Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 May 1988

Vol. 380 No. 9

EC Commission Research Project: Motion (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann notes the studies published by the Commission of the European Communities on the research project directed by Mr. Paolo Cecchini.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Cullen

In resuming on this debate, let me say at the outset that what we have witnessed in the last few minutes typifies the Government's whole approach to the question of a European market some years from now. There are two aspects of this debate that I want to continue on. One is that we have heard continuing references to the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties but, sadly, the whole focus of attention from the Government has been on the downside, the problems that are to be created in this area. Not once have I heard from the Government anything about the possibilities for increased employment in some areas of industry because of the reduced rates of excise duties and VAT.

One of the outstanding examples is the motor industry. Instead of harping on the problems we should be concentrating on facing up to the realities of the opportunities that will be brought about. I mention the motor industry as an example where, as a result of the action of Governments over the past ten years, up to 40,000 jobs have been lost. I would like to see some policies to redress that balance.

There has been no attempt to put forward a policy in preparation for the Estimates which are due out in October for the budget next year. These issues should be addressed now in a planned, phased way to take advantage of the upturn in areas these facts relate to. There seems to be a totally narrow and negative view, a mealy-mouthed attitude. Why can we never take a positive attitude in dealing with these matters? In an intermediate certificate class at school the debate level would be more optimistic. The Progressive Democrats are certainly approaching this area with realism and honesty, seeking the opportunities while recognising the difficulties. If the Government do not create the policies that will allow the fruitful benefits to occur, then it will be to our great shame.

I hope we will not be here in four years time wondering why we have not been able to capitalise on the opportunities. It will not suddenly happen overnight in 1992; it is already happening here and throughout Europe and to the great shame of this Government not one shred of a policy has been put forward in the industrial area.

The issue of employment is another area essential to this country. There has been no attempt again to elaborate on the benefits. There will be increased employment here and throughout Europe and we should be working to ensure employment for people living here. Instead of arguing about figures we should be planning to take advantage of the opportunities that will be available and we should start now.

There will be increased employment in this country and throughout Europe. I do not expect to see within the next five years 250,000 jobs created in this country but I do expect to see in a European context that far more jobs will be created throughout Europe. In facing up to the political realities, what are this Government going to do? We have talked about expansion of industry and what it means in Europe but expansion of industry surely means expansion of employment, one depends solely on the other. If we can all identify the niceties of profit increases and the niceties of business expansion, business expansion coupled with consumer expansion surely means increased capacities in the companies that will enjoy the consumer boom; therefore, there should be increased capacity for employment. If we continue to talk about linkage between companies in this country and companies on mainland Europe we should be adopting a policy of how best we can take advantage on the international market of labour activities, and we are not doing that. There is no policy in this area.

Sometimes the tools of Government are, I sadly feel, the policymakers, but I have in mind CTT, the IDA and FÁS. What central policy is emanating from the Department of Industry and Commerce to familiarise ourselves with the employment potential in the countries of Europe which directly relate to the skills for which many of our people seek employment in the marketplace? We have a hang-up about emigration and while it might have been relevant years ago it is not as relevant in an historical sense today as it was then. We think we are the only country in Europe with some of our population emigrating. This also happens in many other countries of Europe. I do not like to see it happening and I do not like forced emigration, but a factor which must be faced up to in the coming years is the activities of migration; particularly migration of labour. I am not simply talking about an unskilled worker on a factory floor but about the whole gamut of employment potential from the factory floor up to senior management. A migratory policy on how to tackle this issue throughout the EC in the next four to five years must start to emanate now. I can assure the House that the Progressive Democrats are now working on that aspect of policy in a realistic way and are trying to utilise the benefits that will accrue.

