I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of developments in the European Communities since January 1988.
Developments in the European Communities: Motion.
The period under review by the Seanad today — from January 1988 to the present — has been a particularly significant and important time in the history of the European Economic Community, and for Ireland as a member of 15 years standing of that Community. We have, in recent years, seen the Community adopting clear and attainable objectives, most notably the achievement of economic and social cohesion and the creation of a large internal market, free of all barriers to trade by 1992. These objectives were given effect in the Single European Act which will provide the scope, impetus and momentum necessary for their achievement.
At the Brussels European Council in February there was agreement on Commission proposals — known as the Delors Plan — which identify, particularise and prioritise the objectives and set tangible goals for implementing the Single European Act in time for the completion of the internal market. These proposals aptly entitled Making a success of the Single European Act include: the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, an obvious priority area for Ireland; the resolution of past budget difficulties by the increase in the level of resources available to the Community; and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In the course of my remarks I will be dealing in detail with some of these issues and with other aspects of the Community's activities especially in the areas of development co-operation and European Political Co-operation.
I would like at the outset to refer to the extremely important visit to Ireland by the President of the Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, on Friday and Saturday of last week. I will be referring in due course to some specific issues arising from President Delors' visit but I would like to state our satisfaction with the visit and to indicate that it heralds the cementing of a closer relationship, indeed, a partnership, between Ireland and the Commission which will be of immense benefit to this country.
During his visit President Delors met with the Taoiseach, the members of the Government most directly concerned with the Community and the representatives of the social partners. This range of contacts underlines the partnership theme of the visit which is emphasised in the joint declaration made by the Taoiseach and President Delors after their meeting.
I will open my detailed description of developments since January with a few remarks on the internal market. The implications of the completion of the internal market have already been the subject of a previous debate and I do not propose to go into any great detail except to say that the Government are making every effort to ensure that the Irish economy is fully prepared to meet the challenge of 1992. This includes the development of appropriate negotiating positions in Brussels and an intensive information campaign mounted by Ministers throughout the country in recent weeks.
There has been considerable progress in the period under review on the programme to complete the internal market by the 31 December 1992. Over 200 of the 300 odd proposals in the internal market White Paper have now been tabled by the Commission and about 100 have been agreed.
During the year so far agreement has been reached on an important Directive on the Mutual Recognition of Higher Educational Diplomas which will permit greater job mobility for the professions. Significant steps have also been taken to further open up the Community-wide market in the area of public works and public supplies. I expect the present impetus to be maintained with a view to meeting the December 1992 deadline for the completion of the single market.
We would reject the accusation sometimes levelled at the Community that the creation of the single market will result in increased protection of the Community vis-à-vis third countries. The Community has said repeatedly that this will not happen and that, in fact, the single market will benefit both Community and non-Community companies alike, although, as with any competitive economic activity, there will be winners and losers.
However, the overall result of 1992 will be the greater liberalisation of a sizeable part of world trade, and we will all benefit from that. As the world's biggest exporter, accounting as it does for 20 per cent of world trade, it is in the Community's interest to maintain the open multilateral trading system and the Community has said that it will fulfil its international obligations. In this regard, there is a link between what happens in the single market context and what happens in the current round of negotiations at GATT which are scheduled to finish in 1990. Any new obligations for the Community arising from that can be incorporated into the single market proposals in plenty of time for the 1992 deadline.
I would now like to inform the House of progress to date in the crucial negotiations regarding the reform of the Structural Funds. The Community's commitment to assisting its less developed regions is not something new. The preamble to the original Treaty mentions this aspiration. What is new, however, is the seriousness and energy with which Community policies to tackle regional disparities are being developed. This process is given full expression in the Single European Act which identifies economic and social cohesion as a key objective of the Community. The Single European Act also lays down how this task of reducing regional disparities is to be achieved. In this regard it lays particular emphasis on reform of the three Structural Funds — the Regional Fund, Social Fund and EAGGF Guidance Fund.
A great deal has already been achieved towards that reform. I am happy to be able to report to this House that the progress to date has been positive and reassuring from the Irish perspective.
The first major step was the adoption by Community Ministers last June of the new framework regulation for the Structural Funds. This establishes the general principles which will govern the operation of the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the Agricultural Guidance Fund. Let me briefly remind the House of the main points of the new regime. First, a doubling of the resources of the funds between now and 1993. Second, a concentration of these increased resources on the less developed regions, including a doubling of the sums available for these regions by 1992. This concentration involves an increase in the rate of Community contributions to a possible maximum of 75 per cent of total cost of projects. Third, a commitment to a special effort for the least developed regions within that group. Ireland falls into that category. As I said, the framework regulation lays down the general guidelines.
Detailed implementing regulations are now under negotiation. These will lay down specific and precise rules for the operation of the funds. In those negotiations Ireland is working to communicate and win acceptance for our concerns. So far we have been successful. For example, it has been agreed that certain infrastructural projects with private sector funding will be eligible for Community assistance. Given domestic budgetary restraints this provision is of crucial importance for us. It means Ireland will be able to maximize the benefits derived from the increased funds.
The reform of the funds is not just about increased budgetary resources for the Community's regions. It is also about making better use of those resources. A key aspect in this regard is the move to a programme approach. The programme approach involves placing the emphasis less on Community assistance for individual projects undertaken in isolation and more on a planned coherent programme of inter-linking and complementary measures.
