Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 30 Oct 1992

Vol. 424 No. 7

Agreement on the European Economic Area: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. T. Kitt)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, done at Oporto on 2nd May, 1992, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 16th June, 1992.

The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which has been laid before the Dáil and which is the subject of this debate, is a most important development in relations between the EC and the member states of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). It is necessary in accordance with Article 29 of the Constitution that Dáil approval be obtained prior to ratification because of a possibility that a charge on public funds may arise from it. It is in any event desirable that an agreement of this size, complexity and significance be considered by this House.

The two organisations — the EC and EFTA — can be seen in a way as giving effect to different visions of European co-operation and integration. The Treaty of Rome, adhered to in 1957 by the original Six, aspires to the ever closer union among the peoples of Europe which is now being advanced further through the Maastricht Treaty and to which, as Community members since 1973, we in Ireland are committed. The European Free Trade Association was founded via the Stockholm Convention in 1960. This set the main objective of EFTA as the progressive removal of barriers to trade and the promotion of closer economic co-operation.

Although there may have been an element of competition in these competing blueprints for European construction, relations between the two organisations have always been close and intensive. Geography alone would dictate this. Switzerland and Austria have long borders respectively with three and two Community member states. Denmark's ties with Scandinavia and Finland are extremely close. Beyond that the EFTA countries and the EC member states share common political and social values, their economies are similarly structured and there is a high level of trade and mutual investment. It is worth nothing that three current members of the EC — Britain, Denmark and Portugal — were once members of EFTA. This is a pattern that is of course likely to be repeated in coming years as the applications for EC membership currently on the table are processed. I will say a little more about that aspect later.

Relations between the EC and the EFTA countries were first put on a contractual footing in the early seventies. Bilateral free trade agreements were signed in 1972 between the Community and each of Austria, Iceland, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland. Finland signed a similar agreement in 1973 and so did Norway after full EC membership had been rejected in a referendum. As the name suggests these earlier agreements are concerned with the progressive elimination of obstacles to trade between the parties. By the early eighties trade in industrial goods between the EC and EFTA had been completely liberalised. The agreements also contain provisions on competition and state aids in so far as these may impact on trade. The free trade agreements continue to function but their provisions will be subordinated to those of the European Economic Area Agreement when this enters into force.

The pattern of essentially bilateral co-operation of the Community with each of the members of EFTA was given a multilateral dimension in 1984. EC and EFTA Ministers meeting in Luxembourg took stock of overall relations and looked at ways in which co-operation could be extended beyond the free trade agreements. The harmonisation of standards, the elimination of technical barriers to trade and the simplification of border facilities were instanced as areas for further work. In addition co-operation in science and technology, the environment, working conditions and consumer protection was seen as desirable. The Luxembourg Declaration saw this enhanced intra-European co-operation as placing Europe as a whole in a better position to create conditions for growth. It also provided for a stronger European voice on international economic issues through increased consultations and exchanges of views. Most significantly, the declaration introduced for the first time the idea of creating a dynamic European economic space of benefit to the EC and EFTA countries. It is in this that the origins of the European Economic Area Agreement — under consideration here today — are to be found.

To this historical trend of ever-increasing EC-EFTA interaction in an increasingly inter-dependent and regionalising world economy were added further factors. In 1985 the White Paper programme on the EC's Single Market was endorsed, beginning the process which will culminate next January with the completion of the Single Market. The desire of EFTA not to be placed at any disadvantage by this development added to the impulse for closer ties. There was a disposition on the Community side to respond to this, providing concrete illustration of the external openness of the Single Market. A further element in the Community approach — though not articulated at the time — was perhaps to defer any accession processes while the important and heavy internal agenda of the Single Market was addressed.

By the time of the Irish Presidency of the Council in the first half of 1990 the EC and EFTA were committed to establishing a significantly closer and more structured relationship. At its heart would be the achievement of the free movement between them of goods, services, capital and persons.

The necessary accompanying policies, for example in the area of competition, would be covered and appropriate institutional arrangements would be made. A negotiating mandate for the Commission was approved during the Irish Presidency. This laid emphasis on the achievement of comprehensive and balanced co-operation, stressed that free movement should be on the basis of Community legislation and sought the preservation of the autonomy of EC decision-making. The mandate identified the reduction of economic disparities between regions as an objective of the negotiations.

The EC-EFTA negotiations to create a European economic area formally opened at the end of June 1990. The negotiations were complex, covered a very wide field and had no real precedent in any other area of the Community's external relations. They also involved sectors of considerable importance and political sensitivity for a number of the participants, such as fisheries and road transit. A number of ministerial level sessions were necessary before substantive political agreement was reached on all issues in October 1991. Provisions of the agreement dealing with the setting-up of a judicial mechanism, or court, for the EEA had to be re-examined after they were found by the European Court of Justice to be incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. This area of the agreement was appropriately modified and the European Economic Area Agreement was signed by EC and EFTA Ministers in Porto near Lisbon on 2 May this year. As part of the overall package, agreements were also signed on this occasion covering EC relations with various EFTA countries in the areas of agricultural products, fisheries and road transit.

The agreement in its preamble takes up the theme of the privileged relationship between the Community, its member states and the EFTA states based on proximity, long-standing common values and European identity. Its first article states the aim of the agreement as being the promotion of a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations with equal conditions of competition and based on the same rules. In pursuit of this objective the agreement sets out measures to achieve between the EC and EFTA free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. It includes rules on competition and provides for strengthened co-operation in areas such as science and technology and the environment. There are provisions on the necessary institutional arrangements. In effect, the agreement extends the Single Market of the EC to the territory of the seven EFTA members while making provision for all necessary accompanying measures.

The EEA Agreement is a substantial document of some 1,200 pages. At its core is a statement in 129 articles of basic objectives and principles as well as general provisions on the four freedoms — freedom of movement of goods, services, persons and capital. The 49 Protocols set out more detailed arrangements that apply in various sectors, for example, in relation to rules of origin and mutual assistance in customs matters. The EEA involves in practice the taking on by EFTA of much of the Community's body of legislation. It is, therefore, necessary to list in the agreement the EC legislation, appropriately modified, that will apply in the EEA. This is done in 22 annexes to the agreement.

Free trade in industrial products is, as has been noted, already a feature of EC-EFTA relations since the early eighties. The EEA Agreement removes virtually all remaining obstacles to trade in goods. Technical barriers to trade will be removed since the Community's legislation concerning norms and standards will apply throughout the EEA. Quantitative restrictions are prohibited as is any kind of discriminatory practice by commercial state monopolies as regards the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed. The area of public procurements is to be opened up on the basis of EC rules. In dealing with the complex area of rules of origin of products, the agreements treats the EEA as a single area and full cumulation of products is possible. The greater clarity, simplicity and precision which the Origin Protocol provides for is, in our view, particularly welcome step. It should be noted, however, that the EEA will not be a customs union, unlike the EC. Free movement will apply only to goods originating within the EEA and not to goods imported from outside. A common external tariff, such as that imposed by the EC, will not be introduced in an EEA context. Border controls between the EC and EFTA countries cannot therefore, be removed. An entire Protocol of the agreement, however, is devoted to the simplification of border formalities and to mutual assistance in customs matters.

Special and less ambitious arrangements were negotiated for agricultural products. The procedures for trade in processed agricultural products will be simplified under the terms of the agreement. In respect of primary products, there is a commitment to continue efforts to achieve progressive liberalisation of trade, taking account of the results of the Uruguay Round. The reduction of technical barriers to agricultural trade is to be tackled by moves towards harmonisation of technical regulations on animal and plant health. Parallel with the main agreement, argiculture agreements have been concluded between the EC and Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. These are designed to develop trade in particular sectors. They also provide opportunities for greater exports by the cohesion countries — Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece — to EFTA of certain products. In Ireland's case tariff reductions will be made on whiskey and cream liqueurs entering EFTA.

Irish merchandise trade with the EFTA countries is buoyant and has been in surplus in recent years. In 1991 our exports were worth IR£809 million while imports totalled £650 million. An Bord Tráchtála see considerable prospects in the medium-term for further growth in the range and depth of Irish trade links with EFTA countries. In the medium-term the programme to establish marketing partnerships for Irish manufacturers will be extended to selected EFTA countries.

The agreement provides that there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services throughout the EEA. Financial services, insurance, telecommunications, audio-visual and information services are covered. Services in the area of transport are dealt with separately. The aim is reciprocal and mutual access to the market, more liberalisation on a multilateral basis and harmonised technical provisions and working conditions. In the area of air transport, further consideration will have to be given to the application in the EEA context of the regulations governing the third and final phase of the liberalisation of the EC internal market in air transport. If it is decided that these regulations should be applied in the EEA the bilateral agreements between EC and EFTA member states will be superseded.

The advent of the EC Single Market has spurred efforts to create conditions for growth of the financial services sector in Ireland. Legislation has been overhauled with a view to enabling the Irish financial sector to meet the challenges of the internal market. These improvements should also assist in dealing with the challenge of increased competition from EFTA. We also have an interest in the opening of the EFTA markets and some Irish companies already have interests in EFTA countries.

Under the terms of the agreement citizens of EEA countries will be able to move freely throughout the economic area in order to accept offers of employment. Any discrimination on grounds of nationality as regards remuneration and conditions of work will be abolished. Freedom of establishment is provided for. Nationals of any EEA country will have the right to set up businesses, branches, subsidiaries and so on and to pursue activities as self-employed persons. In connection with this, the existing system of EC mutual recognition of qualifications is to be extended through the EEA Agreement to the EFTA countries. Persons in a wide range of professions from EC countries will be able to seek to practise in EFTA countries and vice versa. These are positive and welcome developments in the field of mutual recognition of qualifications. They will open up new labour markets and promote the products of Irish education and training systems.

