins is in possession.
Deputy Collins and the rest of the House should take note of the fact that I wish to make a personal explanation as a result——
Acting Chairman
You are out of order. I allowed you to raise a point of order but I cannot allow any more discussion on the matter. Deputy Collins to continue, please.
You did not let me finish what I wanted to put to you. The Taoiseach, in reply to a point of order which I made to the then presiding chairman, made remarks as to why I was not here yesterday. I am entitled before this debate concludes to answer the Taoiseach who welcomed me back to the House and then muttered something, in his own inimitable style, to the effect that I was not in the House yesterday. I should like to put it to the Chair that I have been longer in the House for this debate than he, as Leader of the Government who are pushing it through at present.
Acting Chairman
You are taking up Deputy Collins's time, I must ask Deputy Collins to continue.
I am not taking up anybody's time except the time of the House which is as much mine as yours——
Acting Chairman
You are out of order. Deputy Collins responded very favourably to your request and said he would accommodate you.
I will continue to speak and make it known——
Acting Chairman
You are out of order, you must resume your seat.
I will not sit in an office——
Acting Chairman
You must resume your seat.
I am entitled to be in this House. I have allowed this sort of thing to go on for far too long. This is too vital an issue to allow the Government to shove through here——
Acting Chairman
Will you please resume your seat? If you do not, I will adjourn the House.
I was elected to speak on behalf of my constituents.
Acting Chairman
I am suspending the sitting for five minutes.
Sitting suspended at 10.15 p.m. and resumed at 10.20 p.m.
I am calling Deputy Gerard Collins.
The second part——
On a point of order.
Is it a point of order?
I think so, but it is for you to decide.
The Deputy will have to be certain.
I have been here since 4 p.m. My name will have been listed by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I understood from various comings and goings that I would have been given time this evening to talk on this very important matter. I listened to each speech since Deputy Pádraig Flynn contributed. When Deputy Michael Keating was called I did not understand what was happening, but we had an intervention from the Tánaiste telling the Chair, I do not know why, that Deputy Keating could have more than the 20 minutes which had been agreed with the Chair. Shortly after that, the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip intervened. Up here we have an acoustics problem because the microphones have not been working for the past ten years——
I can explain the position.
May I wind up, because there is a sequence? The Chief Whip then asked the Chair to ensure that the Fianna Fáil front speaker, Deputy Collins, would be called before the Minister was called to conclude. At that stage the Tánaiste had finished and there were 50 minutes left. I hoped I would get at least 20 of the 50 minutes, but when 30 minutes had elapsed——
I have heard the Deputy's point of order, and I will deal with it.
If you do not regard it as a point of order——
I have taken it as a point of order and I will deal with it now. There was no time limit on speeches in this debate. Until late this evening there was a gentleman's agreement following Private Members' Business and the vote thereon. That covered the speeches of Deputy Michael Keating and the Tánaiste, both of whom intimated they would be making short contributions, no longer than 30 minutes. When their contributions concluded, the gentleman's agreement ended and there was no agreement after that. Deputy Gerry Collins was then called on to conclude and the only limitation on him was that he would have go give way to the Minister at 10.30 p.m. Deputy Collins, please.
May I raise a further point of order?
I do not want a row with Deputy Blaney.
Surely, as an elected Member of this House. I am at least entitled to ask what is going on from you as my protector in the Chair? There was this gentlemen's agreement, there was no limit on speeches until after the vote——
I said there was a gentlemen's agreement and I explained what that was.
Could I get some enlightenment on this? If there was no limit on speeches there certainly was a limit on the debate. As there was no internal limit on speeches during the day, this meant that the number of speeches was limited, and a nil amount of time was allotted to some Members. The gentlemen's agreement——
The time to object to that was yesterday morning or the morning before when, by agreement of the House, the duration of the debate was agreed.
I know the difficulty the Chair is in——
The Chair is not in any difficulty.