It is my belief because of the many offices which CTT have throughout Europe that there should be somebody in those offices familiarising themselves with the developing employment potential in that area. That should be set down as a policy of this Government so that centrally sourced in this country we will have an immediate on-line tap of what is happening in Europe and not suddenly be lurching from one area to another when a good idea occurs or when a gap appears and we say we should do something about it. It should be a planned strategy of how we are to move qualified technical people and semi-skilled people into areas of opportunity. Those areas of opportunity should be sought out now. We know that many of the countries in mainland Europe do not have a skilled young population available to them to fill some of the vacancies which can occur. It is my contention that a sensible policy by this country can unburden ourselves of some of the cost to allow the home market of employment potential to flourish. A migratory policy does not mean: "Out, stay out and do not come back" but rather a continuous flow of people, of information and of technology throughout Europe in which we as a country must plan to be involved.

If young people can get away for a few years and get the skills from the university of life on how business is carried out in other countries, we should have a realistic policy to benefit from those skills in other markets by giving our people the choice — when they come back — to put to further use the skills which they originally acquired here for the benefit of our own economy. There has been no attempt to address this question.

In conclusion, it behoves us in this House to create the climate and the type of policies we want to see developed. Irish industry and Irish business should not solely depend on Government or politicians to do the job for them, but they have a right to expect that clear, creative and imaginative policies are coming forward to allow them to develop their own direction and to seek out these opportunities in the full knowledge that they have the backing of a cohesive and sensible approach by the Government. That is sadly lacking here. It is happening at the moment in France, Germany, Denmark and many other countries in Europe, but it is not happening in this country. Business here will have to face up to this problem and if they see that the Government are failing in this area, they should point out and seek the opportunities. I look forward with great optimism to the benefits and opportunities that are there. We should be seeking out and concentrating on the area of employment potential and industrial development.

Mrs. Hussey

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on this debate today which I consider to be extremely important. I am glad to be coming in relatively late in the proceedings, having listened very carefully to many speeches, and those which I could not listen to I have read, particularly speeches from the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and several Ministers. I speak, of course, wearing two hats, one as Opposition spokesperson on Education and the other as chairperson of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC. In that latter role perhaps I will have more to say on this occasion than in the other role.

This debate has been notable for the strong positive input from Opposition Deputies and for the extraordinary lacklustre and rather fainthearted input from the Government side. It seems to me, as it obviously seems to colleagues from other Opposition parties, that instead of seeing European integration as positive and beneficial for jobs and for industry, the Government side regard it as a negative element; it might be described as the wellknown Fianna Fáil myopia about Europe which unfortunately is something we have all got used to. Both the speech of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have been low key and passive, not to say boring. The speech of the Minister for Finance did not strike me as the attitude of a man about whom a whispering campaigh has apparently been started by the Taoiseach about an appointment shortly to a very important European position. That is somewhat depressing for people in Ireland. We need the integrated market much more than any other EC countries. We need it much more than our big partners. It is absolutely essential to us as a trading country that we enter this amazing opportune market of 320 million people. The last thing we need is an attitude which far from lowering barriers would erect yet more barriers and borders around the Republic. We have seen attempts by the Government to create borders by the 48 hours customs rule in the North of Ireland. That would be nothing compared to the kind of barriers to Northern and Southern unity which would be erected by falling behind the United Kingdom in the whole question of readiness for 1992. That is something which must alarm us all.

In this small country out on the western periphery of Europe we should ask ourselves "what does Europe care if Ireland cannot get its act together and take advantage of the new freedom", the new freedom which means more to us than it does to anybody else. The main hurt or damage which would be done by derogation or postponement in this instance would be done to this country and not to anybody else. That is where the problem would arise. It is laughable to hear the Minister for Finance solemnly warning the Commission about what they must and must not do in their plans for harmonisation of tax and excise duties. Ireland's little market does not really matter in Europe. We are the people who will shoot ourselves in the foot if we do not get our act together.

All the time we have seen from this Government a negative attitude in matters such as, for example, a derogation until 1999 of the Insurance Directive. That means Irish people and Irish industry will continue to pay higher insurance charges at home and the damage to competitiveness by continuing that kind of protectionism further than we must. That is an example of shortsightedness. For whatever reason those decisions were made, it means higher cost to industry and services. It is not the way we should go forward into Europe.