Ireland supports this rationalisation of the operation of the funds. In that spirit we are drawing up a national development plan which will set out our national priorities for Community assistance. The plan is very important because it will cover a five year period and it will provide the basis for our negotiation with Brussels concerning Community assistance for Ireland over that period. We have already had a very useful exchange of views on our overall approach to the plan with President Delors during his visit here last week and with a high level group of Commission officials led by the Secretary General, Mr. Williamson, a few days previously.
The new arrangements envisaged by the Government will mean that the national plan will be complemented by a major input at local level. To facilitate this local input the Government have divided the country into seven sub-regions.
Each sub-region will have its own programme or package of development measures. Each sub-region will have a crucial role in the formulation of its own programme. The arrangements for this local input involves the establishment of working groups. These have been set up and comprise representatives of Government Departments, appropriate State bodies, management of county councils and county boroughs as well as the European Commission. Each working group will work closely with an advisory group consisting of all the main representative bodies with an interest in development.
To give the House an indication of the timetable we are working to, I should add that the national development plan and associated sub-national programmes are to be finalised by the first quarter of next year. Negotiations with the Commission will then take place and the new regime should be fully operational by the last quarter of next year.
I am absolutely confident that the programme approach — with its emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness in the use of the Structural Funds — combined with the doubling of resources for the less developed regions will have a major, beneficial impact in Ireland and that, as a result, we will be all the better placed to compete and participate effectively in post-1992 Europe.
The agreement on agriculture stabilisers reached at the European Council in Brussels in February represents the culmination of the process of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for all of the major products. Essentially the agreement involved confirming and extending the application of measures to curb the growth of agricultural output which has been leading to enormous surpluses and a huge drain on the Community budget to maintain prices and fund storage. While the process of reform has entailed painful decisions for most member states, including Ireland, it was necessary in order to ensure that the long term viability of the Common Agricultural Policy was secured.
The decisions taken at the Brussels European Council provide a stable and adequately financed basis for the effective future of the CAP and for the Community's activities as a whole. The Government are determined that the CAP should continue to serve its fundamental objectives, in particular the safeguarding of family farm incomes. This Government actively seek to ensure that the CAP and the reformed Structural Funds provide a suitable framework for the further development of the rural economy and of the food industry in this country. President Delors' remarks during his visit indicate that he shares our overall concept.
The importance of the social aspects of progress towards the 1992 objective was formally recognised by the Hanover European Council which stressed that the internal market was to be conceived so as to benefit all of the people of the Community. Specific measures envisaged under what has come to be known as the "social dimension" of the internal market include the promotion of employment through improved access to vocational training, improved occupational safety and health and enhanced dialogue with the social partners.
The Government consider that the social dimension forms an integral part of the move to complete the internal market. A Europe which is not integrated in the social area will fail to create the solidarity and engage the active support that is necessary for future advance. Ensuring through Community solidarity that certain minimum rights and standards are achieved throughout the Community is an objective that Ireland fully supports.
The effort at Community level to develop a constructive social dialogue reflects and reinforces the process of co-operation with the social partners already functioning in Ireland in the relation to the Programme for National Recovery. This process has been carried forward in the national campaign to prepare for 1992. It is by means of such consultation and dialogue that the consensus and co-operation necessary to sustain a uniform approach to the challenge of the single market can be developed.
The Government attach particular priority to addressing the unemployment problem, which is rightly recognised as the major social policy issue confronting the Community. To this end, we will continue to press for the implementation of a co-operation strategy for growth and employment throughout the Community.
The Community — like its member states — is aware of the importance of science and technology to economic wellbeing. Since the Council of Ministers, in late 1987, approved the Second Framework Programme for Science and Technology covering the years 1987 to 1991, many initiatives and programmes have been agreed and are now under way. The total funding for this five year framework programme is equivalent to IR£5,023 million. The annual flow of payments to Ireland is now some IR£10 million per annum but, we have to work continuously to optimise particular decisions to Irish circumstances and, indeed, to better match our circumstances to decisions taken.
Ireland is committed to the complete removal of exchange controls in accordance with our European Community obligations by the end of 1992. We began this process at the beginning of 1988 and in a further step it was announced, during the visit of President Delors, that we now intend to remove all restrictions on the purchase of medium and long-term foreign securities by Irish residents from the end of this year. We will not, therefore, be seeking any further derogations from EC rules in this area. We are able to take this big step forward because of the growth of confidence in the Irish economy as reflected in the substantial inward flow of capital.
There is a growing concern in the member states about the environment and this is gradually being reflected in Community policy. A major recent advance in the area of the environment has been the ratification by the Community member states of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. A phased reduction of the use of such substances is envisaged, which should considerable reduce the damage to the ozone layer caused by certain chemical agents. We are in favour of a directive on anti-pollution regulations for small vehicles, and hope recent obstacles to its adoption will be overcome. We have recently implemented the terms of the directive on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. We are satisfied with the provisions of the directive on large combustion plants to be agreed shortly.
In the area of the Community's development co-operation policies and activities, the most important development in the course of the year was the opening last month of negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries — or ACP as they are known — on a new Lomé Convention and, in preparation for this, the formulation of a common Community negotiating position or mandate. I am pleased to have the opportunity presented by this debate to inform the House about this important issue. The current Lomé Convention — the third — was signed in December 1984 and will expire on 29 February 1990. The Convention is the most important instrument of Community development co-operation. Under it, development assistance totalling 8.5 billion ECU, over £6.5 billion, will have been provided to 66 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries — many of the world's poorest countries — and the ACP granted duty-free access to the Community market for nearly all their products.
The inter-Community discussions on the new Convention commenced in March and were successfully concluded at the October Council. The Community's ideas for the new Convention were presented to the ACP countries at a special Joint Council to open the negotiations in Luxembourg between 11-13 October and joint detailed consideration of the proposals will commence in February 1989 in Brazzaville. Agreement is expected by December 1989.