In parallel with this greater mobility in the labour market the EEA Agreement provides for aggregation of social welfare contributions throughout the EEA and for uninterrupted social protection. Nationals of EFTA countries will be treated in the same way for social security purposes as EC nationals. Migrant workers from Ireland to any of the EFTA countries will have their social security rights preserved and will not lose benefits or pensions by having their working careers spread over a number of countries. A more limited arrangement of this sort in the area of social security is already in existence between Ireland and Austria. The provisions under the EEA Agreement are broader including not only pensions but a range of short term benefits. It is possible that a charge on public funds could arise from our obligations towards EFTA nationals under this part of the Agreement. This is unlikely to be significant as the migratory flows between the EFTA countries and Ireland are not considerable.

The degree of freedom of capital movement which currently applies to EC member states will, under the EEA Agreement, be extended to EFTA. Thus any discriminatory restricitons will have to be abolished, so that the conditions for investments and capital transfers are the same for all nationals and companies established throughout the EEA.

Fisheries proved to be one of the most contentious aspects of the negotiations on a European Economic Area and was one of the last to be resolved. The debate focused on two linked issues — access to the EEA market for fisheries products and access to EFTA resources, that is the right to exploit fish stocks in EFTA waters. The question of market access is covered in the EEA Agreement. Access to resources is covered in agreements signed by the EC at the same time with Norway, Iceland and Sweden.

Trade in fisheries products in the EEA will be progressively liberalised. From the entry into force of the Agreement the EFTA countries will abolish practically all their customs duties on Community exports and the Community will either immediately abolish or progressively reduce its custom duties. Certain species, such as salmon, mackrel and herring, have been excluded from the free trade provisions, an exclusion that was particularly sought by Ireland in view of their sensitivity for our fish processing industry.

The liberalisation of the market in fisheries products is of particular interest to the EFTA countries. The Community insisted in return on improved access to fish stocks in EFTA waters. This is provided for in the parallel agreements with Sweden, Norway and Iceland.

There is in addition a unilateral concession by EFTA — by Norway in fact — of increased fishing rights for cod as a contribution to the EEA goal of reducing economic disparties between areas. The allocation opens at 6,000 tonnes in 1993. The share out between the interested cohesion countries — Ireland, Spain and Portugal — has not yet been agreed but Ireland has made the case for a substantial share.

In addition to the direct provisions for the achievement of the four freedoms, the Agreement covers also a number of necessary accompanying policies.

The most important of these is in the area of competition. The Agreement from the outset lays emphasis on the need for equal conditions of competition within the EEA. This will be achieved through the EFTA countries taking on the Community's competition rules and through their establishment of a surveillance structure equivalent to that in the Community. EFTA states will be subject to control in their granting of state aid on the basis of the same substantive rules and pursuant to the same procedures as EC member states in the Community. The Agreement also includes measures in areas that may have an impact on the competitive position of undertakings such as consumer protection, statistics and company law.

The EEA should also continue the process begun with the Luxembourg Declaration in 1984 of intensifying EC-EFTA co-operation in areas beyond the four freedoms. A particularly important aspect relates to extended co-operation in research and technological development. EFTA countries will under the EEA Agreement be able to participate fully in the implementation of the Community's Framework Programme in the area. They will contribute in proportion to their gross domestic product and this will increase the scale of the programmes. Ireland welcomes the possibility the Agreement thus represents of developing for Irish researchers a wide range of collaborators.

The EEA, just as the Single Market, is likely to give rise to new competitive challenges as well as providing an overall boost to economic activity throughout the area. The EFTA countries have technologically advanced economies and enjoy on average a GDP per capita some 19 per cent above the Community average. It was natural then that in the course of the negotiations attention should focus to an extent on the cohesion question. The desire to reduce economic and social disparities between regions of the EEA is enshrined in the Preamble to the Agreement and given effect by a number of specific provisions. I have already mentioned tariff concessions for the entry on to EFTA markets of certain agricultural products from cohesion countries of the EC. There is also the allocation by Norway to interested cohesion countries of an amount of cod to be fished in its waters. Perhaps most significantly the Agreement makes provision for a financial mechanism, or fund, to promote economic and social cohesion. This fund will be financed by the EFTA states. It is to provide assistance to the development and structural adjustment of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, both North and South, and the objective 1 regions of Spain. Priority will be given to projects which place particular emphasis on the environment, on transport including infrastructure, education and training.

The fund will make available grants to a value of 500 million ECU over the period 1993 to 1997. It will provide interest rebates of 3 per cent on loans to a value of 1,500 million ECU. This financial mechanism for the EEA is to be administered by the European Investment Bank. The shareout of financial assistance between the eligible countries has not yet been decided. Ireland favours an approach to this question reflecting the shareout under the EC Structural Funds and is pursuing this goal.

The EEA Agreement is dynamic in that additions and modifications will be made to its terms as developments in the Single Market or related areas warrant. It is EC legislation that forms the basis for the EEA. A way of translating relevant new EC legislation to the EEA context is therefore necessary. The Agreement makes provision for a continuous process of information and consultation with EFTA during all stages of the preparation of Community legislation. It was a basic point in the Community's negotiating brief that the autonomy of its internal decision-making process be preserved in any EEA Agreement. The provisions now included are satisfactory on this point. It is vital that uniform interpretation of the Agreement be ensured and procedures for this purpose are included. The setting up of a separate Court for the EEA, which had been discussed in negotiations, is not envisaged in the Agreement as finalised. Such an institution would have been incompatible in the view of the European Court of Justice with the Treaty of Rome.

An Agreement of the size and complexity of the EEA Agreement necessitates a number of institutional arrangements. EC and EFTA representatives will meet at Ministerial level in an EEA Council which will assess the overall functioning and development of the Agreement. An EEA Joint Committee at senior official level is to ensure the effective implementation and operation of the Agreement and will meet once a month or more often if necessary. Parliamentary co-operation is to be ensured through establishment of a joint parliamentary committee made up of members of the European Parliament and an equal number drawn from the parliaments of the EFTA states.

The Agreement contains a stipulation regarding entry into force on 1 January 1993. Ratification procedures are now well under way in the member states of the EC and EFTA with a view to meeting this deadline. In the case of the community itself a proposal for a decision to formally conclude the Agreement in accordance with the procedures of Article 228 is before the Council. With the adoption of this decision the relevant provisions of the EEA Agreement and measures adopted by the institutions set up by it will, as the European Court of Justice has held, become an integral part of the Community legal order when the Agreement enters into force. The question of any necessary further measures in Ireland to enable ratification by the State of the EEA Agreement is under examination. Any such measures will be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

The European Economic Area Agreement is an ambitious undertaking, in a sense the culmination of over three decades of co-operation between the EC and EFTA. The EFTA and the Community are each other's most important trading partner. With the effective extension of the EC Single Market to EFTA from next year the largest integrated market in the world will be created, including nearly 380 million consumers. Together, the EC and EFTA account for almost half of world trade. The close co-operation and consultation between the EC and EFTA which will be a feature of the agreement should lead to a strengthening of the European voice on wider international developments. This applies in the economic sphere as well as in the political where a declaration on closer political dialogue has been adopted.

The Community's major interests are adequately catered for in the text of the EEA Agreement as finalised. It is Community legislation which will form the basis of the EEA. The exceptions granted to certain EFTA states in respect of some of this legislation have been kept to a strict minimum. The autonomy of the Community's own decision-making procedure has been preserved.

Particular Irish interests are also dealt with in a satisfactory way. Our trade with the EFTA countries is buoyant and in surplus. Its further growth should be facilitated by the removal of obstacles which the EEA represents. Specific Irish concerns about market access for some fisheries products have been resolved. The explicit endorsement in the agreement of the goal of cohesion is an important element of continuity with the Community's approach to creation of its own Single Market. We stand to gain from the operation of the EEA financial mechanism.

Above all the EEA Agreement provides a more intensive and structured framework for relations with the EFTA countries with which Ireland has always enjoyed excellent ties.

Finally, I believe the EEA Agreement should be viewed against the background of historic changes in Europe's political and economic landscape since 1989. The pattern of close, co-operative relations and of an integrated market which it establishes may well have relevance in the further and wider development of European co-operation. It is also the case that in the course of the negotiations on the EEA Sweden and Finland and later Switzerland submitted applications for accession to the EC. These join the application already received from Austria and there may yet be further applications from EFTA states. The EEA Agreement is without prejudice to the question of accession applications. It is worth noting however, that the substantial work done through the EEA process on a wide range of the Community's legislation will facilitate to a considerable degree the accession negotiations when they take place.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is quite ridiculous that we are only taking a couple of hours to debate the agreement to establish the European Economic Area between the 12 member states of the European Community and the seven states of the European Free Trade Association. This agreement contains 1,200 pages, 49 Protocols and 22 annexes. It is very probably a prelude to most if not all the EFTA countries joining the European Community. Therefore, the agreement and the probable accession of all the EFTA states to the European Community, will have major consequences for Europe and for Ireland. Because of that this agreement deserves the most careful examination by our legislators both as to its broad principle and its detailed provision. To put it bluntly, it will not get this examination. This is not the right way to conduct our foreign policy. If the Dáil is to be consulted on matters of foreign policy, as it should be, it should have the opportunity to give the fullest, most detailed and careful examination of the matters put before it.

What is perfectly obvious yet again is the need for an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee. I am not suggesting that we can go through the 1,200 pages of the EFTA agreement page by page in this House. That is a job for a committee, but we do not have a committee and that is the problem. I have been pressing for the establishment of such a committee for years.

Mr. T. Kitt

So have I.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I cannot understand the reluctance of Fianna Fáil to agree to the setting up of such a committee. Maybe it is an appropriate time to say that one of first acts of a Fine Gael led Government will be to establish a foreign affairs committee which will allow detailed examination of major agreements such as the one before us. That is a firm pre-election pledge.

