Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1986

Vol. 370 No. 10

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.)

Mr. Wilson

Before the adjournment I had been dealing with the faltering in the development of the European Economic Community, the concern that this caused in the member states and the indications that at Heads of State and Heads of Government level a decision was taken that something had to be done about it. I related that faltering to a deliberate putting aside of the philosophy upon which the whole European Economic Community had been established, a philosophy which was very much to the fore when the attempt was being made to enlarge the original Community and to strengthen the European ideal generally.

I indicated that when the Community simply decided to concern itself with bread, wine, butter, beef, soya beans and so on the cement which the original philosophy provided was melted down and the Community was less of a unit than it had been at the beginning when it was guided by the philosophy of men like M. Monnet and the founding fathers who, in the real world, had, as we know, the impelling force of what had happened to Europe in the 1939-45 war.

I also spoke briefly on the question of security. I did express shock at some of what Deputy McCartin said with regard to military involvement. If I read him and Deputy Kelly correctly, they were both advocating military alliances, saying we should join military alliances for the defence of Europe. That is a legitimate view to hold, no question about it, but I would like to know if that is the Government point of view, if it is the individual Fine Gael Member's point of view in Government, if it is the Labour point of view, or are we to take it that the motion put down in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs is the real thinking of the Government? There are some who think the Minister is simply covering his backside against attacks from the Opposition or from the Labour Party within the Government as of now. What I am saying is that those views are held — blatant militaristic views like those of Deputy McCartin or the less blatant views of Deputy Kelly — and they are legitimate points of view — but I take it they are not the views of the majority of this House. They are certainly not the views of the Fianna Fáil Party. My own belief is that if such a point of view were put by way of plebiscite to the people, it would be totally rejected.

The qualified majority voting is something we are worried about. Admittedly, the power of veto is a strong and very effective one. Admittedly, it can be used to hold up developments and to neutralise any action that is attempted to cause stagnation at decision-making level. An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláir dó bheith glic. We do not have strong voting powers in the Parliament or in the Council of Ministers where the decisions are actually taken. As the veto applies to the activities of the Council of Ministers we should be very careful about using it. We should also be very careful and cautious about shedding this power, in particular in regard to a whole range of economic interests in this country.

Deputy Haughey, Leader of Fianna Fáil, while speaking yesterday made an intensely practical proposal, namely, that there should be a balance sheet of advantages and disadvantages of membership of the EC. Let us be blunt about it. The advantage has been great. Funds have been transferred to Ireland from the EC. The statistics are given in the explanatory guide to the Single European Act. We should realise that and appreciate that it has had an impact on our social fabric and, although not as big an impact as we had hoped, on our regional development. It has also had an impact on our industrial and economic development. We did not lose out. This is where the idea of a balance sheet was an eminently reasonable one. Labour intensive industries have fallen by the wayside since we joined the EC.

When the debate about our joining the EC was in progress in the early seventies people involved in those industries at the time expressed fears. On one occasion I attended a party hosted by a shoe manufacturer. He stated that the only way he could survive was if we in Ireland decided to purchase what was made in the country and to exercise discrimination in that regard. I could not help but notice at that party only Scotch whiskey was served. There was a total lack of logic in his approach. He could not see that he was breaking the counsel of perfection which he was advocating with regard to his own business. That industry has since died, as have many other footwear and textile industries, as a direct consequence of our joining the EC. The balance sheet is important. It would be a matter of political judgment as to when the strength of the veto should be called upon to protect our national interests.

That is linked to the desire to have the internal market completed by 1992. In the explanatory guide articles 13 to 19 of the internal market are explained. It stated:

the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the EEC Treaty.

The Community want to move that law. In theory, we should be 100 per cent in favour of that if we have subscribed to the Treaty. Taking this desire for a quick movement in the establishment of the completely free internal market with the idea that more power will be delegated to the Commission, we could run into serious problems with regard to the development of the internal market. The explanatory guide also states:

the Commission has the power to take rapid decisions to adjust refund payments for the export of agricultural products to countries outside the Community so as to take immediate account of any decline in world market prices.

That is true. It gives the positive side. It also has the power to reduce prices. The converse is not adverted to in this booklet.

I mentioned yesterday that the social policy has deserved well of Europe and has benefited this country. We are told we have an advantage in the fact that a market comprising 320 million people will be available to us a result of the internal market being achieved by 1992. It will require very careful thinking on the part of the Community in regard to the social and regional policies in order to avoid the serious traumata that this will mean for this country. Throughout the seventies we gained from the Common Agricultural Policy, the social policy and the regional policy although this has always been disappointing. It may well be the fund of the future as far as this country is concerned. Very careful thinking with regard to those structural policies will be necessary. Effective thinking and thinking that will result in a proper and tightly organised policy for what are called peripheral regions — I do not like using the word "peripheral"— will be necessary.

There are five million people on this island and 320 million people in the European market. We had our doubts whether people whose one objective would be to maximise profits would choose Belfast, Dublin, Galway or Cork for major industrial expansion. That was a legitimate objective in their philosophy. The Government's guide mentions that with 320 million people in the Community we are bound to be in a position to attract foreign investment. That is true and it has happened. We know from statistics of the number of people employed by foreign companies that located here but it is also true that we have a 12 member Community and that Portugal and Spain are very attractive propositions for the establishment of industries and the location of investment from outside the Community. We should not forget that they have land frontiers with the mass market in Europe. It is important to remember that as a counterbalance against the euphoria of thinking of a market for 320 million people. We should take cognisance of that and be proud of the challenge but we must not forget that we are not the only people in the market for investment or trying to sell into the big market.

In modern industrial development the large corporation has a great advantage. It has the funds to advertise, something that means so much nowadays. We will have direct broadcasting by satellite soon and those large industrial projects will have unlimited money to spend on pressurising people to buy their products. That being so we will have to be extra careful about qualified majority voting and so on. We have achieved world markets with some products and established them in those markets. We are proud of such products like Waterford Glass. Baileys and linen from my own province although the latter product is not being produced to the same extent. However, it has a world reputation. We should not deny that the opportunities exist or deny that the country can achieve success if we specialise and are right up with production and marketing techniques.

I am tired of Ireland being cast in the role of a mendicant people, of bowing and saying, "Baksheesh, Baksheesh," to the European Community. For that reason we should gear our young people in our third level institutions to feel that they are well equipped to take part in the fight for development of that new market with the caveat all the time that we should not jettison the protections we have with regard to our national interest and its protection by a veto. When in Government I visited Athens and I came across a pamphlet from the EC which I felt was flattering as far as Ireland was concerned. It was written for the guidance of Greece which was not a member of the EC and indicated that Greece should model its expenditure of the Social Fund on the Irish model, that the Irish model was something Greece could look at and use to good advantage. Perhaps that was because of the social conditions of the two countries. The pamphlet stated that we utilised the Social Fund with considerable wisdom. I know some people have expressed doubts about certain expenditures on the training of young people. I am prepared to concede that there may have been mistakes in that area but in some instances people who did not do all that well at school got excellent training from AnCO that equipped them to take up jobs in factories. Some of those people got well paid jobs, even in my constituency. They would not have been considered at all in the first instance had they not got this training in welding or some other skill from AnCO, an organisation which is mainly funded from the Social Fund.

I welcome the provisions about the health and safety of workers. Last night I mentioned research and technological development and indicated that this was an area where we should try to support the policy as a European policy and get as much advantage out of it as we can. The indications are that in that area in our formal centres of learning, and in the informal training centres, we had made very rapid progress. I mentioned yesterday how proud we should be of the fact that on a number of occasions our Aer Lingus Young Scientist of the Year took first place in competitions covering the EC and, in other instances, took first place in competitions involving young people in the US. We have good material and for that reason we should take a deep interest in this development. Admittedly for the wrong motives the pressure is coming on this area now. The Japanese and the US, in that order, are putting the pressure on. We know all the names such as Mitsubishi or Toyota from advertisements. Advertising campaigns indicate that that pressure is on very heavily. No matter what the motivation is it is a worthwhile policy development and we should be in there pitching to get the maximum advantage from it.

With regard to the question on security I have mentioned the near shock I got in listening to Deputy McCartin last night. Deputy Kelly's views were known to me and, as always were very colourfully presented but the thrust in both cases seemed to be that they would feel less ashamed if we had decided to join a military alliance in Europe. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the other hand, has tabled a motion that seems to indicate that he is protecting himself against somebody, whether it is somebody in Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party I do not know. The Fianna Fáil declaration refers to Protocol 30 and covers our programme of industrialisation, economic development and the evening out of regional differences. It also covers the whole area of neutrality, and states:

Ireland states that the provisions of Title III do not affect Ireland's long established policy of military neutrality and that co-ordination 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 ...

When one examines that alongside the motion tabled by an tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha one will see that there is very little difference. The only difference is that we are pushing for this declaration to be included in the Act. If it is desirable that the Dáil pass it as a motion I cannot see opposition to it being included as a formal declaration in the Act. I do not think it will rock any boats or cause any upsets in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will not lose any face if he accepts what we are urging.

I will have a quick look at a report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Community, a document well worth studying. Deputy G. Collins and his committee did creditable work and so did Deputy Manning who was chairman of the sub-committee which studied the matter in depth. I commend them for their work.

The committee complained that their work is simply done and shelved and that there should be an obligation on the Oireachtas to debate their work, particularly important matters like this. Indeed we have a legitimate complaint about the Taoiseach and the Government and their lack of provision for debates on the Single European Act. We would have cut the ground from under them if we had been given an opportunity to debate the report I am now referring to. Before Deputy FitzGerald became Taoiseach, before he was elected to the House, he was a noted European, supposedly, but important reports like this are never brought before the House for discussion.