Ireland has been actively involved in all these discussions to date and will be playing its part in the forthcoming year of negotiations. Should agreement be delayed it may fall to us during our Presidency in the first half of 1990 to conclude negotiations on behalf of the Community.
Before moving on from the subject of Community development co-operation activities, I feel it useful to take this opportunity to report briefly on another important aspect of the Community's activities in the development context in the course of the year. That is the significant contribution the Community has made in cases of food shortages and natural disasters throughout the developing world. I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that, in contrast to the situation which prevailed in the recent past where the Community was — quite justifiably, I believe — condemned for repeated failure to respond promptly and effectively to major food crises, such as that which struck Africa in 1984-85, major improvements have been made in the Community's food aid and emergency assistance programmes. As a result the Community, through the Commission's Emergency Assistance and Food Aid Units, now play a central and effective role in international relief efforts.
In the course of this year, for example, the Community promptly provided substantial quantities of food aid and emergency financial aid to the hungry and displaced people of Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Afghanistan — to name but a few of the areas recently affected. I am sure that the House will agree that these positive developments are most welcome and represent a considerable and necessary advance in Community activity.
The developments which have taken place in the sphere of European Political Co-operation this year should also be mentioned. It is within European Political Co-operation that Ireland tries, along with our partners in the Twelve, in fulfilment of our commitments in the Single European Act, to reach agreement on common positions and actions on a wide variety of foreign policy issues.
East-West relations have been a leading issue in recent months. Expectations have been greatly heightened by the Soviet Union's agreement to withdraw from Afghanistan and the conclusion of the treaty between the superpowers eliminating intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe. They have been further raised by the superpowers undertaking to cut strategic nuclear arsenals by half as well as by developments in the Soviet Union itself. It is obvious why this issue should be of such interest. First, the superpowers hold by far the greatest numbers of nuclear weapons and can, accordingly, make the greatest contribution to their reduction and eventual elimination. Secondly, the Twelve are painfully aware of the existence of the "other lung of Europe", to use the striking metaphor from the Pope's address to the European Parliament. Through our participation in the Conference on Security and Co-operation, which is at present meeting in Vienna, Ireland is actively participating in promoting the most reliable framework within which relations between the countries and peoples of Europe, in association with the US and Canada, can be managed. We hope that the Vienna meeting can conclude shortly with a satisfactory and balanced concluding document. We would wish to see this reflecting the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the 40th Anniversary of which we celebrate next month. In that Declaration it is stated that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
In the Single European Act partners undertook to make their "contribution to the preservation of international peace and security in accordance with the undertaking entered into by them within the framework of the UN Charter". They have, therefore, given their full support to the efforts of the Secretary General to build on the ceasefire reached in June between Iran and Iraq and to find a lasting settlement to the conflict. The use of chemical weapons in that area has aroused the conscience of mankind; it has galvanised the international community into seeking to give a fresh impetus to the long-running negotiations aimed at banning the production of chemical weapons.
New peace-keeping forces in which Ireland is proud to participate have been established this year to monitor this ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and the Geneva Accords on Afghanistan. It is, therefore, highly appropriate that the Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the UN peace-keeping forces in which Irish troops have played such a long and honourable role.
The Twelve have watched with deepening concern the deteriorating situation in the territories occupied by Israel. We hope that the government which will emerge from yesterday's election will feel encouraged to open a dialogue with Palestinian representatives and with Israel's Arab neighbours within the context of an international conference under UN auspices as proposed by the Twelve. The violence — which has continued in recent days — should have made it clear to all that the present situation cannot be sustained.
There have been indications that South Africa might finally heed the call of the UN Security Council in Resolution 435 on withdrawal from Namibia within the context of an agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. It needs, however, to be said that the international community has unreservedly condemned South Africa's occupation of Namibia and that the demand for withdrawal is unqualified. No excuse can be accepted for further procrastination.
The repression within South Africa itself shows few signs of easing. The recent local government elections were not in themselves an earnest of any intention on the part of the South African Government to put an end to the Apartheid system. It remains nonetheless clear that it is urgently necessary that a beginning be made towards dismantling the apparatus of Apartheid and opening a genuine political dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the non-white community. Ireland will, therefore, continue to seek a consensus within EPC for the maintainance of effective pressure on South Africa to take the necessary steps to bring this about.
I have in my remarks covered some of the most significant areas of Community policy and developments in those areas during 1988. I think Senators will agree that 1988 has been a good year involving major achievement for the Community as a whole and for Ireland in particular.
To conclude, I come back to a theme which I explored at the outset. Partnership will be a keynote in Ireland's relations with the Commission which is in the crucial position of being the powerhouse of ideas for the future of the Community. That partnership was given a major boost during President Delors' visit here last week. It will be fruitful in the years to come and greatly to Ireland's benefit.
I welcome every opportunity to speak on the development and improvement in the EC over any period, and this is no exception. However, I was under the misconception that we were dealing with the statutory half-yearly report from 1 January 1988 to June 1988. However, I understand that is not the case since the report is not out.
I wish to compliment the Minister of State on a very full and frank speech which gives quite an impressive account, almost on a blow-by-blow basis, of progress. In this period there is a lot at stake for this country. I hope that our new Commissioner will measure up to the high standards set by his predecessors, from President Hillery, the first Commissioner, to the present distinguished and eminently successful holder of that office, Mr. Sutherland.