The Chair is not in any difficulty but the fact that there was a gentlemen's agreement tonight implies there were gentlemen here but I do not know where they are.
Will Deputy Blaney please resume his seat and I will read the order?
I can do much better than that. In order to protest against the undemocratic skullduggery that goes on when arranging speeches in this House, I am withdrawing in protest, you will be delighted to know, but I will be back, like MacArthur.
I was trying to make the case for the acceptance of the amendment tabled by our party, which reads:
—Ireland considers that the completion of the internal market must have full regard to the terms of Protocol 30, agreed at the time of accession, which recognises that there are certain special problems of concern to Ireland, and that there is a Community interest in the attainment of the aims of Ireland's policy of industrialisation and economic development designed to align the standards of living in Ireland with those of the other European nations and to eliminate underemployment while progressively evening out regional differences in levels of development.
—Ireland states that the provisions of Title III do not affect Ireland's long established policy of military neutrality and that co-operation of positions on the political and economic aspects of security does not include the military aspects of security or procurement for such purposes and does not affect Ireland's capacity to act or refrain from acting in any way which might affect Ireland's international status of military neutrality.
On this part of the amendment I wish to remind the Minister that we are a sovereign and independent nation. We are a young nation which puts great value on its neutrality. We take pride in the fact that we are not aligned to any power bloc or to any military alliance. I do not believe anybody in this House would dispute the fact that this is the wish of the majority of our people. That is what they want. All I am asking the Government to do is to acknowledge that that is the position and to underline it. There is no dispute in this House on that issue, but we have to ensure by accepting the amendment tabled on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, that the position is as we believe it to be and that it will be fully made known to our partners in Europe. It is important that we do that. I can see no valid reason for not doing it. The Danes did it. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs said we would be introducing an unacceptable element of conditionality into Ireland's ratification of the Single European Act. I do not accept that. Not alone do I not accept it, but the Danes do not accept it.
I urge the Minister to state the position of the Irish people with regard to our neutrality. We do not belong to any military alliance; nor do we belong to a political bloc. The Minister should let our partners know that. If the Danes felt it worth their while to do it by way of placing an amendment to their motion of ratification then why cannot we do it? The Minister fails to see that even his own party members who have a majority on the Oireachtas all-party committee dealing with EC legislation recommended it. It was accepted unanimously by them. Why can the Minister not do that if he proposes not to accept our amendment?
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for calling me on time. At one stage, 20 minutes ago, I thought I would not be called at all as there was a nice row in progress. This has been a very necessary and a very welcome debate from our point of view. A very clear majority in this House agree that the Single European Act should be ratified. Most Members believe that there is a European Community. I listened to a very interesting contribution from Deputy Wilson last night in that regard. He stated that the drive of the European Community of the early seventies has been lost.
One of the purposes of the Single European Act is to restore the motivation to Europe. I was astounded when I heard some of the speeches from the other side of the House in the last 36 hours in this regard. It is very much in line with what some speakers said about the necessity to revive the spirit of Europe, I very much welcome the debate. I am sorry there are not more debates on Europe in this House. It is necessary that we all tease out the benefits, implications and the dangers of the future courses of Europe. There was never any question that this Act would not come into the House for debate. In order to ratify it, it would have to be debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is completely in keeping with the manner in which the Government have kept the House fully informed in recent years of the events which led to the convening of the intergovernmental conference and to the negotiations in the conference that resulted in the Single European Act.
The charge of Deputy Haughey that the Government tried to stifle the debate and tried to have this House agree the procedures to ratification mechanically is just rubbish, as he very well knows. The whining from Deputies opposite even though they did not all use the same words, that we were trying to stifle the debate is clearly untrue. Since the signing of the Milan conference 18 months ago, which clearly signalled what would happen on a Single European Act in the intergovernmental conference, in the report of the Luxembourg conference, in the Estimates debate earlier this year and in the report of the Hague conference there has been virtually no mention by any member of the Opposition of the Single European Act. To show the concern of the Opposition, including the members of The Workers' Party, in all that time four parliamentary questions were put down on the matter. The level of concern does not seem to be very great if in 18 months all the Opposition parties, The Workers' Party, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, could think of was four parliamentary questions.