The committee considered that the Single European Act is an unorthodox sort of instrument. It weds two things, the EPC being one. The committee say that the EPC does not come within the framework of the Treaty and like other provisions it is not included in the Bill to amend the 1972 European Communities Act. There seems to be a strange marriage here, whether of legislative convenience or whether one is expected to carry the other. I suppose it is true of any legislation, even domestic legislation, but the committee expressed criticism about possible difficulties in interpreting the Act. I am sure they expressed that fear because in the Act there is more scope for difficulties of interpretation than in most others. The analysis by Deputy Haughey yesterday indicates that there is scope for difficulties of interpretation already apparent in the Act.

The internal market was dealt with by the committee and they give a rather shocking figure from the Albert and Ball Report called "European Economic Recovery in the Eighties", which is cited, to the effect that technical, fiscal and bureaucratic barriers to trade are estimated to cost European business £8 million per annum, or 2 per cent of GNP. Though we consider that the transfers we are talking about in Ireland, which are substantial and welcome, though not to be clothed totally in euphoria, are less than £1 billion, they constitute a very substantial sum that could be saved, and it is something we would desire and support. The only problem I can see about it is the cost to European business. If that money were saved, where would it be deployed? I repeat what I said earlier about the structural funds. That area should be supported from any savings through completion of the internal market.

On page 50 of the report, Jacques Delors, President of the Commission, called for a co-operative growth strategy which, by adding 1 percentage point to the Community growth rate could reduce unemployment by 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the next five years. I cannot tell the House how sweet that music sounds to my ears. Whether anything will be done about it is a different matter, but the Government should listen to that type of suggestion.

On a number of occasions here I cited an Economic and Social Research Institute document prepared some time ago called "Employment and Unemployment in Ireland". It was never debated in this House. It analysed unemployment and the labour market; it indicated what the labour market would be because of increases in the population and more women coming into the work force in a period of years; it analysed what the employment requirements would be and it had scenarios indicating what would happen with minimal or non-existent emigration, moderate emigration and severe emigration, which is what we have at present.

Ireland is the best country in the world for analyses but the important thing is to do something about what we discover from them. That is where we fall down. The Government never even considered what should be done with regard to developing unemployment and emigration. The study I have just referred to — it is a bit out of date now — could be brought up to date. It contains suggestions about what to do to tackle the unemployment problem.

Jacques Delors had the right idea. He expressed a development philosophy. The important thing is to do something about it. Yesterday Deputy Haughey indicated that there are 16 million people unemployed in the Community. That is no recipe for smugness or lying back and doing nothing. There is nothing that would breathe life into the whole idea of a vibrant and living community more than a comprehensive effective policy to deal with unemployment in the future. We have heard what would happen if West Germany allowed reflation, and if France and the other stronger countries would do something along the same lines. There we are talking about individual countries while Jacques Delors was talking about community action. It could be done. If it were seen to be a road down which progress could be made the member states would not be as reluctant as they have been in the past to provide the funds for that kind of development.

I have already made the point about competition. Our weakness will be that large industries, large economies will be in a better position than we are for dealing with that. The joint committee make a comment about temporary derogations. We do not want to be doing the baksheesh bit all the time, but the possibility for temporary derogations should be there.

I have already dealt briefly with economic and social cohesion in the Community in the context of Jacques Delor's statement. We only just got the contribution up to 1.4 per cent of VAT returns. There was a battle about that because some states felt it was nearly all being absorbed by the CAP. There must be a blueprint for improving employment within the Community. We are in a very bad state in this respect, as are Spain and the UK. A policy thrust should be initiated and kept up until something effective is done about it.

I commented last night on the provisions about the European Parliament, which is being brought more into the picture. There will always be a difficulty about the Parliament due to the difficulty of cohesion. It is difficult ever to see it in a legislative role, but we do not want it to be purely a talking shop. It has done some very good work already and is a wonderful concept, but it will be a good few centuries down the road until we see the European Parliament being a legislative essembly in the sense of the Dáil or the House of Commons, or the US Congress.

The Common Agricultural Policy has been at the top of the pile as far as our interests are concerned. Some of us feel aggrieved about what actually happened, about where the large profits went, whether it was to East Anglia, or north west of Paris in the cereals area, or to the dairy industry, sustained by imports of feed from the Far East and elsewhere. There has been a distortion of what we thought would be achieved by CAP. We cannot blame people who are working within the rules. I am not sure about the importation of feed. We have all expressed doubts about the continuation of facilities to other countries for the importation of products to the EC.

Nothing is simplistic. We know there are political and strategic considerations that must be taken into account in this area but we should bluntly and stubbornly hold on to CAP in so far as that can be done. We should see to it that we salvage as much of the original idea as possible. Perhaps we may have to take a different line in production and ban all kinds of artificial stimulants to growth and specialise in having organically produced products. There is a growing market for that kind of thing but it will take a lot of study. We have now developed agricultural expertise through Macra na Feirme, ACOT, An Foras Talúntais and the media to a far higher degree than when we joined in 1973. The soil is fertile for some close thinking regarding where we are going. If we specialise and have available products for the Fortnum and Mason type of shop, they will be purchased. Only a few years ago French housewives went on strike because the veal in the shops was contaminated with growth promoters and antibiotics. That practice was stopped very quickly because the meat was left in the shops.

The joint committee believe that the commitment in the Act to strengthen the structural policies of the Community must allow for appropriate compensatory measures for the farming community in the most disadvantaged areas where agriculture plays a major role in the local economy. The original concept we were debating and discussing in 1973 involved a concentration on the highly developed and industrialised central quadrangle. The selfsame thing is true of the agriculture industry and I welcome that recommendation of the committee.

The joint committee also caution that there are strong indications that CAP is running out of political goodwill. Shallow but influential commentators in this country — sometimes their influence is enhanced, the more shallow they are — are following that simplistic line with regard to this CAP. It is something to which we must address ourselves. The committee say that an inflexible approach to other aspects of the Single European Act, such as the completion of the internal market, might not serve our best interests in negotiations relating to CAP. This is where I come back to the suggestion made yesterday by Deputy Haughey about the balance sheet. We have loud complaints coming from certain heavily industrialised countries about the CAP's absorption of funds but there is no mention at all of the balancing advantages which those countries have. West Germany is always mentioned as the member state paying the piper. An analysis of the benefits to West German industry would indicate that they did exceptionally well — I am only taking that country as an example — out of membership of the EC. There has been a concerted and very subtly-conducted campaign against the Common Agricultural Policy in Britain from the word go. There is the kind of illogical situation in which the Minister of Agriculture in Britain is fighting on the Council of Ministers against the best interests of farmers.

I might say a quick word on the monetary capacity of the Community. Again the Prime Minister in Britain is indicating that, had she the power, she would rid herself of the Common Agricultural Policy in the morning. She said yesterday she was a highly "communitaire" person, so is her Government and so is Britain. Nevertheless, when the European Monetary System was established, she remained out. That has had an impact not merely on the general European Monetary System but as we know has had a special impact on this country. We had an unfortunate devaluation in the autumn of this year which compounded our problems in that regard. I would not mind but quite conservative-minded economists in Britain have been urging that Britain should join the EMS. There is no question but that if Britain did there would be some evidence that that Government was communitaire-minded. The fact of the matter is that it is generally believed that it is the Prime Minister in Britain herself, personally, who objects to joining the EMS. Writers in The Economist now for a number of years have been advocating that Britain should join the EMS, that that would help not merely the British economy but also those of the other EC countries and help to bring order to the Community's finances which, as we all know, constitute a serious problem.

The joint committee also dealt with science and technology — I have already referred to that — and said how important it is that there would be a mandatory requirement on the Council to adopt a science and technology strategy for the Community.

I will leave the lawyers to deal with the question of the courts. As somebody who has no qualifications in that area it seems to me to be a good idea that there is now a court from which there is the possibility of an appeal to the European Court as it obtains at present. In the course of their report the joint committee dealt with the Treaty on European Co-operation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy. The joint committee said they should have preferred to see Title III as a separate Treaty fully severable from Titles I and II of the Single European Act. They said at the very beginning of their comments on the Single European Act that it was a strange kind of wedding together of two different things. They said they would have preferred to see Title III as a separate Treaty fully severable from Titles I and II of the Single European Act and that this would allow for a separate debate on the whole issue of European political co-operation.

We are having, if you like, within this debate a separate debate on European political co-operation. I have already referred to that. With regard to it and the security aspects mentioned, the House should accept our declaration. It is, in substance, what the Minister for Foreign Affairs himself has put down by way of a motion but unconnected with this. Everybody who has had any contact at all with Europe knows that there has been a certain urging of us towards security areas, towards alliances, towards military commitment, a subtle not brash, urging in that general direction. I do not believe that is the policy of the majority of this House. Neither do I believe it is the thinking of the majority of our people. There are Members of this House, such as Deputies Kelly and McCartin who hold different views. They are entitled to hold those views. We are also entitled to know how far those views are held by the Government. If our declaration was formally annexed to the Single European Act then we would have a more up-front view on the matter.

The joint committee said that to avoid any possible ambiguity or misunderstanding of Ireland's position and to prevent any possible erosion of it, they called on the Government to append a formal reiteration of our position of military neutrality to the act of ratification. Nothing could be stronger than that recommendation. It is very important.

The Leader of our party did mention the Articles of our Constitution — I think Articles 30 to 34. The joint committee addressed themselves also to those Articles. They said:

The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 (dealing with the elimination of quantitative restrictions between member States) shall not preclude prohibition or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy or public security ...

I do know that Members of the House had communications with regard to that. The joint committee, in their wisdom, think it is adequately covered.

I hope there will be a resurgence of the spirit and philosophy on which the European Economic Community is based. When the late Deputy Seán Lemass first mooted the proposition of joining the Community when, as the House will remember General de Gaulle knocked it on the head through knocking the British application, those of us who at that time established associations like the European Association of Teachers and so on, and worked on the European idea and ideal feel now somewhat fooled by what happened. We feel that this was used at the time to prepare people's minds for the Community and that, as soon as the Community became a fait accompli, the decision was taken to move away from it into the bread, the butter, the beef, the wine, the olive oil area and forget the philosophy on which it was based. If there were a renewal of that ideal, and there could be, it would do great good. We should advocate European studies as a compulsory subject, if necessary, though I am reluctant to use the word “compulsory”, in our secondary schools. The whole thing will wither if it is based purely on the réal politique of economic development; it will wither and die.