This is a very crucial period for the development of this country. Again, I must compliment the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, for the programme they have embarked on over a number of weeks in bringing to notice, through a series of seminars, discussions and meetings, the importance of our preparedness for 1992. This cannot be over-stressed. While I am complimenting my friends in Government, I would not like anyone to think it was my opinion that they were doing all that can or should be done. They have made a good start and I hope they will keep it up. That is important.
It is consoling to note that practically all the economic forces in this country — the captains of industry, the leaders of the farming community and the business fraternity — have to one degree or another, accepted that things will not be the same after 1992. Therefore, it is most important for many reasons that in the meantime we should have created an atmosphere and an economy whereby each of our producers, whether industrial, agricultural, in the public sector or private sector, will be able to compete in the open market, the very enticing market, of 360 million people. What is not emphasised here is that unless we are prepared to compete, we will be flooded with the extra production of huge European companies because the relatively small amounts of merchandise that are sufficient to supply our rather small market can be brought in quickly through the new Channel Tunnel, which is expected to be open by then. I hope we will be ready to meet that challenge and every effort must be made to ensure that we are ready.
The integrated rural development programme is something which, by designation, is perhaps misunderstood. Some people seem to think that that kind of integration deals only with agriculture, the IFA, Macra na Feirme and rural areas. As far back as 1976 the former Commissioner, Lord Thompson of Dundee, who was then in charge of regional policy, recognised that in many instances there was a negative reaction of one fund on another. The regional development grants in some areas were expended before the funds from the Social Fund or some other fund had an opportunity of working, or vice versa, and infrastructures were not provided. Yet there were significant grants expended on industries which did not have the means to compete at a top level because they were hindered by bad telecommunications or crucial infrastructures not being available.
When we talk about an integrated rural development programme across the country, I hold the view, that what we want is co-ordination of all the funds, that they will complement each other, that they will be supportive of one another and that we will have an order of priorities coming from the regions themselves, whether industrial or agricultural.
The Minister can say with some justification that the experience here is that the Department of Finance have organised, drawn up and submitted all the applications for all the funds for the past 15 years, and that is probably the case, but it does not get away from the fact that there is no co-ordination. I am looking at huge signposts in every county which proclaim that the particular work is funded by the Regional Development Fund. The signs are up for several years and still the work has not started. In some areas people think the European Community is a joke. I would like to know whether the Government have drawn the money for these projects that are costing a substantial amount; maybe the cheque was waylaid or the funds were diverted. There is a point here.
As far as the European Community and the credibility of the benefits to our citizens are concerned, we cannot afford to have ambiguity. Unless people hold the Community in some esteem, we will never make progress. I am not saying people should be looking to it always for grant-aid or for hand-outs, but we must believe within ourselves that it is worth while to be part of a community of nations, or a community of people which, if it conforms to the aspirations of the Treaty of Rome, can only be of tremendous benefit to the person in the street.
The completion of the Single European market by 1992, I believe, is a realistic target. Companies should recognise that the internal market process, which began almost three years ago, is now an irreversible process. People read that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, or the Prime Minister of France, is having second thoughts about a central European bank or a federation in Europe, but the fact remains that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed the Single European Act. Saying what the public want to hear is always very popular at an Ard-Fheis or a party conference but it is completely different when you put pen to paper and say you agree with the other 11 Heads of State that we are going towards a European united market.
I do not think people should be complacent because of the headlines they read in the papers. We should look at the facts. Many managements here are only beginning to consider the detailed implications for their businesses when the fiscal or technical barriers to trade, which hinder inter-community trade, are abolished and reduced. This is of tremendous significance in every part of this country. I hope the awareness level here will increase. What is involved for us in the completion of the internal market is not too different from the perception of the populations of the other 11 member states. The time has come for Irish companies, business people, the private sector and farming communities, to make up their minds that they are going to achieve a significant improvement in their strategic planning in the context of 1992 and the years after that.
In his speech the Minister set out the objectives of the Single European Act. He said the proposals involved in making a success of the Single European Act include the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, the resolution of past budget difficulties by the increase in the level of resources available to the Community and the reform of agricultural policy. I do not know whether the European budget difficulties, year in, year out, have any great impact on the public because at the end of the day they receive whatever is going. What is of tremendous importance to this country is that the public should be aware of the consequences if they do not do enough in the next four years.
I should like to make a very special appeal to organisations such as the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Congress of Trade Unions, the farming organisations, the business and professional bodies, to give very considerable thought to their input and get their programmes under way immediately.
I want to talk about the new regions the Minister of State has set up to deal with integrated developments. When they were announced first, the composition of the new bodies did not particularly endear themselves to me. I was a Member of the House when the late Mr. Seán Lemass, then Minister for Industry and Commerce just before a Kildare by-election, introduced the very first development programme. That was a long time ago. All these programmes are introduced either before elections or in the run-up to elections. They raise people's hopes and people vote for whatever package is put before them.
Let us look at the composition of the present boards which are mainly controlled by county managers. There is hardly a county in this country that is not bankrupt at the moment. County managers do an excellent job when they have the necessary finance, but so far I have not seen emanating from any one of them any great headline on how economies can be made. There has been no great change in public administration at local government level for the past 30 years. They have been very slow to make changes, although I suppose one could say they have always been restricted financially.