What is happening to the famous Patent Directive which has been hanging around since 1975 and which means that anybody applying to patent anything in this country or Europe will have to apply separately to every individual Government and go through the process separately in 12 different places? Why have we not sorted that out? Why do we not do it now? It is another example of unnecessary and unusual delays.

The attitude of the Minister for Finance at the recent meeting of the Finance Ministers in Germany showed incomprehension of the realities of the Irish position. Unfortunately, I suspect it shows the old begging bowl attitude which really we must try to rid ourselves of in the European context. The heavy concentration, of which we have too much, on what we are going to get from structural funds is a most one-sided, inadequate and unworthy approach of people who profess to be strong Europeans. I criticise most heavily the Government who seem to put so much positive stress on money we will get in with no positive stress on the opportunities for our young people and jobs which this new market will represent for us. It has been a fearful attitude in this whole matter and it was shown during the Dáil debate on the Single European Act in 1986 and in the lacklustre, not to say disgraceful, efforts of the Government during the referendum campaign in 1987 when it was left to parties like Fine Gael to give a lead in trying to convince the people they should be good Europeans and see the positive side of where we are going in Europe.

It is not enough at this point to make speeches to the CII and at Killarney conferences — though the Killarney conference was treated to only a very small part of the Taoiseach's speech — about getting ready for Europe. The Government themselves should embark on a realistic programme of cutting industrial costs to help jobs and competitiveness, and consider what possible help we can give to industry in 1992 in energy and telecommunications costs. Today my colleague, Deputy John Bruton, showed more areas where Fine Gael have drawn up, produced and come out with policy suggestions and initiatives to show this Government the way to deal with the kind of barriers which are stopping industry here from really competing. The Government have a job to do. It is not enough simply to talk and preach at industrialists without giving the lead and example.

In consequence of 1992 we have an opportunity to reverse what my colleague, Deputy Cullen of the Progressive Democrats, mentioned, the emigration outflow. We have the possibility to look at 1992, an externally imposed target, and regard it as the watershed which is going to change our economy and we must make sure that between now and 1992 we will take every step we can to change that economy. We must do more than have one day seminars. I do not know what the awareness campaign is supposed to be about. We have heard about it for months. Several different Ministers and the Taoiseach have come into this House and talked about an awareness campaign. It now transpires from replies to questions that I listened to carefully in the House yesterday that it seems to amount to a one day seminar. Certainly that does not amount to an awareness campaign. It seems to have been very long in gestation and very mysterious in form. The mountain appears to be labouring mightily and I am afraid it is going to bring forth just a mouse.

We have a ministerial task force made up of Ministers and Ministers of State but then, without great assistance, cannot possibly deal with the whole element of our entry into Europe. It needs first class communicators and experts from the important sectors in this economy which will be affected. At the moment whatever it is it gives the impression of being a limp afterthought, something they had to do really because people out there were asking what we are going to do about 1992.

For a Government who pride themselves on such amazing skills in the PR area I am astonished; poor P. J. Mara must be horrified at the whole charade. We have made no progress whatsoever towards excise duty harmonisation. We have just had one long, continual moan about loss of revenue to the Government, about caution and difficulties instead of a declaration that that tax reduction will mean a great burden lifted from the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer. I could not believe it when I heard the Minister for Finance this morning in a lugubrious voice and with a very long face talking about cheaper petrol, beer and spirits as if that was a penance the Irish people would have to bear. That is not a penance; it is something we should be very glad of. We should ask how we are going to achieve that and how we are going to get all those prices down so that we can be on a par with Europe. Tourists for example, coming from Europe will not be absolutely horrified and taken aback by the kind of prices they are running up against here and American tourists will not stay away on the basis that this may be too expensive a country for them to come to, further, our industrialists will be able to attract people to work here who simply will not do so at the moment because they cannot get pay anything like they can get in other countries as a result of our taxation levels. I am very depressed at what I heard from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. I have looked very hard to see what positive areas they had to tell us about but I could not find them.