I am pleased that the Parliament has been brought more into the situation than heretofore. The House should give due consideration to the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Vincent Brady about having this included as a formal declaration. There are many other declarations from various countries. The Government have one down about insurance, so it would not in any way be damaging to the commitment we have to Europe, to our economic well being or to the political development of the EC.

Mr. Manning

In his speech Deputy Wilson referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I have the honour along with Deputy Joe Walsh to chair this committee in an exercise of grant coalition based on the West German model of the sixties. We did a joint report on the Single European Act and its implications for us. This document has been of use to Members of this House in the debate.

Like most other groups in the country our committee came somewhat late to examine this subject, although as far back as last April we had discussions with relevant EC commissioners on the implications of the Act and we produced an earlier report on the completion of the internal market. In the course of our discussions we heard oral submissions from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Irish Council of the European Movement, the Irish Sovereignty Movement, the European Parliament office in Dublin, ACOT and An Foras Talúntais. We had written submissions from Conradh na Gaeilge, CND, the Neutrality Study Group and from Pax Christi. It is important to say that the Oireachtas had access to a wide variety of differing views on both the content and implications of the Act, and especially from groups who were hostile to the Act. The essence of the objections and the fears of these people is accurately summed up in our report. We are grateful to these people for their help in trying to clarify our minds on the implications of this complex legislation.

Few advances in the European Community over the past number of years have created anything like the controversy which is now being evoked by the Single European Act. In part, this is because certain groups have read fears and threats into the Single European Act, which are not there. In part, because some groups sought, either deliberately or otherwise, to misrepresent the intent and purpose of the Act. At different times we were told that the Act was a threat to our neutrality which it is not. At other times we were told that we would find ourselves as part of a nuclear arms industry in Europe, which we will not and we were told that the adoption of the Act could lead to the imposition of divorce and abortion here against the wishes of the people and, more extraordinarly, outside of the protection of Bunreacht na hÉireann. As the people studied the implications, and the media have played a very constructive role in this discussion by giving television, radio and newspaper space towards analysing the Act over the past number of years, their fears have been shown to be fanciful. The genuine fears which many people had because of the complexity of the Act and the slowness of the country in coming to debate it, have been allayed. This has been a particularly constructive debate. We have had valuable contributions from both Deputy Lenihan and Deputy Wilson who gave very constructive sober assessments of the implications and the negative effects of the Act.

I would reiterate the fundamental point made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs here yesterday as to the nature of the Community. When we voted overwhelmingly in 1972 to join the EC we did not vote to join a mere economic entity or an institution which had reached completion and perfection. We joined a Community which had as its objective some form of European union freely entered into by the free nations of Europe, designed to strengthen their mutual economic basis and commercial prosperity, designed to deepen understanding and to make impossible the disagreements which had plunged Europe twice into a World War in the space of 30 or 40 years. It was designed to create a Europe capable of competing with the super powers in all areas of trade, research and development and an entity which would respect the separate identity and individuality of the member states. In 1972 we did not join a static immobilised Community, but a Community moving in a certain direction. From that point on we had a say in charting both the direction and speed of movement. From the perspective of the hard pressed politicians or of the hard pressed civil servant the speed of development over the past 14 years has often been frustrating and we have tended to judge the evolution of the Community in terms of progress or lack of progress from one Summit to another. Every six months there is a reckoning of the degree of progress made within the Community. It is more realistic to judge the evolution of the Community against the backdrop of European history, even in this century. Against that backdrop more realistic measurement can be made especially when we contrast the degree of harmonisation, co-operation and progress made between such traditional enemies as the French and the Germans against our slow rate of progress in trying to resolve our national problem in Northern Ireland in the same time span.

It is possible to place the Single European Act in a proper context. In doing that it will be seen as a significant and major advance, as bringing to fruition moves which have been talked about over the past number of years and which are needed to allow the further evolution of the Community along the lines I have outlined.

In relation to the section dealing with the completion of the internal market, the fragmentation of the European market has been one of the main obstacles to economic growth in Europe. A common market has been created in name, but not in reality. Deputy Wilson referred to the Albert and Ball report commissioned by the European Community. As the Deputy said this report showed that technical, fiscal and bureaucratic barriers to trade are estimated to cost European business £8 billion a year or 2 per cent of Community GNP. For a country like Ireland which exports 66 per cent of the products of its manufacturing industry, and 80 per cent of that goes to the European Community, the benefits of freeing trade for us are obvious. From our point of view, the implications for industry, including financial services sector, are clear.

Access to a market of 320 million people without the present obstacles should provide an opportunity to increase trade significantly. For a long time we have talked about removing the existing non-tariff obstacles to genuine free trade in the Community. We have talked so long about it that there is a tendency among people in industry to be extremely sceptical about the prospects for any real change in this area. There is now every indication that business and industry in a majority of the member states of the Community now wish to proceed very rapidly with the adoption of the needed legislation which will result from the liberalisation of inter Community trade.

There is also a danger for us in this. It was clear from the evidence given to the joint committee that the completion of the internal market will lead to much stiffer competition between the various member states, as the obstacles already in place begin to fall. This could result in a scale of advantages in which Ireland, one of the weaker and less developed member states on the periphery of the Community, could find itself at the lower end of the scale. For that reason, and this is a point which was very strongly made at the committee, the inclusion of a new chapter in the treaty dealing with the economic and social cohesion of the Community, to reduce disparities between the different regions, is required as corollary to the completion of the internal market.

It should be said, however, that the removal of the remaining barriers to internal trade in the Community should very significantly improve Ireland's attractiveness as a location for foreign investment. Industries locating in Ireland will benefit very significantly from the improved access to the European market which will result from the completon of the internal market. Furthermore, a thriving Community would have additional resources to devote to strengthening their existing and future policies, especially the regional development policy. Ireland as a major beneficiary from the existing policies could expect to gain from such strengthening.

There were difficulties which could have arisen for this country in the move to majority voting. These difficulties have been avoided. Fiscal harmonisation especially could have caused considerable difficulties for us but this has been excluded and still remains subject to the use of the veto. We, like the other countries, are free to invoke the veto in cases where our vital national interest is at stake. I do not think any of us would like to see the situation develop where we become veto happy in which the exercise of the veto was to become a regular practice on our part or on the part of any of the other member states. Such an attitude would obstruct the decision making process and would render meaningless the attempts being made in the Single European Act to improve it but it is right that the possibility of invoking the veto in exceptional circumstances should remain and remain it does.

The move towards the completion of the internal market cannot be seen in isolation from the enhanced commitment which the Community have made in the Single European Act to economic and social cohesion. We will benefit from the internal market as an export dependent country but progress on the internal market will also have to take account of the cohesion objective and this will be to our advantage. In our approach to the Single European Act, in particular the provisions which will bring about a genuine single market, it is very important that our private sector in the months and years ahead should approach the new opportunities open to it in a very positive way because one thing is quite certain, the private sector in the other countries will be approaching the new opportunities in a positive and aggressive way. It is up to our private sector to do likewise.

Some of the most positive aspects in the Single European Act which were referred to at length by Deputy Wilson are the provisions for science and technology. It may well be said that it did not need a Single European Act to improve the level of scientific and technological development within the Community. Certainly, there is nothing specifically enshrined in the Treaty of Rome which would have prevented adequate investment in Community science and technology and thus assist the Community to keep abreast with the developments in other major economies. The difference between the original EC treaty and the many provisions in the Single European Act is that there will now be a mandatory requirement on the Council to adopt a science and technology strategy for the Community.

When we held our hearings in the joint committee we were informed by some of the leading people in science and technology in the country that the reason why steps were not taken to bridge the apparent massive gap between the Community and their industrial competitors was very simply a lack of political will on the part of the member states of the Community. Therefore, the treaty did not prevent the developments which were needed, it was an absence of will.

Now at least, the provisions in the Single European Act relating to science and technology do provide for an extensive framework programme to be drawn up which will outline a coherent plan for all Community research and development over a number of years. An effective and comprehensive Community programme of research and development, particularly in the area of high technology, should be of considerable potential benefit to the smaller member states such as ourselves. It will provide an opportunity for this country to participate in and benefit from large scale and advanced projects for which we ourselves would not otherwise have the resources.

There is no doubt whatever from talking to those people involved in the universities and research centres in this country that there is a great welcome for the fact that this vital area of science and technology has now been given a specific basis in the EC treaty by the inclusion of a special chapter in the Single European Act. We should also support the Commission's proposal for greater investment in research and development by the Community, particularly in the area of high technology. Such a policy is of critical importance for this country. It is essential that the Community be fully equipped to compete effectively in the area of science and technology where they have lost considerable ground over the past number of years.

Mr. Wilson

In fact, the European Community led in 1973.

Mr. Manning

We have lost in that time to both Japan and the United States. We as a country already derive considerable benefits from the existing Community research programme. For example, we have the highest success rate among member states in regard to the number of projects accepted by the Esprit programme on information technology. Ireland has also secured the highest financial return on a GNP basis from the Esprit programme.

Our country has made great strides in developing an infrastructure in scientific and technological development over the past decade. This morning before coming into this House I spoke to a very challenging group of school children in St. Mary's school in Baldoyle who questioned me on various aspects of our membership of the European Community. One of the positive areas which it was possible to point out was the rapidity and the extent of our development in these areas of high technology over the past ten years. As a people we have shown ourselves capable of being the brightest and most adaptable of work forces in this area. Our future development in combating unemployment and in creating economic structures lies to a great extent in this area which is of vital importance to our economy and a major source of job creation.

One important factor in our success over the past ten years in establishing this country as a centre of technological excellence has been our willingness to look outwards and to establish links with foreign enterprises, with universities and centres of research abroad. This openness on our part was fostered in no small way by Ireland's integral involvement in Community research and development programmes. In the universities and the research centres for this reason alone the Single European Act is seen as one of the most significant developments since we became a member of the Community.