I have some ideas on an integrated development programme. Let us apply that programme to the midlands. No matter what the criteria of judgment are, the counties I know best have suffered greatly from a lack of investment down the years despite the fact that Ireland's main arterial road system connecting Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo, runs through them. I am talking about Counties Laois, Kildare, Carlow, Westmeath and Kilkenny. The general public use the roads to pass through the midland counties, yet this area's potential for growth has been strangely neglected. Over the years if you crossed over the Shannon into the west you got a grant which was 20 per cent higher than that given elsewhere. Industrialists who want to be nearer the ports stay closer in the Pale and, as a result there is a sort of green desert. In my own county, Laois, it is unfortunate that, after the great efforts which have been made over the past 60 years, we now have fewer people in industrial employment than we had in 1924. I do not know how one handles a statistic like that.
Counties Kildare, Laois, Offaly, Longford and Westmeath are suffering under the present five-year programme. Five ESB power stations have closed down and Bord na Móna, which had been a tremendous source of employment in the midland counties since 1934-1935 are being wound down, because the board say they are approximately £75 million in debt. They have failed to diversify or to even come up with a programme for the utilisation of the cutover bogs. Their 250,000 acres hopefully, will not be turned into a brown desert. Those two semi-State organisations, which employed between 5,000 and 6,000 people in those counties, are in the process of reorganisation and there is nothing proposed to take their place.
I would expect a rural development or an integrated programme to look closely at the infrastructures that are fading, and to come up with a new programme that would deal not just with agriculture but would be designed to maintain job opportunities right across the region. The Minister is proposing ten regions — we have eight regions for tourism. In every organisation our county is in a different region, so one is dealing with different people all the time. We should have a system of greater councils. I am not suggesting we should adopt a similar system to that operated in the United Kingdom, which is a combination of county councils but we should have a definite region. When we talk about the western region, we know exactly the counties involved, and when we talk of the midlands, everybody knows which counties we mean, but in our county we are in a different group in every regional organisation. I do not say it is a great hinderance to development, but why do we not have a body that would be able to co-ordinate the efforts of all these people — many people, working in these organisations are criticised but I believe people do their best.
I accept that every person's input is freely given, but in this new integrated development programme, which is so important and — which was recognised 15 years ago as being wasteful of public funds — the Government have come up with a new set of structures. They ignore the 1,200 or 1,500 local authority public representatives. Out of these 1,500 people they cannot find one local authority representative who can make an input although these people have been serving local government for years and have acquired great expertise in this area. I am not talking about party affiliations, but about people who have freely given of their time, who have acquired expertise in this area, who would have a contribution to make and who are answerable for their actions to the public.
I fear the present combination. I cannot see any one of the 27 county managers standing up and saying he does not like the proposal from the Department because as soon as he does that, that will be the last penny he will get from any source. We have the same problem with our health boards. Half the members of a health board would be employed by the CEO, and very seldom will those professional people stand up and be counted when it comes to their own profession, or when they have to vote against a proposal coming from management. From that point, the Department of Finance will be told exactly what they want to hear. They will get the support they seek. I fear that in this great new opportunity the people will not get value for money and we will not be able to achieve what is so desirable.
The concept of the integrated rural programme is not exactly new. Such programmes have been the subject of discussions and have been in place in various parts of the developed world since the end of the last war when in the early fifties the new wave of politicians decided there was a need for redevelopment. There has not been a great deal of thought about these grandiose development proposals since then, but we have a great opportunity to do something positive now. The characteristics of individual areas, regions and occupations are very important and there should be interaction between them.
A point I should like to underline is that the integrated programme is more of a process than a deadline to be feared or welcomed. We should not think of a date but rather of the opportunities and changes that are going to take place after that. The last time the Minister was in the House he stressed that approximately 300 proposals were listed for enactment by the period up to January 1993. What is more important is that the markets are beginning to adjust to the changes that will take place over those four years. It would be wrong if we were to sit back and wait for this magical day thinking everything was going to happen on that one date.
I welcome very much the decisions that were taken last week. The Taoiseach — and I hope he is on the mend — announced some fiscal changes which got an open welcome. That is an indication of what is to come. Ninety three major decisions have been made by the Council of Ministers, including the introduction of the single administrative document which will facilitate customs clearance and procedures — this was long overdue — the reduction of certain border and fiscal formalities, a new approach to technical harmonisations and standards, improvement in the award of public procurement contracts and the provision of services in respect of non-life insurance.
May I ask the Minister a question on that? In the Single European Act there is a derogation on the question of insurance. Will we need that derogation, or will the Irish citizen be given the benefit of the better value in insurance premiums that our fellow Europeans in other countries seem to enjoy?
On the question of liberalisation of capital movements, I welcome the announcement made last Friday here of a new regime involving the mutual recognition of diplomas and other professional qualifications. I thought we had had agreement on that towards the end of the seventies, that with the directives which set up the Fourth Level Institution in Florence around that time there was agreement, with the Nine anyway, of the mutual recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications and that there was free movement of people in those areas. We have also had the first phase of air transport liberalisation, from which we have benefited and for which we thank Commissioner Sutherland for promoting over the last couple of years, and also the opening up of the telecommunications market.
I understand that 129 proposals are being negotiated within the Community's institutions at present and a further 91 proposals have yet to be approved by the Commission, so that the bulk of the internal market programme remains to be agreed. This means that industry can influence the future shape of pending legislation. It also means that industry has some time to plan and prepare for the changes after 1992.
Again, a factor which is completely underplayed is that we do not seem to see the operation and the opening of the Channel Tunnel between France and the UK as being of any great danger to us. It is my view that a lot of consumer products will flow through that particular road faster than we have ever thought and it will mean that consumer goods can come in here very easily and cheaply; and unless we have some going out on the other track we are certainly going to lose out.