The Cecchini report is enormous, running into several thick volumes. I join the first speaker from the Progressive Democrats this morning in criticising the Commission for not making that report and its subsidiary document available to as many people as possible in the Oireachtas. I must confess, as Chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities that I was given no copy and no briefing at all from the Commission office or from the Government. I expected more from the Commission in this instance. I still have not at this moment in my possession a copy of that report. In order to prepare for this debate I had to borrow a copy. If the Commission office in this country has that attitude we in the Opposition will have even more work to do than we thought we would have in helping to bring this country forward into 1992.

France, for example, has taken major steps towards approaching the two VAT rates that will be required in 1992. We have done absolutely nothing in that respect. In this financial year we must start to take steps in that way. We are going into 1989, very near to 1990. Opportunities are slipping by every day and the Government must be aware that they are in the unusual and extremely fortunate position of having a main Opposition party who have a very strong commitment to Europe and have shown that commitment over the years. They will co-operate with the Government in bringing us down this path. However, we have not been given an opportunity to join in that co-operation and I exhort the Minister of State to tell her Government colleagues that they must not overlook the fact that there is constructiveness on this side of the House, unlike Fianna Fáil in Opposition.

I should like to mention the task force or committee to which the Taoiseach referred so many times and which will, apparently, come forward with something next month, if we are lucky. One of the great gaps in the committee, obviously, is all party representation from the Oireachtas. There are 166 Deputies who have to be very good communicators because, if they were not, they would not be in the House. They have to be elected to the House and they have to constantly communicate with and keep in touch with the people who elected them. In the other House there are 60 Senators who are also good communicators and I am sure that some Deputies — I do not have such a problem — might wish that some of them were not such good communicators. Deputies and Senators must be used in this effort to prepare small and large industries, county councils and regional development groups to take advantage of 1992.

Some months ago I wrote to the Taoiseach suggesting that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, a committee comprising 25 Members of the Dáil and Seanad, was the ideal conduit for material to our colleagues in all parties. It is an all-party committee representing all sides. I said that the committee would be willing and able to involve themselves in this work. I had a very polite letter back from the Taoiseach but, unfortunately, I have heard nothing further from the Government in this respect and neither have the members of the committee.

I hope the Minister of State will take a very strong and leading role up front and in public on the awareness campaign. She should have around her a full-time Cabinet of paid people from outside the Government and the Civil Service, on the European style, who will work with her to bring Ireland into 1992.

It is astonishing to other countries that Ireland does not have this specialised Cabinet system. They are horrified to find that Ministers in Irish Government Departments do not have an outside second area of expertise advising them. If they were to take such a step, it would be supported on this side of the House. There should be a designated Minister or Minister of State and I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister sitting opposite me would be very suitable. She would have no other responsibility except to bring the country forward to 1992.

I want to touch briefly on a point mentioned by my colleague, Deputy John Bruton. We must use the language development area as a means for getting funds for the new regional development plan for this country. From Galway to Dublin, from Donegal to Kerry, in every region there should be funds for specialised language centres. They could be used for bringing language specialist from other countries, for training our teachers and for seeking language experts already in this country and giving them special courses. Language learning and teaching must be achieved within and from outside the school system. Adults need to learn languages, school children also need to learn them but that needs a radical and exciting approach. I am not confident that anything radical will come out of the meeting of the Ministers for Education in Europe next week. I appeal to the Minister opposite to make sure that there is an exciting approach.

I am sorry that Minister O'Kennedy had a sort of pavlovian reaction this morning as soon as the word "Irish" was mentioned. If you intend to look at the European language area, you must also look at the Irish language and we are not serving it properly by our present policies. I hope the Government will get out of their lack lustre mood and pay attention to what is being said on this side of the House, which represents a very definite, all party mood, that we have a strong obligation to do the best we can by our young people by taking the opportunity presented to us which the Cecchini report adequately demonstrates.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

Tá mé buíoch go bhfuil deis againn sa Teach deileáil le tuarascáil chomh tábhachtach le tuarascáil Cecchini, agus tá mé buíoch de na Teachtaí ar fad ón bhFreasúra a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht, go speisialta iad siúd ar nós an Teachta Hussey a bhfuil suim faoi leith acu, agus a raibh suim faoi leith acu i gcónaí, i gcúrsaí na hEorpa.