On this issue we should be quite clear on the implications which failure to ratify the Single European Act would have in the area of research and development as well as in many other areas. We have benefited enormously from the existing Community programmes and we more than any other country stand ready to benefit from the passing of the Single European Act in this area. In the crucial area of high technology the competitor countries are naturally striving to gain the edge in scientific development and to capture what is a very lucrative market. In this area of rapid change for us to stand still is to go backwards. The EC must seize every opportunity to further its scientific development potential and one of the ways we do that is by ratifying the Single European Act.

I turn now to the question of economic and social cohesion which was mentioned at some length in the report of the Oireachtas joint committee and dealt with also at some length by Deputy Wilson. Among the most important provisions in this Single European Act from this country's point of view are those on economic and social cohesion which are designed to reduce the regional disparities in the Community. The importance of economic cohesion to us, one of the less developed member states — like Deputy Wilson I dislike the use of the terms "periphery" or "peripheral states" which indicate geographical fact but do not refer to our involvement on a day to day basis in the running of the Community — and in this sense a peripheral state is self-evident.

When we look at the way in which the regional policy of the Community has developed to date we must have very mixed feelings. On the one hand we have received very considerable benefits from the Community budget through the regional and social funds. We have consistently been a principal beneficiary of the Community's regional policy. On the other hand there has been no appreciable progress towards the overall objective of reducing disparities between the prosperous central regions and those regions like ours on the periphery. Unfortunately, the disparities which obtained when we joined the Community still persist. That is why the provisions on economic and social cohesion are so especially important from our point of view. There is now to be for the first time in the body of the treaty a commitment to reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions. The regional fund is also given a specific treaty basis which can serve only to strengthen the Community's commitment to regional policy. Perhaps of greatest significance is the new treaty commitment to the objective of reducing regional disparities to be taken into account in the implementation of all Community policies and the internal market. Thus, not only is the regional policy as such strengthened but a regional dimension, we are told, will be built into all other policies where this is appropriate. Without question these provisions will operate to our benefit. For that reason also it is important that our commitment to the Act be seen to be fairly full.

In Deputy Haughey's speech in the House yesterday and mentioned also by Deputy Wilson, and outside the House, there has been criticism that the cohesion provisions do not go far enough. Maybe they could have gone a bit further, but what is here in the Act is the best available and works positively to our advantage. The provisions reflect to a considerable extent proposals which Ireland itself put forward. They are designed, as precisely as is possible in a very imprecise science, to respond to the legitimate aspirations of Ireland and of partners with similar concerns and the motion put down by the Government underlines the importance of the cohesion provisions of the Act in strengthening the commitment already given by the Community to Ireland's development. As in every other area the provisions of the Single European Act on cohesion do not represent an ultimate solution. Rather they should be seen as an opportunity for the Community and for this country. We should have no hesitation in seizing that opportunity to the full.

This brings me to another major aspect of the Single European Act, the whole question of the institutional improvements which it is designed to bring about. It is also obvious that the procedures for taking decisions in the Community are urgently in need of improvement. We are now a Community of 12. The original procedures agreed 30 years ago were designed for a Community of six. What is surprising is not the improvements in this regard introduced by the Single European Act but rather the fact that it has taken so long to bring about these improvements. It is difficult to understand the claims that were made from a number of quarters that the Single European Act is being introduced with indecent haste. The reverse is the case. The Act has been in gestation for over three years and the changes which it seeks to bring about are long overdue. The need for a more dynamic Community has been obvious for several years. Community business has been characterised by lengthy delays involved in coming to decisions. Inevitably this had lead to stagnation. Against this back ground the institutional improvements provided for in the Act are not overly ambitious. Certainly they are not being brought in with indecent haste. Indeed, they are modest. They are a practical attempt to unblock the whole decision making process. As a country which benefits substantially from Community policies Ireland will benefit from any unblocking of the whole process. For that reason I welcome these improvements.

The Single European Act extends the provisions for recourse to majority voting to a number of clearly defined, specifically limited areas. This extension is designed principally to facilitate the removal of the remaining barriers to free trade in the Community. There is nothing whatsoever sinister about the changes. Such barriers handicap the Community severely in its attempt to compete internationally with trading partners whose domestic markets are not hampered by internal barriers. As I have mentioned, as far as this country which is so heavily dependent on its exports is concerned, such barriers impede the efforts of our exporters. One has only to talk for a short time to those who drive the trucks who bring our exports physically into Europe, export managers, marketing managers and anybody involved in the export business, to realise the extent of the obstacles and difficulties represented by these barriers which are still placed in their way. It is vital that those barriers be removed, and the Single European Acts helps significantly in this.

An area of great concern has been tax harmonisation. This area has, rightly from our point of view, been excluded from the move to majority voting. The retention of the unanimity requirement protects our interests fully in this area and, as has been mentioned, we are free to use the veto when we consider that our vital national interest is under threat.

We of all countries should make full use of the provisions in the Single European Act for improvement in the decision making process. We should avail ourselves of the new opportunities offered by majority voting, remembering that we are most unlikely to be in a minority which can be outvoted on a specific issue. Talking to civil servants and Ministers who have represented our country over the past ten or 14 years, this point is very forcefully brought home to us. How often have we been the victims of the failure of the decision-making process? How often have we been blocked by one or two countries in delay over policies which would significantly benefit us? We have little to fear from an unblocking of the system and a great deal to gain. There still is the possibility of using the veto should our vital national interests be threatened.

The Single European Act also includes other institutional improvements. The important role of the Commission in managing and implementing Council policies is now given enhanced recognition. That, I believe, is as it should be. The Single European Act also provides scope for making more efficient the day to day management of Community policies, while maintaining the necessary safeguards for the Council and for the individual member states.

I should like to say a quick word about the new role or position of the European Parliament as a result of the Single European Act. Members of the joint committee believe in the new co-operation procedure in relation to the European Parliament as it provides a basis for the development of better inter-institutional arrangements, particularly between the Council and the Parliament. Both these institutions now have a responsibility to make this procedure work efficiently, thereby providing the Community with well made, effective legislation. If both Parliament and Council do not react in the spirit of the Single European Act, the new procedure could very quickly lead to delays, to a slowing down of an already cumbersome and lethargic process. Even worse, it could result in the blocking of the whole system.

On the joint committee, we very strongly reiterated the view of the ad hoc committee on institutional affairs, the extremely valuable Dooge Committee, that the principles of democracy are not served if the European Parliament's role is restricted to a consultative one. Certainly, the joint committee agreed with the general assessment of the European Parliament as having at present merely a role of influence as opposed to power. Any moves to strengthen the role of the elected parliamentarians in the process was welcomed by all members of the joint committee. In passing, let me say that the provisions of the Single European Act regarding the Court of Justice should ease their workload and improve their function. There is not much more to be said than that. It is something which is also very welcome.

One of the most emotive areas in the entire discussion is, of course, centred around the question of Irish neutrality. Views have been expressed in the House by colleagues of my own party to which I would not fully subscribe. Any of the fears that have been raised about our policy of neutrality and the continuation of that policy have not been well-founded and are misplaced. It has been suggested in some quarters that our policy is being eroded through participation in European political co-operation, EPC, and that ratification of the Single European Act and our continued involvement in EPC will erode it further. There is no truth whatsoever in that idea. EPC is a process which has been evolving since 1970, before we entered the Community, a process by which member states of the Community, operating on the basis of consensus, exchange information, consult together and, where possible, seek to adopt common positions and to take joint action on the main foreign policy issues of concern to them. We have been involved in that process almost from the beginning and it has always been clearly understood — whether Fianna Fáil or a Coalition Government, were in office — by all the member states that defence and military matters were excluded from discussion because of Ireland's neutral position.

The fact that our partners are NATO members does not mean that we are, ever have been or will be, under pressure to discuss topics of this kind, or to adopt positions which are not to our liking. Everybody recognises and accepts the limitations of the scope of EPC which our participation in it involves. This recognition and acceptance is expressed in Title III of the Single European Act and is done in a way which can only be of advantage to us in the future. Article 36 (a) refers to co-ordinating positions on the political and economic aspects of security, that is, not on its defence or military aspects. Furthermore to take account of, among other things, the fact that we are not members of NATO or of the Western European Union, Article 36 (c) says that nothing in the Single European Act shall impede those States which wish to co-operate more closely on security, that is, defence and military aspects, from doing so within the appropriate framework that is — and again very specifically — within the Western European Union or NATO. It is important to spell out that the limits of what is and is not permissible are clearly set out and the Single European Act emphatically does not affect our neutrality in any way.

We in Ireland, for all parts of the political spectrum, are justifiably proud of the role which our neutral position has assisted us to play in international affairs. I would not be at one with those who deride either the value or the substance of our policy of neutrality over the past years. I might question many of those who refer to it as being a traditional policy. I might question some of the historical arguments cited in favour of the genesis of the policy, but on its substance or its value at present, I would be — as indeed are my own party and the majority of Members of this House — a staunch defender of our present position on neutrality. Certainly, I would set my face very firmly against any attempt to change that position. That policy of neutrality has given us a politically important role in international affairs, especially by sponsoring and promoting disarmament measures and by involving ourselves in UN peace-keeping measures. Our participation in EPC does not diminish our continuing ability to pursue these or other worthy objectives, that is, objectives such as upholding the observance of human rights, or help in developing countries where we have given a lead to other European States through the work, first of the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and then of the Minister of State, Deputy George Birmingham, which has been an example of commitment, effort and a sensible, thoughtout position of genuine help to the developing countries. Nothing in EPC prevents us from giving a lead or taking a distinctive line in policies of this sort. We can be confident that our neutrality remains intact. It remains intact because in the view of the vast majority of people in this country that it is the right and appropriate policy and the one which is of most benefit to us. It will remain so long as the majority of the people want it. There is no way in which our partners would want to pressurise us, or if they did, there is no way in which we would give in to any pressure to give up this policy of neutrality.