The agreement before us to establish the largest and most important integrated economic area in the world comprising 380 million consumers and accounting for almost half of all world trade will bring important benefits, including trade and market opportunities to all 19 countries involved. It is worth reflecting for a moment on how major an agreement this is. We are talking about a market which will have almost half — 46 per cent — of all world trade conducted within that area. We are talking about upwards of 400 million people being involved. Understandably the detail of such an arrangement is very complex. I know there were considerable difficulties but, with good will on both sides, these difficulties have been overcome and that will benefit all citizens of those 19 countries.

Already in Ireland we have very significant trade links with the seven EFTA countries. Our exports last year were worth more than £800 million. In addition we have the benefit of investment from a number of these countries. Again I hope that the conclusion of this agreement will accelerate further investment from these countries, for example, Sweden, Austria and so on. I hope they will be more than ever convinced of the benefits of locating industry here.

A further advantage of the agreement as far as we are concerned is the establishment of the five year financial mechanism totalling £1,500 million in loans and grants. We will share in that for projects in the field of environment, urban development, transport, education and training. I would be happier if there was a greater emphasis on grants rather than on loans because three-quarters of the money is by way of loans which will come through the EIB. If the Maastricht Treaty goes through, the Cohesion Fund under that, together with these grants and loans will be a nice bonus. I do not want to appear to be too mercenary about it but it is important to ensure that the greatest possible share of the moneys that are available will accrue to the benefit of Ireland.

As a rural Deputy in a country with a major farming sector I am glad that the agreement, while removing virtually all the remaining obstacles to trade, is more cautious in relation to agricultural products. At the same time it is important to bear in mind that the EFTA countries have an approach to agriculture which is designed to encourage and support the development of rural societies. There is much support in most EFTA countries for rural society.

In the context of the probable accession of these countries to the European Community, while there maybe some competition in farm products, ultimately, we would have allies within the Community in our efforts to ensure that our rural communities are preserved and strengthened. That would be a further plus to us. It seems that our allies within the Community in attempting to preserve our rural communities are becoming fewer and fewer. So far as I can gather, the traditional alliance with the French and the Danes is not operating as well as it used to. If countries such as Sweden and Finland were to join the Community they would be natural allies for us in attempting to preserve our rural communities.

In the context of the probable accession of Norway to the European Community, an opportunity may arise to redress a historic injustice. It is clear that the Common Fisheries Policy was the greatest weakness in the original agreement under which we joined the European Community in 1973. To be fair to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Patrick Hillery, their negotiating efforts were very good on many fronts but the wool was pulled over their eyes in relation to fisheries. It is my recollection that shortly before we joined the European Community, along with the United Kingdom and Denmark, the original six members rushed through a Common Fisheries Policy which was designed to ensure that by the time we joined the Community we would be subject to its provisions and would have to accept it. We were not given an opportunity to debate that Common Fisheries Policy fully following our accession. As I said, the wool was pulled over our eyes at that time, and I regard that as an injustice.

As a result of this policy, in the expanded European Community, including Spain and Portugal, we are only entitled to 4 per cent of the fish quota even though we control 16 per cent of EC waters. At one stage we controlled 25 per cent of these waters. This does not add up for a nation on the periphery of the Community. I hope that whatever Government are in office — it might even be ourselves — they will avail of every opportunity to ensure that this injustice is remedied. The possible accession of Norway to the Community might present us with an opportunity to obtain some redress.

I understand that under the present European Economic Area Agreement certain sensitive species such as salmon, mackerel and herring, which are of importance to us, have been excluded under the free trade provisions and that additional fish resources in Norwegian waters are to be shared among interested EC member states on a cohesion basis. It is essential that we stake our claim to a substantial proportion of these resources at this stage to redress the unfair fisheries regime to which I referred and under which we operate at present. I note that the Minister of State made a passing reference to this matter in his speech when he stated that Ireland has made a case for a substantial share. I ask the Minister of State to make sure that the case is made as fully, cogently and comprehensively as possible. This could be the first step in remedying this injustice.

Undoubtedly, under the agreement, some difficulties will arise for Ireland in the context of a European Free Trade Area but I am confident that these can be overcome. I am sufficiently self confident about our place in Europe to welcome the agreement wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I look forward to the widening of the European Community following the accession of those members in EFTA that wish to join. That message should go out loud and clear because the agreement in many respects is a half-way house. As the Minister of State mentioned, five of the seven states concerned have submitted their applications for full membership of the Community. I strongly believe that not only is there a need to widen the Community and welcome those countries that wish to join but also to deepen the Community. It was never more necessary for Ireland to encourage this vision of Europe at every opportunity.

At present the Presidency of the European Community is held by the United Kingdom which demonstrably lacks the capacity to give genuine leadership at this time. They have their own problems on the domestic front and find themselves in a situation where their commitment to Europe is in question given the manoeuvrings in the House of Commons. That is not the kind of leadership we need at this time.

From 1 January 1993 Denmark will take over the Presidency of the European Community. Their political problems, however, are even more acute on European issues. I mention this not by way of criticism of the United Kingdom or Denmark but as a statement of fact and to stress the need for European leadership. Where is this going to come from? In the present vacuum we must encourage the European Commission to give political leadership. Proposals to reduce the power of the Commission are misdirected. On the contrary, we should encourage the enhancement of those powers because we need a Commission with a mandate to speak on behalf of all the people of Europe.

In a few days the American presidential election will take place — it is getting interesting again — and we should ask ourselves if we can draw any analogy with what is happening in the United States. I genuinely believe that a proposal I made some time ago should be given serious consideration, that is, that the President of the European Commission should be directly elected in a European-wide election. If he were to be elected in this way the person concerned would be able to provide leadership and have a mandate from the people of all member states. This would be a major step forward in the democratisation of the European Community.

The proposal has also been made — I do not claim authorship of it — that we should have a directly elected European Senate comprising an equal number of members from each member state. These two proposals combined would give the necessary democratic legitimacy to European institutions. I commend them to the Government who I hope will press them for whatever length of time they conduct out nation's affairs at those European institutions.

It is also clear that we should review the question of how best we can ensure more effective communication between Governments and electorates as to what the European project is all about. Communication is a two-way process; it is not just about Governments telling electorates about what plans have been agreed for the future of Europe but rather about Governments listening to people and taking their concerns into account about the direction in which Europe is going. This was made very clear in the referendum campaign that was held last June and even more so in the French referendum campaign.

There was a recognition of this problem by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, at the emergency Summit at Birmingham when he stated that the Commisison was prepared to consult more widely with national parliaments on draft EC legislation and would appoint a Commissioner to oversee relations with national parliaments — we have already a Commissioner who oversees relations with the European Parliament. Of course this will be of no avail so far as Ireland is concerned unless we have a committee on foreign and European affairs where a full and detailed debate can take place on all these issues.

It is time we embraced the European ideal much more enthusiastically. The only occasions on which there was much debate and discussion on the issue of Europe were during the referenda on accession in 1972 or 1973, the Single European Act six years ago, and more recently on the Maastricht Treaty. It is my contention that this type of episodic interest does nothing for the development of the European ideal or for the widening of the appreciation on the part of our people of what is involved in our membership of the European family of nations. The sad result is that for many the European Community is seen as a porkbarrel from which we draw as many grants as possible or alternatively as a bureaucratic jungle handing down needless regulations to annoy and frustrate our citizens. The major responsibility for that rests fairly and squarely with the Members of this House, the present Government and previous Governments since we joined the Community. The recipe for the resolution of this problem is readily available.

The Sutherland report, published earlier this week, makes it clear that 1 January, when the Single Market and various agreements come into force, is not a finishing line but rather a signpost to the way ahead. To make the internal market work effectively action is necessary to ensure that systems and structures adapt to meet new requirements and encourage people involved, whether as consumers, in businesses or in administration, to respond to the opportunities being created. The Sutherland report makes it clear that the internal market will benefit consumers by giving them a wider choice of goods and services. It will also benefit businesses, small and large, by providing them with market opportunities. The recommendations relate to how to make the internal market operate effectively, now that its foundations have been laid, in order to meet the concerns of consumers and businesses. There must be genuine political commitment to clarifying the rules and telling consumers, enterprises and businesses what to expect and what to do when problems are encountered. As a lawyer I can say very clearly that Community law must be made more accessible, and this will involve reviewing legal procedures. There must be a partnership between national and Community institutions leading to greater practical co-operation.

The Sutherland report contains 38 major recommendations and it deserves a separate debate. I hope that, in the light of the fact that the rules of the Single Market will apply from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, covering the entire European economic area, we will have such a debate. What is needed is a detailed discussion of that report in a foreign affairs committee, followed by a full debate in the Dáil. Only if there is an understanding of the issues on the part of the legislators will there be any hope of communicating these issues to the people.

I would like to refer to a number of matters referred to by the Minister, and perhaps he might clarify them. The Minister mentioned that in relation to free movement of goods this will apply only to goods originating within the EEA and not to goods imported from outside. Furthermore, a common external tariff such as that imposed by the EC will not be introduced in the EEA context. As a consequence border controls between the EC and EFTA countries cannot therefore be removed. Perhaps the Minister would explain to the House the thinking behind that arrangement and whether there are proposals to review it in the years ahead to ensure that there is a common external tariff and that ultimately border controls will be removed. Perhaps the question will be academic if all these states join the European Community but on the basis that some of them may not join, it is worth finding out the reasoning behind the present position and the possibilities for the future.

Perhaps the Minister would also clarify a matter in relation to ratification procedures. He said that these procedures are now well under way in the member states of the EC and EFTA with a view to meeting the deadline. Would the Minister give an outline of the progress that has been made and whether difficulties have been encountered by member states of the European Community or the EFTA countries? I am thinking particularly of countries such as Switzerland where a referendum would have to be held.

What we are engaged in today is the building up of the architecture of Europe. The past centuries were full of strife, division and wars. It is important to put on the record that the main benefit of the European Community is that within the Community the awful strife, trouble and war is over. The countries that were at war with one another every century, resulting in the killing of millions of people, are now working together in harmony at EC level, sorting out their difficulties through the EC institutions.