The Government welcome this debate which is timely and has provided the House with an opportunity to express its views on a subject of critical importance to the future of the community to which we belong as fully committed members and which will, therefore, have most important implications for our economy and for the future well being of all our people, whether as employers, workers, taxpayers or consumers. I have very limited time and, therefore, it is not possible to respond to all the points made today. However, Ministers generally have responded — particularly the Minister for Finance — to charges made about the Government's approach generally on tax harmonisation.

With the historical and successful breakthrough at last February's European Council on key issues, such as the future financing of the Community, a secure basis to ensure the continued functioning of the CAP, as well as major reforms of the Community's Structural Funds, the way is now clear for the Community to turn its fullest attention on the objective, laid down in the Single European Act, of completing the internal market by 1992. Compared to the lethargy, the divisiveness and paralysis of the past ten years the Community, through its resolve to completing the internal market, is now clearly renewed with self-confidence and enthusiasm in its future. As is clearly evidenced by the results of the research project directed by Mr. Paolo Cecchini, this will confer significant economic advantages on the Community as a whole and, in political terms, will mark a decisive step forward in its further development and integration.

Not least out of economic self-interest, this country must participate fully in this historic departure and play our full part and on equal terms with our Community partners in the process of completing the internal market, which is not solely about big business as claimed by one Deputy. It is essentially directed at increasing living standards and improved employment opportunities for all the peoples of the Community, subject, of course, to ensuring that the proposals in certain areas take account of their possible serious difficulties for our economy and that this is paralleled at the same time by effective Community action to narrow regional disparities.

The realisation of this objective now remains the central goal in the Community. It is one which will clearly dominate the Community's agenda in the immediate period ahead and one to which all Governments are committed. Any feelings of complacancy or a tendency to view the Community's commitment in this area as an unrealistic pipedream and unlikely to be achieved under the time-scale proposed should, therefore, be immediately dispelled. It is now clear that the single most important external development on our economic future over the next years will be the completion of the internal market by the target date of 1992.

As explained by the Taoiseach this morning, unlike their predecessors, the Government have been very conscious of the impact of the internal market on the poorer regions and of the need to protect our interests. We strenuously pointed this out in Opposition but the then Government failed to act on it on assuming Government. We followed through on this and the House will recall the Declaration which we made at the time of our ratification of the Single European Act which underlines our concern that the completion of the internal market should have full regard to this country's specific problems and economic needs and the continuing importance of Protocol 30 which a previous Fianna Fáil Government had negotiated at the time of our EC entry negotiations back in 1972.

In this respect, last February's European Council decisions on the Structural Funds provides concrete evidence of the Community's commitment to follow through on the cohesion provisions of the Single European Act and that progress in this area will now proceed in close parallel with that on the internal market. This strengthening of Community solidarity will ensure that the Community is now on a firmer and more equitable basis for the achievement of the internal market.

The Brussels outcome, entailing a doubling of the contribution by the Structural Funds in the Community's less-developed regions by 1992 and that a special effort will be made for the least prosperous of these regions including Ireland, was a considerable negotiating achievement and fully justifies the support for the European cause which was demonstrated by our people in last year's referendum on the Single European Act.

A further vital element of the Brussels outcome which does not seem to have been realised by the Opposition, is that the rate of assistance from the funds can be up to 75 per cent in the Community's less developed regions — compared with the present maximum of 55 per cent. This will be of particular benefit to us and will ensure that we will be in a position to implement the development policies and programmes set out in our Programme for National Recovery in areas such as the food industry, the marine industry, forestry, tourism while, at the same time, continuing with the implementation of Government policies to control the public finances. Under the Single European Act, the Community has a clear obligation and a major complementary role in assisting the Government towards the realisation of their economic objectives.