I say very firmly today that talk about our policy of neutrality being eroded through the Single European Act or through our participation in European political co-operation has no basis in fact. It flies against the stated positions of all political leaders of this country going back over a very long period of time and it flies in the face of the stated wishes of the overwhelming majority of our people. No Irish Government would have willingly entered into a Single European Act or European political co-operation were there the slightest threat to our neutrality. Such a threat does not exist. There is no threat and we should be very clear on that point.

It is possible for us to see the extent to which our participation in European political co-operation has been of major value to this country in developing our foreign policy. It has, to a certain extent, given us a space which we did not have before. If we go back to the period prior to our entry to the EC, 1973, the issues, apart from Northern Ireland, and the points on which our Ministers for Foreign Affairs focused most of their attention were those which arose at the United Nations. This was related to the fact that we had a small foreign service which had to concentrate on a narrow range of issues on which it was worthwhile seeking to bring our influence to bear. Much good work was done in the ‘fifties and' sixties which enhanced this country's reputation and brought credit to those involved. Our sponsorship in the non-proliferation treaty, and especially the outstanding work done over many dedicated years by Mr. Frank Aiken, when he was Minister for External Affairs, in the United Nations in seeking to focus attention on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and in carving out an independent foreign policy for this country, is something which will, always be to his credit and to the credit of the Government of which he was a member.

Our involvement in the United Nations peace-keeping operations — painful as it has been at times and sad as it has been this week when another Irish soldier was killed in the line of duty, trying to keep peace in a war torn zone — is an example of what we were able to do as a small country with very few resources. We were not, and we should not fool ourselves, able to influence the major international events of those days. We did not have the capacity to do this but, if we had tried, we probably would not have been listened to.

Our participation in European political co-operation has rapidly expanded the range of possibilities open to us. There is probably no other member of the Twelve to whom European political co-operation has meant so much. Now, in purely practical terms, instead of having to depend entirely on our own foreign service and on a small network of perhaps 25 to 30 embassies for information on what is happening with regard to issues which are discussed in the EPC, we are able to take advantage of the continued resources of the Twelve which cover practically the entire globe. Generally speaking, the better the insights into problems which those who take decisions have, the more likely they are to make good decisions. This applies to decisions we take ourselves and to those which we take jointly with our partners.

Of course, not all the information available to us within the EPC is of direct relevance to us but we now have a much firmer information base upon which to base the decisions which will influence our policy and our participation in EPC. But much more important than having access to information is having a place at the table where issues of common concern are discussed and having a real input into the decision making process.

The EPC system of working groups enhances the entire range of foreign policy issues of concern to the Twelve from Asia to Latin America, from disarmament to terrorism. Joint statements and actions of the Twelve carry weight and are heeded. It is a great advantage to the smaller EC countries to be able to assist in formulating such statements and in deciding such actions. We are able to use our influence and our persuasive powers either to try to bring our partners around to our point of view, as very specifically was the case in our attempts to impose sanctions on South Africa and the attempt to speed up the dismantling and destruction of the entire apartheid process, or to dissuade them from discussing something outside the accepted scope of EPC, such as specific disarmament proposals of the super powers or of one of the military alliances.

We are in a position within EPC to have our point of view listened to and, at times, accepted. This in no small measure is due to the extraordinarily high calibre of our foreign service. It may be small in numbers but in terms of the dedication, expertise and commitment given by the members of our Department of Foreign Affairs, it is, I believe, on a par with any of those of the other member states, and better than most of them. We gain more from the EPC process than we can possibly contribute.

Nowadays Irish Ministers for Foreign Affairs are better informed and are more familiar with a wide range of issues than their predecesors were 14 years ago. This is not just a question of patting ourselves on the back, nor is it a question of academic interest. The reality is that our Ministers and diplomats are better equipped to pursue Ireland's political and economic interests abroad. To give an example: Egypt and Hungary are two of the countries to which our Minister Deputy Peter Barry, paid official visits in recent months. While there, in addition to discussing bilateral matters with his hosts — both countries are important trading partners for us — our Minister was able to speak authoritatively on a range of issues, such as East-West relations and developments in the Middle East in which these two countries are closely involved. Today, any Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs would be able to participate much more effectively than would have been the case without the contacts, information and the position of influence we have through our participation in EPC.

It is clear to anybody who cares to examine the facts that involvement in EPC does not impinge upon or erode our policy of neutrality nor does it affect our ability to take independent decisions on foreign policy issues where necessary. The Single European Act changes nothing of the practices, procedures or content of EPC. It merely sets them out formally and provides for the existence of a small secretariat in Brussels to assist the Presidency. Our interests are therefore no more likely to be constrained in the future than they have been in the past. On the contrary, it will clearly remain in this country's interest to continue to avail of the advantages which participation in EPC offers us.

The last point I want to make refers back to what I said in my opening remarks about trying to cite the Single European Act within the context of what the European Community and future development within the Community are about. At one level the treaties of the Community are concerned solely with economic, commercial and social matters and do not say anything about political obligations but it is very clear and evident that the founding members of the Community were motivated by aspirations which went beyond what was set out in the treaty. In the preamble to the EC Treaty they said they were determined to establish the foundations of an ever close reunion among the peoples of Europe. Since the 'fifties there has existed within the Community a shared ideal to reduce as far as possible the barriers in the member states so that Europe can play a more important role in world affairs and contribute more effectively to international peace.

The goal of European Union by 1980 was set by the Heads of Government of the Six in 1970. In other words, since before our accession to the Community we have understood and accepted that by casting our lot with the European Community we were committing ourselves to working with the other member states towards the goal of political unification in Europe. It was also clearly understood that we were making no commitment of a military or defence nature, and that remains the position.

The White Paper of January 1972, prior to the referendum on accession, made quite clear that we were joining more than a free trade area or a purely economic community. It stated that Ireland's application for membership of the EC was made in full awareness of the political ideals and aims of the treaty which inspired the founding members of the Community. The White Paper also stated that the then Government under Jack Lynch shared the conviction of the then six member states about Europe's role in the world, a conviction which pointed the way ahead towards the goal of political unification. This view of the future of Europe in which Ireland should play a part was endorsed by an overwhelming vote in the referendum in favour of our membership in 1972. The commitment to a shared future with our neighbours in Europe has been clearly reiterated by every Government here since our accession to the Community. It is a commitment which is manifestly in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people and one which they will continue to support.

We are part of Europe geographically, historically, culturally, ethically, economically, socially and politically. It is in association with and in partnership with our European friends that our future lies. What is true in economics and technology also holds good in the political sphere. Only by pooling resources can optimum results be achieved to the benefit of all. Our political decision to join the European Community was a major step. At the time it was not a very difficult step because when the arguments were made in 1971-72 it was a step which was clearly and logically to our benefit. The small step which ratification of the Single European Act represents is entirely consistent with that original choice and is equally sensible and logical.

European union is the goal. What is at issue in this debate is not the form which European union will ultimately take; it is not how far we are prepared to go in one area or another and it is not how long it takes to achieve European Union. What is at issue is whether we are prepared by rapidly ratifying the Single European Act along with our 11 partners, and we are doing it along with our 11 partners, to keep pace with them in taking this small step towards our common goal. The question for us is whether or not we are willing to continue to be involved in the process of integration and unification thus helping to shape that process and helping it conform to our interests. Are we going to opt for the alternative which is to opt out now and let our partners determine the future of Europe and, in consequence, the future of Ireland without our involvement? That is not a realistic option. The Single European Act is one which can be commended to the House and to the Irish people.

Proinsias De Rossa

First of all, it is necessary to say a few words in relation to the point on which Deputy Manning finished, that we are faced with a choice of either accepting the Single European Act as it stands or withdrawing from the EC. That is an extraorinary position given the assurances which were repeated yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that this House is free and is entitled to decide on the terms agreed to in the EC.

In 1972-73 when this matter was being debated the strongest selling point was the Treaty of Rome could not be changed without the approval of Dáil Éireann and of all the Parliaments in the EC. Now we are being told that we must ratify an agreement signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in February of this year, with no discussion in this House in relation to its terms, regardless of our concerns about the various aspects of it. We have reached a deplorable state of affairs both in relation to the authority of this House and in relation to our relationship with the other member states of the European Community. I do not believe you can reasonably expect a country to carry on being as European as Ireland has been since we joined the EC. We have accepted virtually every proposal that came from the EC, much to the detriment of many areas of life in Ireland in some cases. We cannot continue to do that unquestioningly. We are now told that because an agreement has been signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs this House must now ratify it or else. That is an unacceptable position for this House to be in. It is a position which this Government should never have allowed this House to get into in the first place. It has been a dereliction of duty of this Government to have got us into this position. There should have been adequate and full debate on the Single European Act in this House, as agreed by the 12 members, before it was signed. If that was done we would not be in the predicament which is being threatened on us.

Ireland's entry to the EC in 1973 was one of the most significant changes for the Irish economy and, one could argue, for our politics in relation to the rest of western Europe. If the Dáil ratifies the Single European Act — it looks as if that will be the case — the nature of the EC and Ireland's participation in it will be changed once more. The purpose of the Single European Act is to move the EC towards its main political objectives — the creation of a single internal market and west European political union. The EC has often correctly been described in the past as a rich man's club. While this may be less true today in that many of the less developed European countries are now members, what has not changed is the fact that it is clearly based on preserving and developing capitalism in western Europe. Presumably, it is in relation to this preservation and development of capitalism in western Europe that the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated he is not neutral. Presumably, these are the western values to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs owes his allegiance. It is also aimed at establishing a power bloc among the western European countries. If we can accept all that has been said by the other member states of the EC we must assume that the intention is to create a nuclear power bloc in western Europe.