There are quite a number of areas I would like to deal with, but what I hope we can get across in the next number of months is a very positive approach to the unified market and to the opportunities our people will have in operating in a situation where there is free movement of goods and people. It is still a pity that we find ourselves not really doing anything spectacular about preparing ourselves. There has been no great push, for example, on European languages in the schools and I do not perceive any difference this year over any other year.
We have problems of emigration, of job opportunities, of unemployment. If there is an American living on the east coast and if he moves across to the west coast, is he considered at home to be emigrating? Similarly, if we have a complete market here and a young Irish technician, graduate or business person is qualified and able to command a position perhaps in one of the sister European countries, will we still look on that internal migration as emigration? I would like to see a Government policy on that. We should be clear in our minds whether we are going to look on the Community as home. It would be a nice political way out of our present difficulties.
Let us have a close examination of that. If we believe that that is a desirable, natural progression, then why do we not put the funds into ensuring that the people going out there would have the benefit of being fluent in one or more of the mainland European languages? There is no use of waiting for a situation where English is going to take over in the Community, because I cannot see that happening except that it will probably get more common.
What I would say to people in this country is to look at the written word and see what the heads of State have signed, what they are committed legally to do. I do not think we should be overconcerned with the invective that it is popular for politicians of whatever state or whatever party to indulge in at any one time. I do not think we can have ourselves misled in that context.
Again, I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this topic. It is very important. I would hope that before Christmas the Minister might come in with a report on the success of the Government's programme to date, because it should be monitored on an ongoing basis. I would like to emphasise that I am not looking for an opportunity of being critical or advocating what is not possible, but this is the most crucial economic date that this country has faced and I am not satisfied that we are doing enough or that the message is coming across.
I would like to have the opportunity of knowing exactly what these new integrated committees are doing, why it should be such a closed secret that we do not know what our own counties are proposing or what priorities they are taking and why it should be taken completely out of the hands of members of local authorities. I do not think it is appropriate that that should be the situation. People who are engaged in and members of local authorities must have some input and at least they should be au fait with the proposals the county managers will be making on their behalf. That is very important. Perhaps we could have a rethink on that on the part of the Minister before our next opportunity of discussing this topic here.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of State on a very comprehensive report here today. I would like to join with Senator McDonald in paying tribute to the Ministers who toured the country to help to make us aware of what we are going into in 1992. They have done a very good job and have awakened the people to the realities of the situation. That is very important because many people think that 1992 will just be cheaper cars and televisions but we all know it will be far more than that. It will have great advantages for this country and I am fully convinced that we here will be well able to take our place in the European mainstream. We see many of our athletes, both handicapped and physically fit, taking the world stage at present and there is no reason why our industries and workers cannot do the same thing. I have no doubt they will and will be eager and willing to take part in that great big market that exists out there.
The Minister referred to many matters. I would like to talk about Structural Funds. I am very pleased that the Structural Funds are going to continue, particularly the Regional Fund and the Social Fund. They are not only going to be continued but they are going to be improved. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that there is to be a doubling of resources of the funds between now and 1992 and a concentration of these increased resources on the less developed regions, including a doubling of the sums available for these regions by 1992. This concentration involves an increase in the rate of Community contributions to a possible maximum of 75 per cent of total cost of projects. Thirdly, he said there is a commitment to a special effort for the least developed regions within the group and that Ireland falls into this category. I sincerely hope that the disadvantaged areas of this country will be regarded as a priority region because those regions need more to bring them up to EC standards than do the more well off areas of our country.
I realise that EC funds are contributing greatly to our infrastructure, by and large. We are very pleased about that and pleased that more will be done in the future with our arterial roads, etc. But it is a pity that we cannot build into those funds some subvention for county roads. After all, 80 per cent of our people have to travel on county roads to reach our national primary routes. Perhaps the Minister might look into this, so that in some way we could get a subvention for our county roads. We get nothing for our county roads from EC funds. That is a pity because our county roads are an important part of our network. We are told that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That being so, our county roads certainly need attention and I hope something can be done in that regard.
I am very pleased that we have a national five year plan to cater for the needs of our country. I am pleased also that a working party has been set up and that seven sub-regions have been designated. But I am a little critical of the composition of the working party. They are comprised of representatives of Government Departments, of appropriate State bodies, of management of county councils and county boroughs as well as of the European Commission. I am surprised that there are no elected representatives on those bodies. I am very hurt about that and I hope that as a result of our deliberations and debate here today this will change.
Much of the emphasis is on county managers. When a new group water scheme or new bridge is opened, when there is a new road or some other develoment, everybody gets up and praises the county manager. But when those things are not done the county councillors are at fault and the Minister is at fault. However, there is no word about the county councillor or the poor old Minister the day the cameras are there and the praise is flowing lavishly. Our county managers are good officials and I am not critical of them. But we, the councillors, provide the estimates. We have to pass the estimates. They are only spending what we agreed to allow them to spend and particularly the way we allowed them to spend. While county managers have a contribution to make, some members of the county councils should be on that working party.
I feel another group should also be on that working party. They are catering for a very big section of our community. We have nobody from the VECs on that working party. Our vocational schools were the first to bring secondary education to the underprivileged and the disadvantaged of this country when they opened rural schools in our local villages. They gave the sons and daughters of the working people an opportunity to attend a secondary school. Regional colleges and vocational schools in general are dealing with a large section of the youth of our country and I think their representatives should have been invited in some way onto this working party. Even at this late stage we might consult them.