This agreement will result in a further bonding of the nations of Europe extending beyond the present boundaries of the European Community, and I hope it will be a half way house for those nations on their route to joining the Community. All this leads, through interdependence and shared benefits, to the pooling of sovereignty in the common interests of us all. My vision and dream is that in the years ahead all the nations of Europe will be joined in a federal structure under the banner of the united nations of Europe, that those centuries of strife that are part of our history in Europe will be a thing of the past, impossible to countenance in the future, and that all the nations of Europe will work together in harmony.

Mr. Ferris

The Labour Party welcome this agreement. We look upon it as an important transition mechanism to facilitate the entry of the countries outlined in this agreement into full membership of the Community. The countries involved are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Many of these countries have already signalled their intention to join the European Community and have made formal application for membership. We in the Labour Party welcome these applicants for membership. Our party have an important link with our social democratic colleagues who are involved in government or in the main opposition parties in these countries and with whom dialogue and discussion over many years has been of mutual benefit.

I share Deputy O'Keeffe's view that it would have been more beneficial if we had an opportunity in committee to discuss the intricacies of what is a complex and progressive agreement which will have profound effects on those of us in the Community at present and on the EEA countries which are now applying for membership.

When this agreement was signed in Oporto on 2 May 1992 it became obligatory on our Parliament to formally endorse and approve it, which is what we are doing today. I agree with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe who suggested that after signing of the agreement a procedure should have been available to us in regard to free trade. We tried to use the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities — the new chairman of which is present — to examine how the agreement would affect the Community but it would have been better to deal with it over an extended period, because of its complexities, in a foreign affairs committee. I accept what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said in this regard, indeed one of my first questions to the Government at the start of their term of office was to ask the Taoiseach to state the Government's attitude to setting up an Oireachtas joint committee to deal with foreign affairs. We have made progress since then and we are now down to the nitty-gritty of terms of reference for that committee. We will also have a separate committee dealing with EC legislation which have a significant role to play. Proposals have been made for changing our terms of reference which were accepted by the former Taoiseach and which I hope will be taken on board by the present Taoiseach — or a new, incoming Taoiseach. We should not be the only Parliament in Europe which does not have a foreign affairs committee.

I realise that this debate is a necessary legal part of the process for the Houses of Parliament in each country to endorse the agreement by way of resolution. When the question is put at 1.30 p.m. the Labour Party will support it. We commend this measure and hope it will be a signal to the EFTA countries that we welcome it. The procedure for agreement in the various countries has been raised, it is interesting to note that Switzerland need to hold a referendum to formally adopt it. However, we all realise that the Swiss are very clinical about their referenda, they hold a referendum on anything which involves their people, regardless of whether it is a constitutional requirement, and they like, through their democratic system, to give their people a chance to vote on particular aspects of Government policy. It may be cumbersome but it is a wonderful system. Switzerland, who have already applied for membership of the Community, realise that with the coming into effect of the Single European Act and the adoption of Maastricht, they will become the crossroads of Europe. Following a referendum by their people they have already decided to make Switzerland — from the transportation point of view — the crossroads of Europe, to move goods and people easily and efficiently through Switzerland. They realise that they are the border between the existing Community members and the EFTA countries. It will be a transalpine transport link system and it is reassuring to note there is a realisation that there is a future in economic development between EFTA and the EC. The tremendously technologically advanced transalpine rail and road link will be pollution free, efficient, fast and underground and will not disturb the historical tourist trade of Switzerland. Their commitment in this regard should be an example to anyone who has reservations about the development of Europe and the proper use of national funding — in addition to EC funding — for infrastructural development as well as the development of rural areas.

The enlargement of the Community may seem a hazardous enterprise, given the current uncertainty in relation to the Maastricht Treaty by Denmark and indeed the United Kingdom. The objectives of this agreement should assist existing members to support the agreement. That is why the Labour Party warmly endorse this proposal. The objectives stated in Article 1 are the continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the EC and EFTA countries in conditions of equal competition and based on the same rules. In the pursuit of this objective, the text of the agreement sets out measures to achieve between the EC and EFTA countries free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. It sets out the competition rules which will apply and provides for strengthening co-operation in areas such as the environment, research and development. However, as a result of the current economic recession throughout the European Community, it is reasonable to believe that a totally new direction in policy must be taken if the people of Europe are not to identify European integration with raising — and rising — unemployment and depressed economic activity. The EFTA countries, which are still actively seeking full membership of the Community, all have a long history of commitment through socialist and social democratic Governments and constructive social opposition. They have achieved a measure of full employment and a high level of social protection, strong regional policies and a bias in favour of Government intervention, to maintain high levels of employment and economic activity. The UK — and ourselves to a lesser extent — are examples of the inactivity of the State in the creation, not just of the environment in which employment can be created, but becoming involved in the creation of employment by State intervention and mutual agreements with the private sector. Any policies which we have pursued in the past have failed miserably in these areas which is why our unemployment levels are so high — rising in the UK — and touching 15 million or 16 million unemployed in the European Community.

We are now arranging trade agreements with EFTA countries like Sweden whose unemployment rate is 6 per cent, whose members of Parliament in various fora throughout the Council of Europe and other areas have stated that, if unemployment levels go above 6 or 7 per cent, it could lead to a destabilisation of democracy and street protests. The same applies to other European countries. Finland is tremendously advanced socially and has made great advances in the area of rights of women. Indeed the numbers of women members of Parliament in Finland is a shining example to those who believe in equality in all areas. Women have come through their system and participate actively in Government in very important positions or on the Front Bench of the Opposition.

We have much to learn from the Nordic countries. We in the Labour Party have had continuing dialogue with those peoples. We should benefit from their experience and their record of democracy, particularly in relation to ensuring that the poor and the underprivileged are cared for in any period of economic depression.

Once this agreement comes into existence it will represent the largest and most important integrated economic area in the world, comprising approximately 360 million consumers and, as the Minister said, accounting for 46 per cent of world trade. If we use this power bloc for economic purposes and no other we will ensure a peaceful future for people of the EFTA and EC countries. We in the Labour Party welcome the fact that many applicant countries for membership of the EC are, neutral nations, non-aggressive nations, and proudly so. Their accession to the EC would be welcomed by most countries in Europe. They would be our allies in terms of neutrality. We would hope that they would pursue policies that would release funds presently being used in the areas of defence, of production of atomic warfare and other weapons of war, and indeed, funds that are being used to provide security in the context of the Northern Ireland problem. The money used for these purposes could be utilised in other areas if the tensions between countries could be eliminated.

The EFTA countries, who are actively pursuing their membership of the EC, have a long history of total commitment to full employment. The Swedish model has been used as an example, although Sweden is not exempt from the present currency crisis. This is due to the fact that Finland, wanting to float their currency, created pressure on the Swedish currency. This resulted in Sweden raising their interest rates to 25 per cent and, subsequently, to 500 per cent in order to protect themselves in that monetary crisis. One cannot accuse a socialist government in Sweden of having done this because it was a conglomeration of parties that formed the new Swedish Government following the 1991 elections there. The lesson to be learned from that is that stability comes only from members of Government who can agree with one another.

Against the background of the current difficulties, in concluding the GATT agreement, the agreements between the European Community and EFTA stands the test of increased international trade through a recognition of mutual interest through economic co-operation. This brings us to the current and urgent need to conclude the Uruguay Round which has been ongoing for the past six years. The Agricultural Commissioner is actively involved, even this week, in dialogue with the United States negotiators. This may involve his flying to Washington or to New York in the next few days to attempt to reach an agreement. Perhaps this is something that the incumbent President of the United States would wish to achieve as part of his election campaign. However, it is essential that Irish interests are protected and that no further concessions are granted in the areas relating to agriculture, in particular. Much as we want to achieve a GATT agreement we have already conceded far too much in this area and I look forward to a strengthening of our position by the EC Agricultural Commissioner and, indeed, by our own Council of Ministers.

I wish to turn briefly to the issues which the forthcoming EC Summit in Edinburgh must address. It is now urgent that policies to encourage a recovery throughout Europe are put in place on an agreed basis. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe queried the commitment of the existing Presidency of the EC and, indeed, of the incoming Presidency in this regard. The attempts of any single country to reflate its economy while others pursue deflationery policies designed to maintain the position of their currencies within the ERM, or outside it now, will lead to speculative attacks on our and other currencies resulting in subsequent increases in interest rates, which we have already suffered, and consequently, further deflation. The European Community is seriously in danger of entering a downward deflationary spiral and the priority for the Edinburgh Summit must be a coherent strategy to encourage economic convergence through a concerted EC-led re-deflationery policy. I wonder if the present holder of the EC Presidency has that kind of commitment.

The second issue which must be addressed is the protection mechanism to deal with the currency realignment within the ERM which, fortunately, we have in place, assuming that the Maastricht Treaty will become law. We hope this will happen and that Denmark will be able to approve the Treaty. I welcome on behalf of the Labour Party, the statements of Chancellor Kohl who committed the European Community to a single track economic and monetary union which is what we understood the Maastricht Treaty to be about. No amount of rhetorical commitment, however, will be sufficient to deliver the mechanisms to make this happen. The Labour Party, in recommending a yes vote in the Maastricht Treaty, recognised that the Treaty would need to be augmented by much greater macro economic co-operation between member states. We also believe that the £6 million in transfers under the Cohesion Fund would be insufficent to ensure balanced development in less favoured economies in the run up to the introduction of a single currency. This is particularly true of Ireland's position, we will be the only remaining periphery state once the UK and France are linked by the channel tunnel. The £6 million, though important, would not have been enough and, unfortunately, our predictions that the granting of this £6 million would not be guaranteed have been proved to be correct.