Why did we not have a White Paper 18 months ago?
That seems to indicate a very limited amount of concern about the effects of the Single European Act.
It does not say much for the Minister's initiative in promoting discussion on it.
I am glad that eventually they showed some interest in Europe. I say that with great regret as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned because of the role they played, with our party, in 1972 in encouraging the people to give a massive endorsement to joining Europe. I regret to say that I get the flavour from their contributions in the last year or so that they are now more inclined to take us out of Europe than to keep us in Europe and help us to build it. I hope I am wrong about that.
A number of important concerns have been voiced and questions raised during this debate, particularly in relation to the constitutional implications of ratifying the Single European Act and our position on neutrality. I intend to deal with these matters in my remarks but before doing so I will deal with some of the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday. Not surprisingly, he accused the Government of not looking after our national interests within the European Community and of permitting these interests to be, as he said, submerged. He went on to accuse the Government of downgrading our Community membership to "the lowest possible begging bowl level". This latter charge is obviously a reference to the fact that the Government have, very rightly, drawn attention in the debate on the Single European Act to the benefits which Ireland derives from membership of the Community.
The Government, again according to Deputy Haughey, have singularly failed to protect Irish interests in the Community. We continue to be proportionately the largest beneficiary of all member states as a result of the continued sustained and vigilant efforts by the Government to protect and promote our interests within the Community. Deputy Haughey again criticised us for this. He stated that on the one hand we are supposed to have submerged our interest in the Community and on the other hand we are supposed to be going with the begging bowl. He cannot have it both ways. The Leader of the Opposition stated that there are many things in the Single European Act that are not to Ireland's benefit or that will be disadvantageous to us. He said that the Single European Act weakens our position and contains inherent dangers. He took an extremely negative attitude to the provisions of the Act. He went out of his way to quote foreign authorities who are on record as downgrading the importance of potential effects of the Single European Act. Does he agree with those authorities and, if so, why does he say that the Act will be disadvantageous to Ireland? If he does not agree with the authorities, then why is he quoting them? We should look at this Act to see what benefits it has for us and if it is suitable to our needs. We should not listen to what people outside the country say about it.
There were a number of inconsistencies scattered throughout the speech of the Opposition Leader yesterday. He attacked the Government for drawing the conclusion, which I think is inescapable, that if we were to prevent the coming into operation of the Single European Act it would have a long term and potentially damaging effect on our position, standing and influence in the European Community. Can anybody really deny that? He stated that if we failed to sign this Act it will have a long term and potentially damaging effect on our position or standing on neutrality. This was a major consideration for the other less developed member states in their approach to the negotiations for and the ratification of the Single European Act. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government on this point. In the very next breath he stated that the alternative of our not ratifying the Act is one which "would have the most serious implications for us". If we sign it, it is very serious and if we do not sign it, it is very serious.
That is the position.
He will have to make up his mind on this. I want to give Deputy Collins the precise reasons why, on legal advice, I am not accepting the amendment put down by Fianna Fáil. The Leader of the Opposition and all the main speakers from his party have, in the course of the debate, laboured the idea of a declaration. I want to put formally on the record of the House the legal advice from the Attorney General to the Government on that matter.
If the House accepts the amendment to the second motion as proposed it would mean that the Dáil would approve of the Single European Act subject to the annexing by the Government to the State's Instrument of Ratification of the Single European Act of two declarations therein referred to, one concerning Protocol 30 of the 1972 Act of Accession and the other concerning Ireland's policy of neutrality.