The European Commission's proposals putting into legislative effect the Brussels European Council decisions is one of the major items for discussion at next week's Foreign Affairs Council. In the case of the Structural Funds, the Commission's proposals take the form of a draft framework regulation which reflects, inter alia, the Brussels decisions as well as providing for the major reform of the three funds which is specifically provided for under Article 130D of the Single European Act and which is designed to increase their efficiency and better co-ordinate their activities. Under the Brussels European Council conclusions, the aim is to adopt this by the end of this month, following which there will then be negotiations on implementing regulations for each of the three funds. These are expected to be submitted by the Commission next month and the overall aim is to have these adopted by the end of the year so that the new regime will come into operation with effect from 1 January next.

I can, of course, readily assure the House that in these negotiations the Government will continue to be particularly vigilant to ensure that our interests are protected and advanced. It is a matter of serious concern that certain member states are attempting to dilute the Brussels decision on certain aspects but I should make it perfectly clear that we are vehemently opposing this and will insist that the letter and spirit of the decisions by the European Council are fully respected.

Renewed and strengthened action on cohesion through the major reforms now underway on the Structural Funds must also, of course, be complemented by additional measures and Community policies must be modulated to achieve the objectives set in the Single European Act reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions.

Foremost among these, and one which is not mentioned in the Cecchini report, is the need for meaningful follow-up action on the stipulation in Article 130 (B) of the Single European Act that the implementation of all community policies should from now on take into account the cohesion objectives and contribute to their achievement. The Government will, of course, be following this up vigorously to ensure that this Treaty commitment is reflected meaningfully and to the benefit of the Community's less prosperous regions, not only in respect of existing policies such as the CAP and the Common Fisheries Policy but also in the case of new policy areas.

One of the important features of the Commission's proposals outlined in the draft framework regulations is that assistance from the Structural Funds should from now on be in the form of programmes — as distinct from the largely project-by-project approach in the individual funds up to now. This proposal I am glad to be able to say has been well received and is likely to be agreed on by the Council of Ministers. In anticipation of this development, which is also in line with the commitment in our programme for Government, the House will be aware that the Government have decided to move towards a programme approach, beginning with the three initial areas which we have already announced and gradually extending to cover the entire country.

More recently, the Government announced their decision, in fulfilment of an undertaking in our Programme for National Recovery, to implement an integrated programme for rural development in selected pilot areas.

I should like to point out that while an EC programme for Dublin has been advocated by public representatives for years, this is the first Government to back such a proposal and put it in hand. It is very disappointing to find that misleading allegations are being put forward by certain Fine Gael MEPs with a view to opposing the programme. The people of Dublin city and county can only feel dismay at seeing some of their Members of the European Parliament trying to sabotage an initiative which will bring much needed funds to their region and ensure that those funds are spent in an effective way.

Mrs. Hussey

On a point of order, I was present in the House when the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, attacked MEPs and again we have the Minister of State attacking MEPs. I wonder if it is in order to attack Members of another Parliament in this Chamber?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has been a Member of the House long enough to know that is not a point of order.

Mrs. Hussey

I am asking the Chair if it is in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Absolutely. Political comment on anybody is in order.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputy Quinn was concerned about the future of transportation because of the Dublin study. The exact terms of reference for the Dublin study state, "infrastructures serving the economic and social development of the area". It does not, therefore, prejudge or predetermine the outcome. The consultants are free to recommend what they would see as being necessary in the field of transport.

The Government have by their decisions taken up to now demonstrated quite clearly their alertness and resolve to ensure that this country is well geared to derive maximum benefit and that our economy is strengthened and in a position to compete successfully and secure our fair share of the undoubted gains for the Community as a whole from the completion of the internal market and which are so comprehensively listed in the Cecchini studies.