It will take a strong co-ordinated approach with other member states to ensure that even the Maastricht Treaty is honoured. That Treaty has consequences for all of us. We must respect the view of our people as Europeans in the constitutional referendum. Those involved in agriculture, in particular, were strong advocates of the adoption of the Treaty. Agriculture has been dealt with in this particular Agreement in a way that may concern some people but it addresses, in a limited manner, agriculture and the relationship between our agricultural producers and exporters and the EFTA countries. The products themselves are covered only in general terms in the agreement. However, there is a commitment to continue efforts to achieve progressive liberalisation of trade, taking into account the results of the Uruguay Round, or the GATT negotiations as they are commonly known, which is our hope. Bilateral arrangements have been made to encourage trade in particular products. I am referring to such products as cheese, fruit, vegetables, wine, spirits, meat and horticultural products. These bilateral agreements are intended to contribute to the reduction in economic and social disparities by assiting the entry from the EFTA markets of products from the less developed regions of the Community, the cohesion objective in favour of Ireland and the Mediterranean countries.

This agreement also provides for the harmonisation, as the Minister said, of technical regulations on animal and plant health. We have a very proud tradition in regard to those matters and we have to take more stringent action than most to protect the health of our animals because of our extraordinary good status in regard to this.

The area of fisheries was mentioned by the Minister and it appears there is an element of doubt in regard to this. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said, we got a bad deal in the common fisheries policy from the Community. This has put pressure on our fishing industry and those involved in it are trying to eke out a living under the existing EC regulations. We have had to compete not only with unfair competition from other member states, particularly from the Spanish fishing fleet, which is bigger than the combined fishing fleets of the other member states. In this agreement, the question of the fisheries arrangements and the share-out between countries interested in cohesion, like Ireland, Spain and Portugal have not yet been agreed. However, it has been said that under this agreement, Ireland has made a case for a substantial share. This statement is a little weak for people in the fishing industry who are already under threat trying to live within the European Community's strict policy on fishing.

The Minister for the Marine, Dr. Woods, expressed publicly many times his dissatisfaction and said he might bring this matter to the European Courts. We are at a disadvantage. One has only to stop and think of the tremendous influences of the fishing industry in some of the Nordic countries, their expertise and experience, the technology available to their fleets, the money being invested in their industry and how important and valuable it has been to them over the years. We are now arranging a mutual trading agreement with these countries. Ireland, on the periphery of Europe, must ensure that there is investment in our fishing fleets otherwise our fishermen, who are involved in one of the most hazardous and least financially rewarding occupations will be put under further threat.

However, we cannot be isolated in the world of economics whether it is in regard to agriculture, fishing and so on. As we must compete with those who are most efficient there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that sections of our traditional industries are not wiped out by unfair competition.

We welcome this agreement and believe it is the way forward. We welcome those countries who have applied for membership of the Community and we, a neutral State, look forward to participating with them in the EC. We also welcome the philosophy expressed by some of these countries, particularly the Nordic countries. It is hoped we will benefit from their membership and that the existing provisions in relation to assistance, pensions and other rights in both areas will be protected. We have a proud record already in that regard in our relationships with Australia, America and, indeed, the UK. Indeed, due to the devaluing of their currency those on UK pensions who are living here are depending on this State to top up their income to a minimum level. It is an extraordinary turnabout but it is something we should be proud of. We should give credit where it is due. It is to be hoped that the value of people's retirement, incomes towards which they have contributed in their working life, in whatever country, is such that they will have an acceptable standard of living. They should be rewarded and not penalised by any Minister for Social Welfare or by any Government.

The entry of Austria, Finland and the Nordic countries should be facilitated at the earliest possible date. After we pass this motion and, hopefully, following the referendum in Switzerland, this agreement will come into force next year. It can only enhance the case for economic and social convergence and we would welcome that wholeheartedly. This agreement is a step in the right direction and a vehicle which will assist these people in their working relationships with us. It will help us form a lasting link with them and enable those seven countries participate fully in the Community. All of Europe will benefit from this liaison. Ireland should play a dynamic role in this agreement.

Proinsias De Rossa

The nature of today's debate highlights yet again points I made in yesterday's debate on the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1992. We are debating a new agreement, the European Areas Association Agreement, which covers the seven EFTA countries and the 12 EC member states, and there has been virtually no earlier debate in this House or by any committee of this House in relation to it. The majority of the public are aware of what is involved in this agreement as are the majority of Members of this House. It would be very difficult for them to know what is involved in the agreement as it is a huge document and runs to 1,200 pages.

I have no problem in supporting the agreement in principle, but there is also the principle that this House should not approve documentation or agreements of this nature without knowing what they contain and what effect they will have on this State, for which we are the public representatives. We should have a clearer and more structured approach to such important agreements.

This very important agreement between 19 countries, as the briefing document indicates, refers to 380 million consumers. However, I must query the use of the word "consumers" because people are more than consumers. I presume the document refers to the population of all the States involved. Entering this agreement is a huge step for these countries. This area accounts for 46 per cent, almost half, of world trade. We are not just talking about a friendly agreement concerning cultural exchanges but an agreement which covers every area of economic activity.

While we have at the moment a trading surplus of approximately £150 million with the seven EFTA countries, there is no doubt that the agreement when it comes into effect gradually from the end of this year will have an impact on our trade and I hope that will be beneficial. This raises the question, to what extent are the business and manufacturing community prepared for this agreement, its impact, its potential benefits and the openings it will provide. There has been no debate or discussion on this. None of the newsletters or documentation I have received — I receive many, as does every Deputy, from trade and industrial organisations, trade unions and so on — have made any reference to this agreement coming into effect at the end of the year. We are not doing our business properly by continuing such an ad hoc approach.

The agreement will certainly have a major impact on the European Community. There is no doubt in my mind that it will speed up the integration process between the EFTA countries and the EC, not only economically but also politically. Several EFTA countries have already applied for full membership and it is my view that the Irish Government should vigorously support their applications. I know that in the past there has been a reluctance on the part of the Government to express views on those applications because they were at various stages of being processed, but it seems to me that it serves our interests better to be part of a wider economic and political arrangement in Europe.

The Agreement was discussed in the European Parliament on Wednesday of this week and the report on the Agreement, the Jensen report has been adopted by the Parliament. One of the conclusions of the report was that:

For the EFTA countries it is naturally of major political significance that the Agreement they themselves in the Community have worked so hard to bring about actually comes into being. The conclusion of the Agreement is in no way an obstacle to a relatively rapid enlargement of the Community. On the contrary, it will enable the EFTA countries to prepare their accession to the Community by simultaneously intensifying their co-operation with the EC at all levels.

Certainly, the European Parliament is in no doubt as to the effect this Agreement will have on the broadening of the EC itself both politically and economically. Indeed, as we know, the economic development of the EC preceded the political development, primarily because it was felt by those who initiated the project that political development would inevitably follow economic union, and that is what has occurred.

The current situation in relation to the Maastricht Treaty, however, indicated that problems can be increased tenfold if the accession of other countries to the EC under this Agreement is not dealt with in an open and democratic way.

The Agreement on the European Economic Area provides for four institutional arrangements for the monitoring and the implementation of the Agreement. The EEA Council, which is the highest political body of the European Economic Area, will be responsible for giving political impetus and for laying down guidelines for the implementation and future development of the EEA. It can also take the political decisions leading to amendments of the Agreement. We are discussing this Agreement having only the broadest idea of what is in it and we are agreeing to an EEA Council which will be able to take political decisions in relation to amendments to this Agreement. Therefore there is a gap in our approach to dealing with these issues.

The second institution referred to is the Joint Committee, which will be charged with the effective implementation of the Agreement. The committee will take decisions on the extension of Community legislation to the European Economic Area. They will endeavour to ensure a uniform interpretation of the Agreement, and so on.

A further body, the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee, will be composed of equal numbers of the members of the European Parliament and members of the parliaments of the EFTA states. There is no reference in the Agreement to members of the national parliaments of the EC. I am delighted that a parliamentary committee is incorporated in this Agreement but it appears that the deficit of democracy that exists between the European level and the national level is being widened in this regard. The EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee will not have any powers. It will be able to express its views in the form of reports and resolutions. The committee will be an important outlet for parliamentarians but there is need for the development of a relationship between the member states. Given that the seven EFTA states' parliaments will have representation on the committee, I feel that there should be a place for the national parliaments of the 12 EC states also. I have no idea whether it is possible to make such an arrangement or such an extension of the Agreement at present but, seeing that the council to which I referred earlier can take political decisions leading to amendments of the Agreement, perhaps it is something that the Government could take up. I do not foresee any huge objections to such an agreement arising either at European Parliament level or amongst the EFTA states. I know for a fact that the European Parliament is extremely keen to have a greater relationship with national parliaments and I know that the Parliament has special staff appointed to deal with relations with national parliaments, although again I would have to say that the relationships at that level are not too obvious in Ireland.

A further body referred to in the Agreement, the EEA Consultative Committee, will be a forum for contacts between representatives of the social partners. That is a positive proposal that I support. There seems to be an independent parallel organisation concept in this regard, that the body will be a consultative committee between representatives of the Social Partners. Perhaps the Agreement itself goes into more detail as to how they will consult and what role they will play, for instance, with regard to the Council, the Joint Committee or the Parliamentary Committee. There would need to be a system of liaison and interrelationship to ensure that this body has the beneficial effect we all hope for.

We do not have a foreign affairs committee. We have a secondary legislation committee, which deals with matters that arise at EC level in relation to directives, regulations and so forth. To my knowledge, that committee have not dealt with the Agreement. The Agreement was finalised only in May of this year, so it would be quite difficult for the secondary legislation committee to have even read the 1,200 pages, never mind come up with any serious response to what its effect might be on Ireland. I emphasise that the committee should not just have regard to what effect the Agreement will have on Ireland but also what effect it will have on the general development of the EC. Once again, the urgent need for a serious European affairs committee is highlighted. We need a foreign affairs committee, but that committee should have a much broader remit than simply European affairs. I do not believe that a structure whereby a sub-committee of a European affairs committee would deal with EC affairs would be an adequate way to deal with the huge volume of material that comes from the EC.