In the early fifties when the idea first began to take root it was intended to create a European defence community and to amalgamate the armies of western Europe to defend Europe against what is called the spectre of Soviet Communism. That effort failed. So it was decided to try to create an economic community first of all and the political and military community would follow from that. That process is in operation. The Single European Act must be seen in the context of the intentions of the early founders of the EC. It would be foolish for us to ignore those intentions. As the last speaker and other speakers, said, the Single European Act is a step on the road towards European union. Where I would differ from most Members is in how I see European union taking place and the type of European union that will be involved. In 1972, our party opposed Ireland's entry to the EEC which at the time consisted of only the six original members, five of whom were former imperial powers. It must be said that some of them still see themselves, if only in their day dreams, as imperial powers. We believed at the time that it would be possible to develop an independent economy based on association with the EEC and other non-EEC countries. However, 13 years later our economy is so inextricably linked to the EC it would be catastrophic for us to pull out. In addition, the Community has now expanded to 12 member states, including many under-developed countries like ourselves.

The Workers' Party are convinced that our role, indeed the role of the Left in Ireland — in that category I include the Labour Party — should be to remain in the EC and form alliances with the progressive forces in other member states to fight and work for socialism and to insist on Ireland's right to develop and promote links with other non-aligned and neutral states on questions of world peace. The problems of unemployment, of poverty, of decent housing and proper health care that are faced by the Irish working class are the same for the working class of the rest of western Europe. European capitalism has united and regenerated itself. It has become more aggressive and has pushed for deregulation and privatisation. It is in that context that the Single European Act must be viewed. The Government have enthusiastically followed the line of deregulation and privatisation in line with the moves in Britain, France, Germany and, indeed, in the US which is in the NATO Alliance.

It is my view that the working class of Ireland, and Europe, cannot effectively oppose the new capitalist unity that has developed in the EC and create a united socialist Europe by isolating itself, by withdrawing behind spurious national self interest or protectionism.

The EC needs a relaunch but it must be in terms that will propel it in the direction of seeking peace, the denuclearisation of Europe, a common jobs policy and a policy to end poverty in Europe. Unfortunately the Single European Act, as it stands, will harden the direction in which most of the economies of western Europe are going at present, a Thatcherite, Reaganite direction which tends to strengthen capitalism and privatise the State sector where it can and to deregulate employment to ensure cheap labour is available to be exploited.

The Workers' Party are extremely concerned about the implications of certain provisions of the Single European Act. Indeed, we were the first party, perhaps the only party, to raise a note of alarm about its terms and to have put our views in published form. In February the Leader of The Workers' Party, Deputy Mac Giolla, wrote to the Taoiseach asking him not to allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to sign the Act until such time as there had been a proper national debate on the implications of it for Ireland. In Denmark the Act provoked a major political controversy and the Danish Government were forced to submit it to the people in a referendum before they signed it. The Coalition Government here, on the other hand, went ahead and signed it, saying as little as possible about it, and without any real debate in the Dáil or elsewhere on its implications.

Following is the signing of the Act, The Workers' Party undertook a study of its implications and put our views in booklet form, which was made available in order to try to generate the debate we felt was necessary on the Act. When the document was launched in August Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla called for a renegotiation of the Act and outlined four main reasons why we felt we had to oppose it in its present form. It is interesting to note that we are the only party in the House seeking to have it renegotiated. Our four main reasons for opposing the Act are:

1. The Act jeopardises Irish neutrality.

2. The Act removes unanimity voting in certain areas of the Treaty of Rome.

3. The Act seeks the completion of the internal market by 1992 without any prior negotiations or proposals on derogations or regional aid for Ireland.

4. The Act in its proposals on tax harmonisation would impose a severe strain on Irish public finances.

Nothing we have seen or heard since then has caused us to believe that our reservations were unfounded. Indeed, events at the London Summit last week have emphasised the growing threat to Irish neutrality. Statements made by the EC Commissioner, Lord Cockfield, confirm our views on tax harmonisation, and statements made by the Irish Council of the European Movement, a supporter of the Single European Act, have confirmed our concerns regarding regional aid. That statement did not receive any public attention and I should like to quote from a document issued by the Irish Council of the European Movement circulated to all Members and dated 1 October 1986. On the question of economic and social cohesion the document stated:

Thirdly, the cohesion objective is to be taken into account in the implementation of the internal market and in all common policies. This provision will help Ireland secure recognition of our needs in the future development of important policy areas.

There must, nonetheless, be some disappointment that there is no explicit reference to the need to provide additional financial resources for the structural funds. A clear task of the Community therefore must be to ensure that adequate financial resources are made available to the structural funds to enable them to contribute towards the achievement of the objectives for economic and social cohesion set out in the Treaty. Unless the question of increased funding is tackled as an immediate priority, there can be little prospect of a proper implementation of this section of the Single European Act.

That is precisely the point we have been making in relation to regional aid. There is no guarantee in the Single European Act in relation to the provision of proper regional aid or a policy structure to assist countries like Ireland that are on the periphery of the EC.

The gradual erosion of Irish neutrality has been one of the most worrying features of Irish membership of the EC and there is now little doubt that the Single European Act will advance this process even further. More and more in recent years the independent foreign policy line we had once pursued as a neutral nation has been dropped in favour of an overall EC pro-NATO position. I must emphasise that The Workers' Party are not opposed to the principle of European political co-operation. We believe it could be used to promote world peace, nuclear disarmament and the rights of developing countries, but as a neutral country and the only EC country with no obvious NATO connections, we must insist on the right of Ireland to pursue a genuinely neutral and non-aligned position. We cannot accept as a neutral country that foreign policy interests would automatically coincide with those of other major military powers in NATO, including nuclear countries such as France and the UK. Certainly, if the Single European Act is ratified in its present form, the standing of Ireland as a neutral nation, both at the United Nations and among other neutral and non-aligned nations, will be considerably diminished.

To see this more clearly it is necessary to look in some detail at the small print of the Act, and in particular at section 6, Article 30, Title III, but before doing so I want to refer to some of the other major problems which the Act is likely to create for Ireland. Before I do that I welcome the very small, very slight enhancement of the role of the European Parliament. It is our view that the Parliament should be strengthened and democraticised and the power of the Commission reduced.

One of the major provisions in the Single European Act is the greater use of qualified majority voting at the Council. Majority voting takes place at present but the practice on sensitive issues has been to adopt measures by unanimity. Ireland has three votes out of a possible 76 on the Council under this weighted voting system. Under qualified majority voting in order to be adopted, an Act of the Council will require (a) at least 54 votes in favour where the Treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal of the Commission or (b) 54 votes in favour cast by at least eight members in other cases. The extension of qualified majority voting will clearly weaken Ireland's position on the Council. As a weak economy on the edge of Europe, Ireland needs the protection of unanimity to defend its interests.

I want to deal specially with regional policy. Though much of the debate outside has concentrated on neutrality, which of course is a very important matter, we think that regional policy is of equal importance. The section of the Act on economic and social cohesion seems to include the EC Treaty Articles promoting harmonious development, economic and social cohesion and a reduction in disparity between regions and the backwardness of least favoured regions. The Act states that implementation of common policies and the internal market should take account of these objectives and contribute to their achievement.

The Single European Act in Article 130 states that once the Act comes into force the Commission will submit proposals to the Council to amend the operation and structure of the existing funds, to rationalise, clarify and make them more efficient. The Council will have to act within one year after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. Once the decision has been taken, the Council will make implementation decisions on the ERDF by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission in co-operation with the European Parliament. Article 8 (b) is also relevant. It allows provision to be made, including temporary derogations, in the case of economies showing differences in development.

This part of the Act is very much a pig in a poke. We are expected to accept the Act imposing an internal market by 1992 without any concrete guarantees or realistic proposals on regional development and without a time limit to implement regional policies capable of developing weaker regions. As one of the weakest economies, Ireland's position should be a priority one for regional aid, and any further opening up of the EC through the internal market will require a comprehensive regional aid scheme for Ireland.

Therefore, we should be demanding a special regional policy for Ireland. At present EC regional policies are more geared towards Mediterranean countries. Ireland should demand a special scheme before it even considers implementing the Act and the internal market. In the second periodical report on the regions, published in March 1984 by the EC Commission, covering the period 1970-81 and 1977-1981 and 1983 the position of Ireland is clearly demonstrated in the summary. This is recognised as follows:

Over the last ten years regional disparities in production and productivity have not lessened but remained very substantial. The regions with the poorest performance expressed in per capita gross domestic product are situated in the west and south periphery of the Community. The effective conclusion is that the serious situation of the regions with a development lag on the periphery of the Community has been exacerbated in the present crisis situation. At the same time, new problems stemming immediately from the crisis are now emerging in the more highly industrialised and central regions.

Presumably the last reference was to ship building and the textile industry in Europe. In July 1985 a summary booklet on the Community and its regions, covering ten years of the Regional Development Fund, contains a foreword which states:

Can we really believe that eliminating obstacles to trade and establishing a unified market could alone ensue or at least facilitate harmonious development? We would be deluding ourselves if we did. Similarly, capital flows have not always been in the desired directions. The less advanced regions have not attracted sufficient investment whereas the more developed ones have profited more rapidly and more fully from the free movement of goods.

The general comment is that the basic principle of the Common Market rests on free trade in goods and services, that is to say, trade not subject to any obstacles or impediments. However, when differences in industrial development are unduly large there is a danger that trade might become one way. The booklet goes on:

Worse still, in a free trade system the strongest economics may bring about the collapse of fledgling industries in the weaker economies. Effective ground rules are therefore needed at Community level for as long as the development gaps exceed an econimically acceptable threshold. In such cases, aids and grants, though normally prohibited, are allowed and tax concessions may be granted, albeit in conformance with Community rules drawn up jointly with the member states.

Yet we are being told in effect that unless we agree on the Single European Act, which has no guarantees whatever in relation to aid for Ireland, we may have to pull out of the EC or the other member states cannot be expected to be as flaitheamhlach with us in the future. It boggles the mind how the Government got us into this position. We are being asked to ratify the Single European Act which says the internal market will be completed by 1992 and yet we will only start discussing reforms of regional aid and the various regional funds when it has been ratified. It will be a year before any proposals come from it. We are led to believe then that, in some way, everybody agrees that Ireland and other EC countries will be effectively assisted in terms of the aid we need to protect our economies.