In that regard the Attorney General says the following comments arise:
(a) The amending Motion would seem to involve qualifying the Dáil's approval of the Single European Act. That approval is necessary for the purposes of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution. It is not clear whether such a qualified approval would satisfy the provisions of that Article. As far as can be ascertained there has been no previous case in which an approval by the Dáil of an international agreement for the purposes of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution has been subject to a qualification.
(b) It is also considered that the annexing of the declarations proposed in the amending Motion to Ireland's Instrument of Ratification would savour of a reservation to our ratification of the Single European Act.
(c) While it is true that the modern law and practice in regard to international treaties does as a general rule allow reservations to be made by a state when ratifying an international treaty, this is subject to a number of important qualifications. The particular qualification which would be relevant in this case is that stated in Article 20 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which Deputy Haughey quoted yesterday] which we would accept as stating the existing position in general international law [and I quote]:
"when it appears from the limited number of the negotiating States and the object and purpose of a Treaty that the application of the Treaty in its entirely between all the parties is an essential condition of the consent of each one to be bound by the Treaty, a reservation requires acceptance by all the parties".
(d) If we ratify or purport to ratify the Single European Act in a way which involves, or appears to involve, a reservation, this is liable to raise questions concerning the validity of such ratification unless the reservations are accepted by all the other member states.
(e) The Declarations contained in the Final Act which was signed by all member states when the Single European Act was concluded, if and in so far as any of them might be thought to involve or suggest a reservation, have all been accepted by the member states by virtue of their signatures of the Final Act. The Final Act is now closed: it cannot be reopened.
(f) It is not known whether the Declarations proposed in the amending Motion, if annexed to our Instrument of Ratification, would be accepted or not by the other member states. If they were not, there would be a risk of a state of legal confusion concerning the status of our Instrument of Ratification. A similar situation might exist concerning the sufficiency of the Dáil's approval of the Single European Act for the purposes of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution.
If the Opposition's view were accepted by the House it appears from the advice of the highest legal authority available to the Government that we might be in breach of our own Constitution and we certainly would be in danger of creating legal confusion as to whether we had or had not signed the Act which speaker after speaker on the other side have said is a necessity for the Government on behalf of the country. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition. However, what I can do if the House passes the motion in my name, which is separate from the motion allowing us to enact the Single European Act, is to submit that alongside our ratification which is not annexing it to it but submitting it side by side with it. I will be voting against the Opposition's amendment, if they move it.
That is an important point and I should like to ask the Minister to elaborate a little on it.
If the first motion in my name is passed and we go on to pass the Single European Act and my motion attached to it, which is necessary for internal reasons, then the Single European Act will have been ratified by Dáil Éireann without anything being annexed to it or without qualification. I will then submit that certificate of ratification to the authorities in Rome and submit at the same time the motion passed by the House.
Separately as a motion?
Yes. There is an important constitutional point that I should like to put on the record of the House. I understand that amendments have been tabled for Committee Stage tomorrow and that will give me an opportunity to deal with other points raised. Constitutional questions are important and I am anxious to get them firmly, clearly and unambiguously on the record.
The question of the constitutionality of the Single European Act has been raised by a number of Deputies. I have already said in my opening speech that the Government are satisfied that amendments of the European Community Treaties contained in the Single European Act do not require an amendment to the Constitution. However, in response, in particular to the request for clarification from Deputy John Kelly and, indeed from Deputy Haughey, I will now deal with this issue in as much detail as I can.
The State, by virtue of the Third Amendment to the Constitution, has authority to agree to amendments of the treaties which remain within the scope, both as regards subject matter and as regards the nature and functions of the Community institutions, of the treaties as they were when we joined the Communities in 1973. When ratified pursuant to this authority compliance with these amending treaties becomes necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities.