We have had responses from the Government that a foreign affairs committee is about to be established. As a party who do not have representation at Whips meetings I do not know what precisely is going on in relation to that committee. As spokesperson for Democratic Left I have not been consulted by the Government Whip nor by the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to my views about how such a committee should operate. They may be entitled to ignore me on the matter because of the way the rules of this House operate but I do have views on the matter and I believe the process of consultation on this issue should be wider than involving simply those parties that have seven or more Deputies in this House. It is an important area. I believe there should be not only a foreign affairs committee but a specifically European affairs committee. I got sight of proposed terms of reference for a foreign affairs committee six months ago. I do not know whether those terms of reference are still being promoted by the Government or whether they have been altered but I was concerned at the fact that they excluded certain areas from consideration by the committee in relation to European affairs. These are matters which need to be dealt with by this House. There should be an ongoing open debate on the kind of committee we need and how it should operate and we should get it up and running as quickly as possible. Regardless of whether the speculation is correct that we will have a general election in a few weeks time, within a month or in two months' time, this House should at least have had the foresight to establish a foreign affairs committee before another general election.

The removal of remaining trade barriers and the strengthening of trade and economic relations between the EC and EFTA countries can only be beneficial for a country like Ireland which depends to a huge extent on exports for its survival, given that we have such a small population relative to other states and that we have a huge unemployment problem and a fairly large young population. There is no doubt that the more access we have to markets the better it is for us. Since the EFTA countries are providing access to us we also have to provide access for them to our markets. It is generally felt that on balance the Agreement will be of benefit to us. I hope the Minister will be in a position to indicate what precisely is being done to prepare business and industry in Ireland for the effects the Agreement will have on our trade and to tell us what is being done to reap the benefits of the access we will have as a result of this Agreement.

The application of the principle of freedom of movement and the freedom to seek employment in a 19 state area is also a step forward. The provisions in relation to social welfare are also important in the context of the rights Irish people would have in the EFTA states. The agreement provides also for the abolition of exchange rate controls affecting capital transfers. I have no objection to that in principle but we have all seen the chaos that has occurred in recent months in the currency area, as a result of a variety of factors, which certainly was rendered anarchic by speculation.

The Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Maurice Doyle, indicated that the exchange controls which remained in this State had been beneficial to us in that they helped to dampen the speculation in relation to our currency during the more frenzied period some weeks ago. He was not arguing, no more than I am arguing, that such currency controls should be maintained but he did argue — and I think he has a valid point — that if we do away with exchange controls we have to look at how we control speculation. He suggested that one way of doing that would be to look at ways of taxing the profits made from speculation. The Minister for Finance has not yet indicated to us whether that area is being examined. The Birmingham Summit a few weeks ago did not address the matter, at least if they did, they have not told us so.

If we are widening the economic area from 12 to 19 states and abolishing exchange controls between the European Community and the other seven EFTA states, it is even more urgent that we examine ways of ensuring that the speculators, who have no regard for God nor man or for the impact their speculation has on either individuals or economies, control their activities. Mr. Doyle indicated that he was more or less thinking out loud in his speech when he said: "I wonder is it time to stop regarding these activities in the markets as a natural law and not something we should be seeking to control." I agree with him in that regard.

The financial mechanism provides for soft loans of about £1,150 million and grants of approximately £375 million. These loans and grants are for the socalled poor countries of the EC. There are many poor countries around the world who would not regard Ireland as poor. If we look at the difference between ourselves and Somalia the question of poverty is relevant. Nevertheless this agreement has been made and these grants and loans are available. As I understand it they will be available for projects in the fields of the environment, transport, education and training.

Yesterday Dublin Corporation published their proposals for transportation planning in Dublin and have recommended a light rail system. I wonder to what extent the Irish Government will take up the challenge of seeking money from this new fund for such a proposal in the Dublin area. There is no doubt, on the face of it, that the fund would be applicable in a case where we would be seeking to develop our transport system. There is no doubt that Dublin needs a proper management system for our traffic and there would be greater emphasis on public rather than private transport. This is an ideal opportunity to see whether we can obtain assistance from this new fund for the implementation of a new approach to transport in the Dublin area.

The final point I wish to make which I covered to some extent earlier, is that unless there are further upheavals in Europe that put a stop to the integration process — this is not as far fetched as it may seem and would be a tragedy — this agreement will speed up political integration between the 19 countries involved. Therefore, it is important that from the beginning we look at ways of ensuring that integration, political development and political co-operation are developed in a democratic way.

If any lesson is to be learned from what I regard as the Maastricht fiasco it is that one cannot proceed with such a development without the support of the people. There is talk about leading people down a road where they are effectively being asked to abandon what we previously perceived to be traditional values, allegiances and loyalties. They are being told that loyalty to their country is no longer their primary loyalty; their loyalty is to a wider entity, a European Community or even pan-European arrangement of some kind. I have no problem with this approach; it is a very good idea that we get away from this narrow nationalistic approach to how we perceive ourselves in the world.

However, I do not think we can do this by simply going behind closed doors and making agreements on the basis that the people outside do not really know what is good for them. We know what is good for them, we know how things should work out. The matter is too complex, it cannot be really explained in simple terms. When a referendum has to be held to seek approval for an agreement which has been agreed behind closed doors, people suddenly wake up and discover they do not know anything about it. The political leadership here and in other European countries should have ensured that there were debates as matters developed. There should have been constant discussions about each step so that each step agreed was understood instead of promoting the Maastricht Treaty on the basis, as seems, to have been the case here, of the millions of ECUs countries would get. A few days ago I heard an interview with a person from Italy. That person was asked how it was there was no row in Italy about the Maastricht Treaty and why it was being regarded as just another day's work. There are many reasons for this but, as I understand it, Italy is more conscious of its place in Europe and the development of Europe. Obviously this has to do with the history of the country and how it evolved as a State.

The Italians have been discussing Europe and European integration for years. Therefore, it is nothing new to them. They are well aware of what is involved. Four or five years ago a referendum was held in Italy — under the Italian Constitution citizens can come together and demand a referendum — in which the people decided, without any proposal from the EC, that they wanted European integration. The Maastricht Treaty is not causing the Italians any problems because they know what it is all about. If we approached this issue in that way we would have less problems in the future, there would be a better Europe and, as a result, better agreements.

Mr. S. Barrett

I welcome the process of expansion between the EC and EFTA countries and the opportunities it will provide for people on this island. I have long been of the opinion that the sooner Irish people recognise that the future of their sons and daughters need not necessarily be on this small island but somewhere in Europe the better. The sooner we face up to the realities of life and stop referring to Irish people who work in other parts of the European Community as emigrants the better. We need to face the reality that we are now part of a bigger community where there is free movement of goods and services and greater co-operation in trade. This process of employment will continue, and I regard this agreement as a further part of that process.

The only thing that will put a stop to my dream is a lack of vision and wisdom by the people who are presently bringing us forward in Europe. I agree entirely with Deputy De Rossa that there is a cloak of secrecy about everything that happens in Europe — the agreements reached are unveiled at the last minute and people are told they had better approve them or they will lose certain benefits. People who pursue such policies will put a stop to the sort of progress I want to see.

I am contributing to this debate because I wish to lodge my objection at the way in which this agreement and other agreements have been handled and presented to the Irish people. I believe that the vast majority of Irish people, Members of this House and members of local authorities, know nothing about this agreement. I also suggest that the vast majority of Senators know very little about it. Some day somebody will ask what this agreement is all about and who gave us the authority to commit the Irish people to it. If this policy is pursued a barrier will be erected between the people and the decision makers.

I am certain that if this agreement was explained in a rational way to the people — what it will do for them and the opportunities it will create for Irish businesses, people and employment — they would be delighted to hear about it. The less people hear about such agreements the more suspicious they become. This was very evident during the debate on the Maastricht Treaty. Clear warnings are being sounded throughout Europe in regard to the development of the Community, for example, the acceptance of the Treaty by a small majority in Fance, the rejection of the Treaty by Denmark and the events in Germany. I suggest that many Irish people are having serious doubts about the Treaty as a result of the recent currency crisis and increase in interest rates. This is mainly due to ignorance; people are not being told what is happening.

A few weeks ago I was elected chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and I can assure the House that we were not given the opportunity to debate this agreement; it does not come within our terms of reference, which date back ten years. In addition, we do not have the necessary resources or staff to review it. If we want to hire a consultant to review legislation we have to seek the permission of the Department of Finance. That is the sort of nonsense which goes on. It is not just in a European context that there is no sharing in the decision-making process; a deliberate attempt is being made on this island to prevent an independent examination of that process. Why should not the Houses of the Oireachtas, through the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad, have their own budget for consultancy work? Why should we have to go to the Department of Finance for approval to buy a pencil? We had better start with our own structures before we look to Europe. Everything here is controlled. A committee cannot be allowed powers to investigate because they might create problems. I witnessed the same thing when I was on the other side of the House. We all fall into the trap. Deputy Lenihan will agree that when in Government one is too busy to be concerned with the democratic debate that should be taking place in the Chamber. One gets on with the job and changes never take place. Unless we as a Parliament demand independence to do the job we were elected to do, the type of approach adopted to agreements such as this will continue.

This Agreement has implications for our people. There is a potential charge on the Exchequer in terms of social welfare benefits and the rights of individuals. I do not have any objection. There will be free movement of people and possibly this will mean that foreign firms will offer financial services. This will constitute a challenge to our people, who should be gearing up to meet that challenge and to avail of the opportunities for business in the markets opening up to us. Yet there is no discussion about these new opportunities.

Language skills are necessary in order to market our products, yet the teaching of European languages at primary school level is not even being spoken about. We are fooling ourselves if we believe we can avail of market opportunities when we cannot even communicate with potential buyers.