The other aspect of the Single European Act to which I might refer is tax harmonisation. The proposals for harmonisation of indirect taxes, such as VAT and excise duties, could have a very serious impact on our economy. It is likely to lead to a reduction of as much as £1,000 million in Government revenue assuming that the taxes were to be levelled down to their present positions within the EC. In effect that would be equal to approximately one-sixth of all taxes collected at this time. That shortfall could be met by cutting public expenditure, on which we know the present Government are quite keen. Equally it could be met by increasing other existing taxes. Again, when one examines the position one finds that one is talking about increasing the PAYE taxes, or it could be achieved partially, not wholly, by widening the tax base. Given the lack of willingness on the part of successive Governments to widen the tax base it can be assumed that inevitably this will lead either to more cuts in public expenditure or to an increase in other existing taxes, creating other serious problems here.

I recognise that tax harmonisation is one of the areas in respect of which unanimity has been retained. It is significant that this Government were not even prepared to admit that there was a problem in relation to it until Lord Cockfield, a Vice-President of the EC, came here and spoke about the need to harmonise taxation and to impose VAT on food, electricity and a whole range of other commodities. Only then did our Minister for Finance suddenly say: we will not agree to this. It is there in the Single European Act, we should be aware that it is there and that it is a cause for concern.

I might revert to the question of the threat to our neutrality posed by the Act particularly by Title III because that is where the question of European political co-operation is set. Article 30.6 (a) of Title III commits members to closer co-operation on questions of European security as a means of developing a European identity in external policy matters. The first sentence of that Article is a clear statement of intent to include security as part of the European political co-operation process, the first time that this has been explicitly expressed in writing. The second sentence of Article 30.6 (a) states the current de facto position, in other words, that they are ready to co-ordinate their positions more closely on the political and economic aspects of security. The second sentence can be read as a separate statement. There is nothing in the section to say that the first sentence is limited to the parameters outlined in the second. As this Act is intended to formalise the European political co-operation process and the range of its activities for some years to come we cannot assume that questions of European security are limited to the political and economic aspects of security. This section can also be read to mean that the political and economic aspects of security are merely part of the broader questions of European security outlined in the first sentence. While the Government say they do not see it this way the fact remains that Article 30.6 (a) of Title III is worded so ambiguously that it will allow for different interpretations and so pose a threat to Irish neutrality.

Also the term "economic aspects of security" contained in the second sentence of Article 30.6 (a) clearly permits the development of a common policy for armaments and defence industries.... Section 6 (b) more directly threatens this and states:

The High Contracting Parties are determined to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security.

That sentence must be considered in the context of the multitude of reports, recommendations and resolutions adopted by the EC seeking the development of a common armaments industrial policy for the Community. It is not alone interesting but important to recall in this context that, at a summit held in Dublin, this country agreed to a report by a Monsieur Fauré, under pressure from President Francois Mitterand, that the Ten approve the guidelines laid down in a report by Monsieur Fauré which provided for consultations on developments in weapons technology and strategic doctrines and support for the rationalisation of research by the Ten — this was before the expansion of the Community to Twelve — in the field of military equipment. It also provided for support for the production capacity of high technology equipment. The Single European Act backed-off that. It has to be acknowledged that Ireland, under pressure, agreed to it, as did admittedly also, Greece and Denmark, who were reluctant but nonetheless did agree at a summit. They backed-off it in the Single European Act. What is to stop similar pressures being mounted in the future in relation to section 6 (b)? The step-by-step approach adopted in relation to reaching the positions which have been reached in the Single European Act seeks a common foreign policy, a common armaments industrial policy leading to a common defence policy. There is no point in any Minister in this House denying that that is the aim of most of the major countries who are members of NATO in relation to the EC.

The first sentence of section 6 (b) taken in conjunction with 6 (a) — which refers to the economic aspects of security — clearly implies a development of a common policy for defence industries. Sections 6 (a) and (b) in this respect, therefore, pose a threat to our neutrality.

I come now to article 30.6 (c) which I consider to be one of the most important and which says:

Nothing in this Title will impede closer co-operation in the field of security between certain of the High Contracting Parties within the framework of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance.

The Government maintain that this protects Irish neutrality as it allows those who want to discuss security proper to do so within the Western European Union and NATO, I contend it does nothing of the kind for it is explicit in this section that Ireland is prevented from pursuing a policy which would threaten the participation of other EC States in NATO and the WEU. Therefore, while European political co-operation discusses the political and economic aspects of security — and in the first sentence of section 6 (a) it may even allow for discussion of the broader areas of security — European political co-operation will be limited by section 6 (c) in how far it can influence NATO members toward a policy of disarmament or non-alignment. To my mind; that is a restriction on Ireland's capacity to operate as a neutral power within the EC process.

As I said earlier in relation to threats, unless we agree to this Act, there will be a dire outcome for us. In my view this is treating Ireland as a less than equal member of the EC, a less than equal member of the European political co-operation process. Assurances given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and others that the Act does not compromise our neutrality are in direct conflict with the evidence available from other member states. For instance, evidence given by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is in complete conflict with the assurances that the proposed formulated European political co-operation has nothing to do with NATO and would not bring us any closer to involvement in that military allience. The Third Report of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, for the 1985-86 sessions quotes a memorandum from the Foreign Office which claims credit for initiating the formulation of the EC process and adds that part of its objective is to affirm as strongly as possible the intention of the member states to cooperate on security questions within political co-operation, and that co-operation on strictly defence matters must remain firmly within the framework of the alliance but the more effective co-operation of the Twelve on the wider aspects of security could make a significant contribution to the objectives of the NATO alliance.

That shows clearly that the British Governments at least believe that the role of the EPC as envisaged in the Single European Act is basically to contribute to the objectives of NATO. If, as Deputy Barry claims, the other EC members do not want to do anything to damage Irish neutrality, why have the Government refused to go back to them and ask them to redraft the controversial Articles to remove all elements of ambiguity or doubt? The textual amendments necessary to remove all doubt about Irish neutrality would be quite small and would be unlikely to affect the other member states, assuming that their goodwill towards Irish neutrality is genuine.

Most remarkable of all, the Government have failed to explain why, if the term "security" does not include military aspects of security, this was not stated in Title III either. However, the most telling indication of what our position has become was revealed at the London Summit last weekend when matters more appropriate to NATO were discussed informally over dinner, we are told, and when a statement was issued relating to NATO and military matters, apparently without the knowledge of the Taoiseach. These events give a clear indication of the political minefield we will be entering if the Single European Act is ratified in its present form. Statements made by the Taoiseach and others threatening dire consequences if we do not ratify the Act as it stands raise important questions about the nature of our relationship with other EC countries, as I have alluded to.

During the referendum campaign on Irish membership in 1972 and in the White Paper, too, advocates of EC membership assured us that one of the greatest protections available to Ireland was that the Treaty we were then asked to agree to could be changed only with the consent of the parliaments of all member states including Dáil Éireann. Now we are told that if the Dáil does not unconditionally ratify the Single European Act then immediate and terrible things will happen to us. It has, I might say, echoes of Lloyd George diplomacy. If we surrender to this moral blackmail on this occasion and agree to ratify the Single European Act with no change, then we will be creating a very dangerous precedent. If we ratify the Act under this pressure, what is to stop the other EC members in six months or six years coming back to us and saying, "You must agree to change the terms again, you must agree to a definition of security which will explicitly include military security; you must agree to military matters being discussed within the EC or your membership will be in jeopardy or financial aid for Ireland from the Community will be threatened."?

The Government have not properly addressed themselves to this aspect in the debate on this issue. They have not explained how it is that we have, at least in theory, the right to refuse to ratify this Act while at the same time we are told that if we refuse we can no longer remain members of the EC.

The amendment which Fianna Fáil have tabled to the motion before the Dáil is a substantial climb down from the position on the Single European Act expressed by party spokespeople in the past few weeks. In a letter to the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament dated 20 October, the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip, Deputy Brady, stated that Fianna Fáil — not himself — would be opposing the legislation when it came before the Dáil. Deputy Haughey yesterday in his contribution made it clear that they would not be opposing the Single European Act, they would not be seeking its renegotiation. In deciding to back the Single European Act the Parliamentary Labour Party are also clearly ignoring the concerns about the terms of the Act expressed by the trade unions, the party's own administrative council and their rank and file members. The declaration relating to neutrality and regional aid which Fianna Fáil in their amendment are asking the Government to annex to the instrument of ratification would be of little value. It would not be part of the Single European Act, consequently there would be no legal obligation or any other kind of obligation on any of the other member states to take any notice of it whatsoever. Fianna Fáil by tabling this amendment and the Labour Party, by asking the Government to arrange for a separate Dáil motion re-affirming Irish neutrality are acknowledging clearly that the terms of the Single European Act as signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in February last are unsatisfactory, but for their own political reasons they are failing to follow through the logic of that by voting against the Act in its present form and thereby forcing the Government to re-negotiate it to provide the guarantees necessary to protect Irish interests. The Labour Party do not want to vote against the Act in case that provokes a general election in which clearly they would suffer huge losses. Fianna Fáil do not want to vote against it because they do not want the Single European Act to be a major issue in a subsequent general election as they fear that such a development might jeopardise their support among the farming community.

It appears at this point that The Workers' Party are the only ones in this House who are seeking to have the Act renegotiated. We have tabled two amendments, an amendment to the motion ratifying this Single European Act and a Second Stage amendment to the Bill which seeks to bring to Irish legislation that part of the Act which has to be dealt with in that way, sections 1 and 2. I ask the House to support that amendment and also our amendment on Second Stage of the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

There are two questions which must be addressed in the course of this debate — a question of fact and a question of judgment. The question of fact is what the Single European Act actually is. The question of judgment is whether it is in this country's best interests. There has been a regrettable tendency among some opponents of the Single European Act over the past few months to seek to make a judgment about the merits of the Single European Act without first addressing the question of what it is.