Finally, the most important group of all is not mentioned on this working party. There is nobody from the health boards. The health boards cater not only for the health of the people but also cater for the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped and the socially handicapped — the weakest sections of our community. While no doubt there may be some voice within the working party who will think of all of that, I feel that those who are working with those problems every day should be in some way part of that working group. We may at some stage place them on the advisory group but I would like to see them part of the working group where they could make a positive contribution towards the weaker section of our community and the general section of our community, because they are not catered for. To use an old, hackneyed phrase of mine, the bureaucrats are taking over and there is no word about the poor local county councillors and workers who are out there all of the time dealing with the people. I feel that those groups of people should be part of that working party.
However, I am pleased that such a group has been set up and I am delighted that the sub-regions have been established. It would be an advantage if we could have one region covering everything. My own region is part of several counties, the tourist board is in one region and transport covers another region and transport covers anther region. If everything could be consolidated within one region I think it would work much better. However, it has not been a big handicap.
I wonder how the Social Fund will operate under the new structures. As one who has been deeply involved in the services for the handicapped over the years I know that only for the Structural Funds the present high quality of service for the physically, mentally and socially handicapped people in our society would not be there. We built units to cater for them and to provide a service for them largely from the Social Fund. We still have much work to do in that regard and I would like to think that those funds will continue to be made available to help us to finish the job we have started, particularly in the health board areas.
I am glad to see that small developments and rural industries will be catered for. Fifteen years ago, when I started encouraging rural development and small industries in rural Ireland, it was unheard of, it was not talked about. I am pleased to say that in my own little village we have a network of small industries and that one of those is exporting to the USA. I believe that small industries can be further developed and that they could be the answer to our unemployment problem. If we can provide jobs at home people will work at home and we can get into bigger markets. One thing that damaged Ireland down through the years was not the fact that we could not get work but that we could not get enough markets for what we produced.
Indeed, we see that problem in our agricultural sector today. We are back to quotas. I am delighted to see that the CAP is still being maintained. I believe that if we could get back to the type of farming we did in years gone by, get back to what is now termed organic farming, we would not have the mountains of food we have on the market today, we would have more employment and we would have no need for quotas because we would be producing the real thing in the home environment rather than producing it as we are at present in factory farms which are a great cause of pollution and other problems.
I am delighted to see from this report that we are thinking of the environment because of late our environment has become in some ways polluted. We are coming to grips with that and, again it is local authorities who are playing the leading role in trying to elminate pollution in our counties. When we clean up our counties we clean up our country. That is another reason why local authorities should be involved in this working party.
All in all I am very pleased with the report. I am pleased that we are moving in the right direction. I believe that 1992 will bring great prosperity to Ireland, as will the era leading up to 1992. Already we can see that there is a move on; the economy is brightening up and many people see a future ahead for them. I am very pleased with that because so many preached for so long that there would never be anything in this country but desertion and all the rest. We have a country which is starting to mature now and I believe it will continue. I believe that we will have a very full role to play in 1992 in Europe.
I would like to see the working party expanded to cater for those people I have mentioned because they have a great role to play. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their action is preparing us for 1992.
I would like to take this opportunity of the debate on the six monthly report on developments in the European Communities to comment on our general preparedness for the internal market in 1992. It is my impression that we are not well prepared and that we are running out of time for adequate preparation. I do not share what appears to be a rather sanguine mood and a rather general welcome for what is happening. I do not think we are preparing well; I do not think that there is evidence that we are and that is deeply worrying.
The Government have certainly been urging various sectors and individual industries to prepare for 1992. There has been considerable attention in the media and an advertising programme, but half page advertisements with almost no content are not the right way to prepare for 1992. They can in a very general way create a certain awareness but I would hope that we are well past that stage; if we are not, we have reason for serious worry. We seem to be concerned to talk about 1992 without, in fact, addressing what exactly is involved in the internal market programme. That is very worrying because it is all in the small print. The small print, as the Minister well knows, is very technical. It is all in a very significant legislative programme of technical measures.
As a country, before we joined the European Communities, we were bad at implementing complex technical measures. We have never really been particularly good as an Oireachtas at grappling with technical measures. This is why Companies Bills, Bankruptcy Bills and Insurance Bills fall into delay, go from one parliamentary session to another and do not get political or parliamentary time. What 1992 is all about is the most complex technical programme of legislation that this country has ever faced and I do not think we are alert to it. I do not think we are targeting and facing it properly and this is a matter of considerable concern because the economic forces of the internal market are already at play. It is going to provide a frontier-free market, whether by the deadline of 31 December 1992 as Article 8 (a) of the Single European Act predicts or a little later, but there will be this frontier-free internal market. The dynamics of that will move to where the opportunities are being taken up, be it by business or professional sectors or simply the logistics of decisions being based on economic factors. Unless, therefore, we have shown ourselves as a country to be very well prepared, clued up and taking these advantages as they come along, we are in serious trouble.
The current record does not look too good. For example, and it is only an example, there is a very important directive that became fully operative at Community level on 30 June this year, the Product Liability Directive. We have had lots of time to consider how we might implement the Product Liability Directive. We are bound to do it as of last June but so far it is not even clearly on the legislative programme of the Government for this side of Christmas. It certainly has not been mentioned in any legislative programme that I have seen reported in the newspapers.
It is very important because the Product Liability Directive changed the legal basis of liability of manufacturers and importers into this country and throughout the Community. It is fair to say we are not the only member state that has not implemented it. A number of other member states have not implemented it either. The United Kingdom and Italy have and other member states are processing legislation, but manufacturers are asking questions about the Product Liability Directive and are told that there is not even draft Irish legislation.