The Government consider that this view of the Third Amendment is the only one which duly recognises and accepts that the State is a member of the Communities, and that this allows for limited amendments from time to time of the treaties establishing these Communities without the necessity on each occasion for a further referendum. This view does not open up a possibility of unlimited treaty amendments going beyond what was envisaged by the treaties as they stood in 1973. In this regard it is important to remember that the Third Amendment consists of two sentences: the first sentence provides that the State may become a member of the Communities. This provision did not lapse when we joined the Communities. It has a continuing legal and constitutional significance no less than the second sentence which refers to matters necessitated by the obligations of membership.
The Single European Act contains amendments of the treaties which are admittedly very important. However they remain within the limits to which I have already referred. In particular I mention first that, qualified majority voting is already the usual rule under the existing treaties. It applies for instance in the agricultural sphere. The extension of that rule to areas for which unanimity is now required, particularly in the sphere of the internal market, is subject to safeguards, particularly those now contained in Article 36 of the EEC treaty, for the vital interests of member states.
Secondly, the European Parliament gains no direct legislative power and the implementing powers of the Commission are not being extended beyond those already provided for in the treaties. All that is involved is to provide a more regular and systematic basis for doing what is already provided for and the Council, whenever it sees fit, may decide not to confer such powers on the Commission.
Thirdly, the new court will be a tribunal inferior to and attached to the present Court of Justice. The only reason it is not being made part of the Court of Justice itself is that there will be appeals on questions of law from the new court to the Court of Justice. Contrary to what Deputy Kelly suggests, the reference in Article 4 of the Single European Act to "certain classes of action or proceedings brought by natural or legal persons" does not open up the possibility that jurisdiction in actions or proceedings currently reserved to the national courts could be taken from them and transferred to the new tribunal. The purpose of the new court is not to make inroads into the current jurisdiction of national courts but to improve the efficiency with which the function of judicial review and control is at present exercised by the Court of Justice under the Treaties. Moreover, it should be noted that the new court and its jurisdiction can only be established by the unanimous agreement of all member states. Finally, on this point of constitutionality I would like to turn to Deputy Haughey's claim about the question of fundamental rights and a possible link between the Single European Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Single European Act does not authorise the Court of Justice of the European Communities to interpret or apply the European Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding the reference in the Preamble to the Single European Act to that Convention. This follows from Articles 31 and 32 of the Single European Act. Article 31 provides that the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Communities under the European Community Treaties shall apply, pursuant to the provisions of the Single European Act, only to the provisions of Title II which contains the amendments of the European Communitie Treaties and to Article 32 of the Single European Act. Article 32 provides that subject to Article 3 (1), of Title II and to Article 31 to which I have just referred, all of which concern the European Community Treaties and nothing else, nothing in the Single European Act shall affect the Treaties establishing the European Communities or any subsequent Treaties and Acts modifying or supplementing them. These two provisions taken together have the following effects:
The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice remains confined to the European Community Treaties.
The statements in the Preamble including that on the European Convention on Human Rights do not affect the European Community Treaty, and accordingly the contents of that Convention are not, by virtue of the Preamble, in any way imported into those Treaties.
Finally, because of the effects of Articles 31 and 32, the Single European Act cannot be interpreted as conferring any jurisdiction relating to the Human Rights Convention on the Court of Justice.
If what the Minister has said is correct, why is the European Convention mentioned in the Preamble?
It is mentioned in the Preamble in relation to Articles 31 and 32 of the Single European Act.
Is the Minister saying that it is not being brought back into the Community Treaties or laws? Why, therefore, is it brought into the Preamble?
It is in Articles 31 and 32 and the Preamble is a lead-in to those. Articles 31 and 32 are the governing Articles, not the Preamble.
Nílim sásta, ach ar aghaidh leat.
The Deputy can see it in the Official Report in the morning.