Judgments which are not based on the facts of a case are without value. If the facts of this case were different, if the contents of the Single European Act were what its opponents claim them to be, then indeed we would be facing the gravest of choices. If the Single European Act would, for example, bring about the harmonization of taxation in the Community against this country's wishes, if it would undermine our sovereignty and neutrality or if it would abolish the veto, then the opponents of the Single European Act might well be right to call for its rejection, but, of course, the Single European Act contains no such implications. Arguments which attribute nonexistent contents and implications to the Single Act can only be worthless in their conclusions.

It is, therefore, important in this debate never to lose sight of what it is we are actually discussing. We are discussing a short document which was negotiated with Ireland's full participation and signed with our full agreement. We are discussing a document which is in its final legal form and to which no provisions or implications can be added beyond what is clearly set down for all to see. We are discussing a document which has been available for about a year and which has been explained by the Government on numerous occasions.

The suggestions of undue haste certainly rings hollow. The suggestion that there has been a lack of seriousness in keeping the Dáil informed is mind-boggling. Throughout the negotiating procedures the Dáil was informed and reports of the Taoiseach after successive meetings of the European Council as to the progress of the negotiations were the subject of comment in the reports of developments in the Community which were laid before the House from time to time. The procedure being followed here is precisely the procedure that is followed on every occasion when the Government finds themselves engaged in international negotiations. The negotiations are concluded and on their conclusion the proposals are brought before the House for ratification or otherwise. That is the procedure that is followed in matters as momentous as the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in matters as relatively trivial as some that now come before the House because of the obligation that anything that can conceivably involve a charge of public funds must be approved by the Dáil. There has not been a departure from normal practice, except to the extent that, unusually, it was possible to keep this House and public opinion fully informed about the process of the negotiations.

What is the Single European Act? It is overdue, modest and logical. In its implications, it is very positive from this country's point of view. The Single European Act is overdue because it has been clear for many years that the Community was in need of a new impetus. The decision-making process which had been designed for a Community of Six was clearly in need of reform after the successive enlargements of the Community. It was widely perceived that the European Parliament, now directly-elected for the second time, should be given an enhanced role in that process. I very much appreciate that that objective at least received the endorsement of Deputy De Rossa. Above all, it was recognised that the Community had in many respects been falling behind its main trading rivals, that the imperatives of international trade and competition advance even while the Community stagnates and that the Community should be enabled to avail of its vast market and thereby to reach its fully economic and technological potential.

The Single European Act, although worthwhile, is also unquestionably modest in its implications. It must be recalled that several member states are considerably more reserved than Ireland in their commitment to closer European integration, and that Ireland throughout this whole process has taken an advanced position. Ireland has stood alongside the original members of the Community. Indeed, at the Milan European Council in June 1985, three member states opposed the decision to convene the Intergovernmental Conference which led to the Single European Act. It was, therefore, inevitable that the outcome of the conference would not represent the major leap forward in the development of the Community which many member states and the European Parliament had hoped to see.

The Single European Act, which has been criticised by many for not going far enough, is modest in comparison with the Draft Treaty on European Union adopted by the European Parliament in 1984. It is modest in comparison with the report of the Dooge Committee which constituted the principal basis of discussion at the Milan European Council last year and it is modest in comparison with a number of more far-reaching proposals which were put forward in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference.

The Single European Act is also a logical development for the Community. It does not prescribe a new direction for the Community in the years ahead. It equips the Community to make progress towards the achievement of its longstanding and fundamental objectives. It does not represent for the Community an impulsive foray into new pastures. It stems directly from the perceived and experienced need to overcome both particular obstacles and general inertia and to advance along the path long prescribed in the original Community treaties.

The Single European Act is also very positive for the overall development of the Community and, in particular, from Ireland's point of view. There is not need to rehearse once again the detailed provisions of the Act. It would, however, be useful if I were to illustrate briefly how the major provisions of the Single European Act respond to real needs of the Community and, in many instances, to the concerns put forward by this country in the course of the negotiations. While the positive effect of the various provisions and where they will lead in the years ahead has already been explained on many occasions, I would like to dwell briefly on the seeds of experience from which those provisions have grown over recent years.

It has been suggested that the completion of the internal market constitutes a new development. Nothing could be further from the truth. That has been an objective from the beginning. The sense in which that has been a central objective is indicated by the fact that the Community has so often been referred to as being the European Common Market. That gives some indication of how central this objective has been. The Community is and always has been much more than a market. If it is much more than a market, it remains the case that the abolition of obstacles to trade has been a fundamental pillar of the Community.

Much progress has, of course, been made towards the achievement of a Common Market and tariff barriers within the Community have been entirely removed. However, numerous obstacles to trade remain. Different technical standards in the various member states, different health and safety regulations and different public purchasing policies are examples of the fragmentation which persists in the Community market. This fragmentation prevents the individual member states from deriving full benefit from belonging, as they do, to the largest market in the world and it hinders the Community as a whole from reaching its full economic potential and from competing effectively with its main trading rivals — the United States and Japan — which are not, of course, hampered by similar barriers within their own domestic markets.

Those member states which are most heavily dependent on exports and which export most of their products to other Community countries have particular reason to press for the completion of the internal market. Ireland is one of the most export-dependent countries in the developed world. Last year we sold well over two-thirds, about 70 per cent, of our exports to our European partners. It is evident we have much to gain nationally by moves to facilitate trade in the Community. I pointed out the progress which has been made with regard to the tariffs but obstacles remain and I mentioned what some of them are.

Why the failure to move towards a single, unified community market? One of the main reasons for the failure to bring about a single, unified Community market almost 30 years after the signature of the EC treaty has been the requirement that measures to harmonise the laws and regulations in member states are subject to an unanimous decision by the Council. That is why it is clearly in the broader interests of the Community and the member states that obstacles to internal Community trade should be removed. History has shown us that the task of removing those barriers has advanced at a snail's pace in an international trading environment in which the race is so often to the swift. The unanimity requirement which applied even in cases where no important national interests were involved meant that the pursuit of short term and often marginal national advantage has worked in the broader perspective against the national interests of all.

It was those weaknesses in the Community's decision making capacity which were ultimately responsible for the Community's market being distinctly less than common and for the inevitable consequences of that failure to move towards a genuine common market. The provisions of the Single European Act which deal with the completion of the internal market are carefully designed and precisely formulated in order to overcome those specific weaknesses. They do not represent some blind lurch along the road towards European integration. They are a direct and calculated response to the needs of the Community which I have described.

It is worth emphasising that those provisions did not come down on tablets of stone nor was it that members of the Council turned up in Brussels one particular Monday morning to find them waiting for them on the table. They were negotiated carefully and precisely. In many respects they reflect the particular concerns of Ireland, for example, in our insistence on the retention of the unanimity requirement for all fiscal matters and in other respects they reflect the particular concerns of some of our partners. They do not, as has been suggested by some opponents of the Act, represent a blanket move towards majority voting. They do involve a limited extension of majority voting. I acknowledge that this was conceded by Deputy De Rossa. Majority voting is already provided for in many cases under the existing treaties. Some of those are areas of very considerable importance to the Community and some of them are areas of very particular importance to this country.

If there is to be a criticism of those provisions, the only valid criticism which can be made is that in responding to the Community's stagnation over a period of many years they have been regrettably slow in coming. As they were so slow in coming, they are all the more essential for that.

The provisions of the Single European Act concerning the European Parliament also respond to a need which has been recognised for some time. The original treaty described the European Parliament as an assembly and contemplated a European Parliament consisting of people sent along by their national parliaments. So it was to consist for more than two decades. But, in 1979, the members of the Parliament were elected for the first time by direct universal franchise. There has been a second such election since. That represented not only a significant development for the Community but also, in the wider historical perspective, the relationship which is possible between a group of democratic nations. After the first and then the second direct election it was increasingly evident that the enhanced stature of a directly elected Parliament should be complemented by increasing its scope.

That is precisely what the Single European Act is all about. That is precisely what the provisions of the Single European Act dealing with the European Parliament are designed to do. The new co-operation procedure which Deputy Manning dealt with in some detail means that the Council will inevitably have to take greater account of Parliament's views. The requirement that Parliament's assent will in the future be required before the conclusion by the Community of accession and association agreements self-evidently represents a reasonable development. Finally — this is perhaps as much of linguistic importance as anything else — the provision that the body to which we directly elect our representatives should be known as a parliament rather than an assembly is long overdue.

What of the Commission? One of the functions of the European Commission is to implement the Acts adopted by the Council. For that purpose the Council confers extensive implementing and management powers on the Commission on an ad hoc basis. It is neither desirable, nor, as Deputy Flynn who has served on more than one Council of Ministers would concede, possible from a practical point of view for the efficient execution of Community business on a day to day basis to be the concern of the Council.

From our point of view what has to be recalled is that the Commission have a key role in the defence of the interests of the Community as a whole which is particularly important to Ireland and the other smaller member states. What we also have to recall is that the efficient management and implementation of Community policies of which we are major beneficiaries are absolutely in our national interest and it is absolutely in our national interest that delays and blockages should be avoided. Therefore, the enhanced powers and the streamlining of procedures can only work to our advantage.

In the process of the negotiations on the Single European Act it was considered that there should be a more systematic basis for conferring implementing powers on the Commission than the essentially ad hoc arrangements which had existed up until then. It was also recognised that in order to avoid in the future the very lengthy delays which are sometimes involved in determining the procedures which are to govern the Commission's implementing and management powers in a particular case, delays from which we have suffered in the past, the Council should decide unanimously on certain general principles and rules to govern those procedures. The provisions of the Single European Act respond precisely to those needs and they reflect those considerations while at the same time taking on board the understandable concerns. Therefore, continued safeguards for the interests of the member states are stipulated.

One issue on which there seems to be a broad consensus, I take it from the comments of Deputy Manning and the enthusiastic support they drew from Deputy Wilson, is the provisions on research and technology.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.