I am delighted to hear about the EFTA fund, which will provide soft loans and some grants, but who will decide on the allocation of these grants? What structures will be used? Will these decisions be made by the officials who will be meeting on a monthly basis or by the Parliamentary Committee, which deliberately excludes members of national Parliaments? When we get a slice of the cake, how will our Government decide on its allocation? If I had the opportunity, I would immediately implement a massive language programme at primary school level. There should at least be a debate on how to spend this money. If the present system continues, the disbursement will be controlled by the Department of Finance, who will not tell us how they make their decisions.

The declaration following the European Council on 16 October in Birmingham refers to bringing the decision-making process closer to the people and the role of national Parliaments in that process, yet we cannot get money to carry out consultancy work without going to the Department of Finance. Let us bring the decision-making process to the people, beginning with this agreement with the EFTA countries. Let us explain what it is about.

I should prefer if we were meeting here today as the Foreign Affairs Committee, with members of the European Parliament in attendance, as well as Members of the Seanad. We should have a full attendance in the press gallery so that the debate is reported to the people. It should be widely known that Irish people can now take up a job in Sweden or Finland and that they can move freely in the EFTA countries. The problem is that we as islanders have never geared ourselves to meet the challenges in these new markets. Language and communication skills must be taught at a very young age. I should love to be able to sell insurance in Sweden, Finland, Germany and France but unfortunately I cannot speak their languages. That applies to thousands of others, but I hope my children will not suffer that disability. We are not doing anything about the fundamental of communication skills.

Meetings of the Councils of Ministers should be open to the public. I cannot see why these major decision-making platforms are not open to the press and the public. There may be sessions which would have to be held in committee but generally speaking decisions on behalf of the Irish people should not always be made behind closed doors. We as a Parliament should ask our Government to propose that such meetings be open to the public and representatives of the media.

I sincerely hope that we will not have a repeat of what happened with the Single European Act. When that was being discussed it was my understanding that the aim was to have a single excise rate and a single VAT rate throughout the Community. It was recognised at that time that in order to bring that about the weaker regions, such as Ireland, would be compensated for the initial loss of revenue. We were all aware that this would lead to greater competition and that compensation would help us to adjust in the early stages.

There has been a disgraceful attempt on the part of Foreign Ministers in the Community to reach agreement. I have great fears for Ireland's future in the context of being forced to reduce excise and VAT rates in order to compete with the richer nations without any compensation. In future in any agreements of this nature it must be made clear how we are going to reach a common excise and VAT rate because business cannot be done when there are different rates throughout the Community. If rates of excise are higher in one place than another the result would be massive smuggling and it would be impossible to control the flow of goods when there are no barriers at frontiers.

Can the Minister give an assurance that in this expansion, which is very welcome, Ireland will be playing on a level playing pitch and that we will not be fighting uphill battles? While we want to be good Europeans, we expect our colleagues to be also and we should, as a small country, fight for our rights and get the necessary compensation to help us compete in the market place.

I sincerely hope this House will formally approve the agreement. It is regrettable, however, that we did not have the opportunity for a far more wide-ranging debate with questions and answers. This form of debate in which we all stand up and have our say has its good points but it is not really effective. If we continue to do business in this way, the public will become more and more sceptical and that would be regrettable.

Mr. Lenihan

This agreement between the 12 members of the European Community and the seven states of the European Free Trade Association — Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland — marks a historic step in the movement of the Community towards a broader and more real Europe. It is a very important agreement and I share Deputy Seán Barrett's concern at the cavalier manner in which the debate is being dealt with because of the inadequate procedures of this House. I look forward to the establishment of a foreign affairs committee, however that is devised. It will provide a forum where major matters of this kind can be fully debated and articulated and information conveyed to the public. It is outrageous that the ancillary sideshows that are going on in the political life of the country at present and which are far less important than what we are debating today are occupying columns of newspapers and hours of time on radio and television. This agreement about the future of Europe and the peace of the world is being debated in the absence of any member of the media. This is largely because of our inability to devise procedures here to ensure that debates of this kind are highlighted as key debates demanding attention from the public and the media.

This is a historic step and linked to it will be the subsequent taking of the motion on the separate association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. While they will be dealt with in a separate debate they are inextricably linked with this one in that both agreements are concerned with achieving closer and wider economic and political integration in Europe. We are seeking to implement what Gorbachev in his time described as the common European home and what De Gaulle called a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. We are now giving practical implementation to these highly desirable objectives.

In that context let me emphasise the political aspects. Much of the debate is concerned with trade arrangements and the movement of people, services, goods and capital. These are all very desirable but the underlying objective of a wider and deeper European union is political. It is designed to bring the countries closer so that they will pursue in a peaceful, democratic manner social and economic objectives aiming at greater cohesion in society and the greatest amount of good for the generality of each region of the Community. It took practically two millenia of wars and revolutions to make Europe wake up to the fact that the only way to achieve peace and peaceful development through democratic means was through closer links. Success has been achieved among the Twelve. Some of the Twelve have, over the centuries, had dictatorships and very wrong regimes. Those countries — there is no need to name them — are now following democratic paths or have joined other countries of a more parliamentary tradition in pursuit of common objectives. We are seeking to bring the other seven states of Europe into a 19 state format. After this debate we will be seeking to establish association arrangements with Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, countries which have a distinctly European culture, to provide eventually for their parth into a European union.

This movement towards European integration is about strategic political objectives. That is the immense importance of what we are doing, separate from the obvious market advantages that are important in their own way. This broader political union in Europe is essential today because, on the borders of a stable Europe there is real instability in the Balkans and the old Soviet Union.

It is essential that we have a broader political union to provide an anchor of stability and to pursue peaceful objectives such as political, economic and monetary union if the instability in the Balkans and the old Soviety Union is to be stemmed and prevented from proliferating into Central and Western Europe. We need a strong and outward looking Community which can provide a pole of stability within Europe. It is only in that context that we can face with equanimity the problems that are already in the Balkans — for instance Yugoslavia — that are potentially, and to a graver extent in the old Soviet Union. If we want to contain the instability in these countries we must move in the direction in which we are headed in regard to the EFTA countries and the other three countries. We must move in the direction of entering into asssociation agreements with the European Community, agreements will be debated subsequently.

The object of the Agreement is to achieve between the European Community and the EFTA countries the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. It will come into operation on 1 January 1993 and will involve the largest and most important integrated economic area in the world. Some of the figures are very interesting. It will comprise 380 million consumers and account for 46 per cent of the world's trade.

At present the European Community and the EFTA countries are each other's most important trading partners. For example, in 1990, 26 per cent of European Community exports went to EFTA countries compared with 17 per cent to the United States of America. It can be seen therefore that this market is almost twice as important to the European Community as the United States market. The European Community takes 58 per cent of the exports of EFTA countries. Interpenetration of business level through investment and acquisitions is intensive and increasing and will continue to develop.

Ireland's trade links with EFTA countries are also significant, given that our exports in 1991 totalled £809 million while our imports totalled £650 million. We also benefit from growing inward investment from a number of EFTA countries, in particular Sweden, Austria and Switzerland.

The European Economic Area, as it will be known, will be an important element in the new European architecture. We are now thinking in terms of 19 rather than 12 member states. It is a rapid response to the dramatic geopolitical changes which have been taken place in Europe since 1989. The dramatic changes in Eastern and Central Europe, and the instability created by these traumatic events, led to the agreement between the EFTA countries and the European Community being hastened.

This Agreement copperfastens the special relationship that already exists between the EFTA countries and the European Community given their proximity and the importance of economic relations between them. They share the same values as regards democracy and have market economies. About all else, they share the same European identity.

The European Economic Area Agreement will give the EFTA states access to the Single Market and in return they will accept its rules. The Agreement is based on traditional European Community criteria — equality, reciprocity and an overall balance in the contracting party's benefits, rights and obligations.

Four of the seven EFTA states have already applied for membership of the Community and a fifth is likely to do so shortly. The accession negotiations will undoubtedly be facilitated through the work that has already been done in the European economic area on Community legislation. The Agreement removes virtually all the remaining obstacles to trade in goods and, more importantly, will provide for the free movement of persons.

Citizens of the new EEA countries will be free to move and hold employment within the 19-state area. They will also be able to enjoy non-discriminatory and uninterrupted social security protection. This is very important. Nationals of any EEA country will also have the right to set up businesses and pursue activities as self-employed persons anywhere within the 19-state area. Diplomas — and this is important so far as our young people are concerned — will be equally valid throughout the whole area and students will be able to study, train and carry out research in any member state of the EEA.

The Agreement also aims — this is important so far as Ireland is concerned — to contribute to a reduction in economic and social imbalances between the regions; to pursue the objective of economic and social cohesion and to remove disparities between the regions. In accordance with this principle the EFTA countries in joining the EEA have agreed to establish a financial mechanism for a five year period under which financial assistance will be given specifically to Ireland, Portugal, Greece and certain regions of Spain. This assistance will take the form of soft loans totalling 1,500 million ECU and direct grants totalling 500 million ECU. This funding will be available for projects in the field of the environment, including urban development, transport, education and training. I am glad that transport, education and training have been emphasised in the Agreement as they are the main areas where we will require substantial help in the years ahead.

We will require substantial help in the area of transport by reason of our peripheral location and in the area of education and training by reason of our highly intelligent young population who require better training and educational facilities, more teachers and buildings if they are to avail of job prospects in the future. As I have already said, I hope the Structural and Cohesion Funds to be made available under the Maastricht Treaty will be devoted to a great degree to these areas.

The Agreement has a number of positive advantages from our point of view. We have always had excellent relations with the EFTA countries and this Agreement should lead to even closer and more intensive relations with them. We have a similar outlook on a range of international issues. Like Austria and Sweden, we have adopted a positive neutrality. We also share the view that the United Nation's role in relation to peacekeeping should be developed. In this regard I welcome in particular the link between the United Nations and the European Community in regard to Yugoslavia.

The United Nations, in co-operation with the Community, adopted a positive regional approach, using the Community's resources to deal with a regional conflict. That type of approach can be usefully applied by the United Nations in future in dealing with regional conflicts throughout the world. I hope that the joint venture arrangement in Yugoslavia between the United Nations and the European Community, through the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance, will result in a positive conclusion.