The last point I wish to deal with is the one made on neutrality. Deputy Haughey implied that the Government had accepted the security provisions of the Dooge report and the Franco-German draft treaty which was tabled at the Milan European Council of June 1985. This is quite simply not true. Senator Dooge entered a reservation on the security and defence clauses of the Dooge Report. As regards the Franco-German draft, the Taoiseach quite specifically stated at the Milan European Council and to the Dáil after that summit that only those provisions of that text which maintained the distinctions between the European Community and the Atlantic Alliance were acceptable to Ireland. What has happened since Milan is that, building on this distinction, the Government have ensured that the provisions dealing with security were elaborated in the Single European Act in such a way as to be totally in line with our neutral position outside military alliances, as I explained in my statement of yesterday.
The Deputy, in quoting from the Single European Act, attempted to argue that the use of the word "security" poses a challenge to our neutrality, but he did not quote that sentence of Article 30.6 which explicitly limits co-ordination to political and economic aspects of security. This point has been made here constantly in the last 12 months. Moreover, the allergy to the word "security" seems to me to rest on a confused hair-splitting. As I have stated before, "security" is a very broad concept. Indeed, security lies at the very heart of the international system embodied in the United Nations, a fact which is recognised in the Preamble to the Single European Act which refers to the commitment of all states to the maintenance of international peace and security as set out in Article 1 of the UN Charter. The security of Europe is essential to international peace and security as a whole. We already participate actively in the promotion of European security through the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) — which began in Helsinki in 1975. Nobody has suggested that we should not participate in the UN's or the CSCE's efforts to ensure the security of the world system as a whole or that of Europe. I fail to see why we should be nervous or embarrassed about asserting our interest in the security, in broad terms, of the Twelve. The process continued in Belgrade in 1978, attended by Deputy O'Kennedy, in Madrid in 1983 and it arose again in Vienna where I spoke recently.
In my speech yesterday I explained fully the implications of the reference to technological and industrial aspects of security. Contrary to what a number of Deputies have said, including Deputy Haughey, this clause poses no challenge to our neutrality since co-operation within the Community in these matters will be confined to political and economic aspects of security. I suggest it is the duty of every Irish Government to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for Ireland's security in the economic and political senses.
I did not agree with everything that was in Deputy Kelly's statement of yesterday but, like him, I am astounded at the fact that those who have objections to elements of the Single European Act feel the need to bombard us with the potted views of various foreign sources: an English historian, the British Foreign Office, a German political scientist, an ex-judge of the European Court. These sources have been quoted, within this House and outside, as authorities on how we should approach the Single European Act. They view the Single European Act, assuming they have read it, from the perspective of their interests. Why should the assumption be made that our interests coincide with those? Surely we are mature enough as a country to make up our own minds on the Single European Act, on the basis of a clear assessment of our interests and our priorities.
Moreover, if such sources are to be quoted, they should be quoted in context. Yesterday Deputy Haughey asserted that as a result of the Single European Act we may be forced into Community decisions against our will and that our freedom of action on foreign policy matters will be eroded. I have stated that this is not so: our undertakings go no further than to endeavour to achieve — that is all we are doing. I am ashamed to say — common positions and common actions on the basis of consensus. Everybody must agree before a statement can be issued. If any one country decides that an action should not be taken, a position adopted or a statement issued to ensure that the Community does not act, that is not enough because all decisions must be taken by consensus.
Deputy Haughey yesterday stated that "the European Community is essentially an economic one". I do not believe that. Because of the stagnation that has been part of the development of Europe, particularly since the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, there has been a danger that we would slip into a certain mould, and now this Act displays on behalf of all member states, but particularly the Ten who were members when this process was initiated, a realisation that something had to be done before Europe fell asunder again and became only a common market or an economic unit. I think the Single European Act is that something. It may not work, it is a very small step, but it is significant in as much as it shows the 320 million of the peoples of Europe, and indeed the people of the world, that the ideal for which the European Community was founded is not dead.
In accordance with an Order of the House made yesterday, I must now put successively the necessary questions to bring Items Nos. 20, 9, and 21 to a conclusion.
Item No. 20, motion in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Question put and agreed to.