Charges that the Government have no plans or have been inactive on this front are, therefore, totally without foundation. It seems hardly necessary to emphasise that the extent to which this country will benefit will depend essentially on the state of our preparedness to exploit the opportunities while, at the same time, taking every step available to us to successfully confront the challenges and minimise the risks. In his opening address in this debate, the Taoiseach outlined the important steps which the Government have introduced for these purposes. In the limited time at my disposal I propose to say a few additional words and clarify and respond to some of the claims, and misunderstandings, expressed in the debate earlier on the Government's campaign to sensitise the private sector and for which I have been entrusted by the Government with the responsibility of co-ordination.

While it is envisaged that Ministers and Departments will be primarily responsible for the conduct of the campaign as it relates to areas falling directly within their responsibilities, a sub-group of the interdepartmental committee, known as the Geoghegan-Quinn Committee, which co-ordinates at senior level our position on EC matters has been established to co-ordinate our campaign and ensure its maximum effectiveness. In addition, a joint committee has been established comprising members of the sub-group and representatives of the parties to the Government's Programme for National Recovery who are represented on the Central Review Committee.

We envisage, first, a comprehensive and co-ordinated campaign highlighting both the opportunities and the challenges or potential problems, covering all the sectors that will be affected but in a manner appropriate to the varying degree of diffusion or concentration of the impact, for example a widely targeted approach in industry and services and a concentrated one in sectors such as energy and telecommunications.

Second a sectorally targeted approach and emphasis, with particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than a diffused and a too high level of generality; information literature for the different sectors affected will be prepared and presented as far as possible in a common format and under a common theme; and a full publicity campaign involving the print media as well as radio and television.

Third, a decentralised delivery of the campaign through the representative and sectoral bodies of the private sector and of professional bodies and associations. The necessary preparations are primarily the responsibility of the private sector but Departments and State agencies will, of course, be available to provide briefings and information by way of back-up or supplements to the primary efforts of the private sector bodies and to assist in whatever special structures might be established for this purpose.

Our campaign will be launched before the summer break at a major one-day conference, co-sponsored with the social partners, for a wide cross-section of business, commercial and trade union leaders and will be addressed by leading national and international figures. It will be an on-going process. We readily accept the generous offer of co-operation and support from Deputy Hussey as chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. That committee has a complementary role to play.

Let me be perfectly clear and respond to criticisms which have been made in this debate that the Government totally reject the charge that we are well behind other member states in our preparations. Indeed, the true position is that, apart from France which has had an extensive campaign of preparation underway for some time and the UK which recently launched its own campaign, the position in other member states generally, especially the smaller member states, is at the same planning stage as here and not more significantly advanced.

While there are safeguards protecting our interests built into the Single European Act, such as the possibility of temporary derogations, I should emphasise that only in special cases and where this can be shown to be clearly in the overall national interest will the Government be prepared to support requests for such derogations. There can be no question of using such provisions further to shore up inefficiencies and I appeal to all concerned urgently to prepare their adaptation plans and not wait until it is too late to undertake such planning. I am glad to note the broad nature of support for this policy in the House today.

Achievement of the internal market through its effects on boosting economic growth, the provision of badly needed jobs on a significant scale, for increased competition with more reasonable prices and a far greater consumer choice is, of course, of direct concern to all our people in their daily lives. The publication of the studies, directed by Mr. Paolo Cecchini, provide for the first time a measure of the benefits and of what is at stake. The Community and its political leaders must not fail them through continuing internal divisions and national protectionist devices which in the final analysis are self-defeating so that everyone finishes up being the poorer.

As I have just said, the Community is much more than an economic entity and what is involved in the internal market is the much wider concept of establishing a frontier-free Community with balanced economic and social progress — the people's Europe — in which every Community citizen can participate, identify with and enjoy the benefits of a Community increasingly directed at responding to all aspects of their daily lives. In short, overriding the myriad of very detailed and technical legislation it is important to realise and derive encouragement from the fact that the overall aim which we are seeking to achieve is a Community which is a more tangible reality to each and every citizen, a Community in which they will be more united in a common purpose and identity and a Community whose role in promoting peace, justice and stability in the world will be enhanced.

Question put and agreed to.