The Agreement will result in the opening of markets for Ireland. Our export position will be substantially improved with this further removal of barriers. We had concerns in regard to fish products but the problems in that regard have been resolved, and I congratulate our negotiators for ensuring a satisfactory resolution of the matter. The fund to which I referred will help in eliminating economic and social disparities.

I would like to refer to the general approach to the European Community, a matter referred to by Deputy Barrett. The misinterpretation of Community institutions needs to be addressed. The Commission is the largest and most useful institution in the Community. I disagree with the practice of Commission bashing. It shows a total lack of understanding of the Commission as the guardian of the interests of smaller countries in the Community. It is in the interests of bigger powers to damage the Commission. We tend to accept the propaganda emanating from London in this regard. The Commission is an essential institution which protects the interests of smaller countries such as Ireland. The fact needs to be emphasised loud and clear.

Another spurious idea emanating from London at present relates to the philosophy of subsidiarity. Many people in Ireland regard that as a nice phrase but it is used by the British in an attempt to erode the powers and functions of the Commission, particularly where the Commission becomes involved in the area of competition. We need the kind of base we are talking of here if we are to get across to our people some home truths. There is constant criticism of the Commission in the British media, through print, television and radio and from Westminster and other sources in

London. There is a barrage of advocacy in regard to subsidiarity, that is taking powers from the Commission. These spurious notions are coming across to the people here.

I look forward to more constructive debates under the aegis of the proposed foreign affairs-European affairs committee at which there should be a press presence. People should have the opportunity of listening to constructive debates rather than the social gossip and political nonsense they will have been listening to in recent days. We want less of that and more real debate.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

I now call on Deputy Roger Garland. There are 15 minutes remaining and I understand the Deputy wishes to accommodate Deputy Durkan.

Mr. Garland

I will give him seven minutes if that is acceptable.

We are very lucky in this country that we have a written Constitution. The Minister said that we are debating this motion today because Article 29 of the Constitution provides for it. Reading between the lines, I suspect that we would not have the debate, even at this late stage, if it was not for that Article. This is yet another example of the way the Dáil is used as a rubber stamp. I would remind the House that we are discussing a motion to approve the agreement between EFTA countries and EC countries. That agreement consists of 1,200 pages. There was no debate in this House in the run up to the signature of the Agreement by our country in May of this year. Now we are having a debate of less then three hours to basically rubber stamp this Agreement. I suspect that no one in the House has read every line of this document — I confess I have not done so because it is very indigestible. No effort has been made by the Government to explain the various clauses in it. All the work has been left to the Commission.

Deputy Lenihan made a great play of the Commission and the good work they do for us, but I do not believe that is so. The European Commission is the most bureaucratic, non-democratic organisation in Europe. It pokes its nose into matters in which it should not be involved. It has a socialist vision of uniformity, a greyness we can well do without. There was talk some years ago of having a Euro bee. People in the Commission came up with the brilliant idea that the shape of bees should be standardised throughout Europe, they should be so many milimetres long and so many milimetres wide. Fortunately, that idea was knocked on the head. A programme was then suggested for a standard Euro beer, and the Commission is now considering the shape of cucumbers in order to facilitate packaging. Where is all this going to end? People in this House have not given this matter sufficient thought.

What we are dealing with today is an extension of the European Community, but that is neither necessary nor desirable. With the coming into effect of the Single Market on 1 January, we will see the final dismantling of barriers to freedom of movement of goods between this country and the EC, and, if this agreement is approved, the EFTA countries. This is being sold as a good idea, but I am convinced that it is not so. It will provide for the continuance of the process started when we joined the EC in 1973 of the decimation of our indigenous industry, which resulted in tens of thousands of people in the textile industry, footwear industry and so on becoming unemployed. These people have failed to find work in the export-led industries, in the area of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, computer technology and so on, as is evidenced by the present unemployment figure of 300,000.

One matter for which we can be thankful is that there is freedom of movement of people within the EC. This is becoming increasingly important as we are no longer able to provide employment for our people. We do not have the will and we do not make the slightest effort to provide employment. The whole emphasis is: get the boat and get out of here. That is what the younger people are doing, in so far as they can get jobs in the EC, which are not easy to find. I suppose we should be thankful that people are free to move to other countries; voluntary emigration is a good thing as it enables people to discover more about other countries and to learn their trade or profession better. The Green Party do not want to stand in the way of this kind of movement, it is the involuntary movement to which we object. We also accept reciprocity in social welfare payments. However, there is a great deal of bureaucratic red tape in this area and we should do everything we can to ease the lot of unemployed people.

The whole thrust of this document — the ongoing Europeanisation — is based on the false premise that somehow world trade, and increasing it, is beneficial for a small country like ours but the increasing openness of the economy has been the major cause of unemployment. In the thirties we had a policy of self-sufficiency, introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party, which has now been thrown out. We are a very small player in terms of population and economy. How do we think we can hold our own and compete? It is nonsense. We should revert to producing whatever goods and services we can at a reasonable cost. Of course we will always need some export industries and there are obviously things which cannot be produced here except at an exorbitant cost. Maybe we had a little too much self-sufficiency, perhaps there were areas of inefficiency or high prices but these could — and were — being put right.

It gives me no great pleasure to stand alone in the House in regard to this issue although, quite frequently, I am in this position. I will not support the motion because the balance of advantage lies in rejecting it and any further integration of Europe.

Mr. Durkan

I thank Deputy Garland for allocating some of his time. However, that is about as far as I can go in unison with him because I strongly disagree with his theory in regard to this issue. I have been a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on The Secondary Legislation of the European Communities for almost 11 years and, therefore, I welcome this report. There is validity in what Deputy Garland said, that we should have discussed this issue much earlier. I am not sure we would have got unanimity if every aspect of the agreement had been discussed in the House for a fortnight or three weeks before it was signed; judging by past experience we would not have achieved agreement.

The concept of a European economic area is desirable and I hope it will bring in the European countries which are currently outside the European Community. It was once called the European Economic Community but the economic aspect has disappeared although it appears in this context today. Taking my cue from Deputy Lenihan, anything that brings us nearer to Europe — and Europe nearer to us — within the European Community as it stands, or in a broader Europe, is welcome. The biggest single obstacle to achieving the kind of European integration, which is desirable, is that which emerged in the past 12 or 14 months, the pseudo nationalism — close to jingoism — which, unfortunately, is beginning to emerge in a couple of European countries. There is nothing new in that, it happened before and will probably happen again.

However, in previous generations when this kind of nationalism arose the problem was that there was not an objective or goal, nothing to hold up to people as an alternative. There was nothing to show that there were alternatives to going down an isolated road. We now have alternatives and there is much to be gained from the continuing unification of Europe. That means the countries in EFTA and those in the greater Europe outside the EC are involved. Some people say that we should stay as we are for as long as possible but that course would slow the momentum towards the united Europe which Monnet, Schuman and others sought. Anything which interrupts that process is not in the interests of our country or the rest of Europe. We have been extremely influential in a positive way within Europe and I have no doubt we will continue to exert influence.

I am a little worried about the equality of opportunity available to us as Europeans. The European Economic Area will hardly change that, it will hold up the possible concept of a broader Europe in future. This is an interim arrangement towards that but it will not hugely improve our economic opportunities. I do not want to reiterate what we all said in the past but I should like to remind the House that unemployment is a huge problem for this country. I know that greater Europe also has its problems but I am critical of the fact that an Irish man or woman cannot say that they have equal opportunities in Europe in terms of job access. This problem can and must be tackled by the kind of cohesion referred to by Deputy Lenihan and other Members.

I do not want to dwell too deeply on nationalism, which is a disruptive force. There is nothing wrong with healthy nationalism, every country should be proud of its heritage and remain as individualistic as it can. However, Europe as a whole could and should be the biggest and single most positive influence in the world but it is not. We cannot even resolve the problem within the greater Europe at present. Our hands are tied and our influence is much less than that of the United States which is much further away. That is sad and I hope that we — and European leaders — will learn from the fact that we have not gone far enough along the road of integration to be able to produce the kind of influence necessary at a time of crisis.

There was a reference to Yugoslavia by Deputy Lenihan. As Europeans, we do not seem to recognise or realise what is happening there which affects us in a very real way. As Europeans, we should be able to influence the outcome of the war in Yugoslavia but we cannot because we have not developed along the lines adopted by Adenauer and Monnet long ago. We are failing in our duty in this regard.

I welcome the report and I am sorry we did not have an opportunity of debating it earlier. I hope that, in future, we can rectify that. If not, obviously the same kind of criticism will be levelled at us.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. T. Kitt)

I wish to thank the Deputies who contributed to this discussion which broadened into a wider debate on Europe and the problems and challenges that we share. It augurs well for the type of debate that will take place when we establish an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee and a European affairs committee. I, too, share the views of Deputies who expressed the need for such committees. Reference was made to the Birmingham Summit and the questions of the democratic and information deficits. I wish to make some brief points concerning them.

We should not talk ourselves into a state of depression here. The Irish people overwhelmingly endorsed the Maastricht Treaty to the order of 70 per cent which indicated a clear support for Europe. A survey carried out sometime ago by The European newspaper showed that the Irish were the second best informed people within the Community. I accept that there are many issues we must examine closely. While the Birmingham Summit may not appear to have been very significant, it brought together the leaders of the various countries to examine the many issues which have recently emerged. They included the establishing of closer links between Brussels and the capital cities of the Community. One interesting proposal that emerged was the need for a greater Commission presence in our parliaments. That is one of a number of issues that warrants support.

In today's debate a broader discussion took place which was necessary. The work of the proposed foreign affairs and European affairs committees will be very important and I look forward to the early conclusions of the discussions between the Whips. Obviously, it will take an effort on the part of all parties to bring this matter to a conclusion. I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate.

Question put and agreed to.