If we look at the internal market programme there is a whole range of measures in the area of financial services, for example, a second banking directive, an investment services directive — all either at an advanced stage of discussion at Community level or at an advanced draft stage. They will require implementation here. There is a number of proposals in the area of company law and there appears to be considerable movement on these proposals at this stage, including the proposal for a European company itself. If we are already seeing certain difficulties, particularly at the level of the Oireachtas and at departmental level, in ensuring that we bring forward technically competent and appropriate measures to incorporate complex Community provisions, that problem is going to worsen dramatically as the pace of the European market accelerates. The pace of that market will accelerate over the next few years. At the moment, as I understand it, there are some 285 legislative proposals of the internal market programme 90 of which are already passed and the vast majority of the rest will be published and under discussion by the end of this year. That means they will be going through the pipeline fairly rapidly.
What is the Oireachtas manner of scrutinising European Community legislation? It is, as we know, through the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Indeed, I have missed a sub-committee of the joint committee in order to participate in this debate. The joint committee has had its resources halved; it has half the staff it had two years ago. It is producing fewer reports than it had been producing during stable periods of Government.
Like most of the other committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the joint committee only works well when there are two or three years of any parliamentary term and then its gets into its mid-stream. The joint committee has four sub-committees. Normally it should be producing a regular series of reports to the Oireachtas. It is doing its best with limited resources, but it has not been producing well. Therefore, the joint comittee which was established in 1973 at a much more leisurely time in the legislative programme for the Communities is itself coping less well than it was a couple of years ago. I am very concerned because it seems because the joint committee exists it is an excuse for the Oireachtas by and large to ignore the detail of the internal market programme. All we have are general debates or flash-points of a political sort or heads of Government meetings and statements in the House afterwards but the Oireachtas is not addressing the internal market programme properly.
We need to be concerned about this. We need to look again at the scrutiny function. We need to improve the resources immediately to the joint committee, but we need to do more than that because there are political issues involved in the legislative programme of the internal market. One of those political issues is the manner of incorporation of some of the more important measures. This is an issue which the joint committee has considered from time to time and it is a very important issue. When a directive is passed in Brussels at Community level how is it to be incorporated in Ireland? It seems that at the moment that decision is taken by departmental officials in the Department concerned. They seem to be the ones who decide that it will be either by an Act of the Oireachtas if it appears to be something that requires an Act of the Oireachtas or, a very common form, by statutory instrument under the European Communities Act or — and this is the one that really worries me — by a departmental circular or a non-statutory scheme.
In the area of environmental law, we have had implementation by departmental circulars which are not accessible to people, and this is not an adequate manner of implementing law. It is not a democratic process to have internal departmental circulars as a manner of implementing important issues of law. We need to look at these matters. We need to have answers to a number of important questions about existing measures. For example, what is Ireland doing about the Community patent convention? We have not implemented that convention. Is it the view of the current Government, as it has been of previous Governments and of previous Attorneys General, that we require a constitutional amendment? If we require a constitutional amendment, let us please get on with it. It seems to be very bad for our image in projecting ourselves as the young, technical technological Ireland if we cannot ratify the Community patent convention.
When I talked about incorporation by circular, the joint committee recently examined two important directives in the area of public procurement. One of them had already been passed and the other was about to be passed — I think it has now been passed at European level — the public supply and public works directives opening up public contracts and requiring in certain circumstances that they be open to competition from construction businesses in other countries and so on.
The 1971 basic directives in this area on public procurement were implemented by departmental circular and the joint committee was informed that the intention was that the present directives would also be implemented by departmental circular. The joint committee in its report criticised this because the changed rules in relation to public procurement is legislating; it is a function of the Oireachtas and I do not think that the Oireachtas is vigilant enough at the moment. We are not looking at the small print of a vastly important legislative programme while we have a separate Oireachtas programme for our own internal reasons, and then we think it is all going to happen quite comfortably and without much difficulty.
I am aware that the Government have established a working group to monitor developments leading up to 1992. I doubt if the composition of that working group is addressing some of the issues I have been raising. It is not affecting the manner in which the Oireachtas is perceiving the importance of the legislative programme, taking it on board politically, adjusting to it and ensuring that we are properly incorporating the various provisions. It would be helpful if the Minister in his contribution to this debate would set out what are the detailed proposals for implementing the legislative programme which we will be required to put in place by 1992.
There is another area of a different kind that I would like to mention and I have raised this before. The Single European Act placed in a treaty framework European Political Co-operation which until then had operated outside the framework of the European Communities. The process of European Political Co-operation is necessarily perhaps a somewhat secretive and unaccountable process but it is worrying that notwithstanding the very widespread debate here on the Single European Act there has not been any process of accountability to the Oireachtas for the matters discussed, for the consensus that may emerge from European Political Co-operation. It is important that we devise structures for reporting back and taking on board what happens in European Political Co-operation because there is a concern in the country and that concern can become a great worry particularly if there is no proper system of accountability. That warrants attention.
I was listening carefully to the two contributions which preceded my contribution on this debate and I was very interested that the Minister was receiving criticism from both sides of the House of the new tier of regions, for the new approach to the Regional Development Fund. It is always important for a Minister to be alert to criticism from both sides of the House — from his own side as well — when on-the-ground working politicians are saying: "Why do we have one region for tourism, one region for transport and now a new region for EC purposes?" It is a very important issue because regions work well when they are cohesive. They take their strength from a very clear idea of local identity and reference points. If the boundaries of the region are dictated by the subject matter, whether it is health or transport or tourism or now the new set of regions for EC purposes, a lot of the potential advantage of decentralisation is lost.
The Minister, like myself, is from Ballina. My impression of Ballina has always been that it is the people of Ballina who know best how to develop whatever it may be. They cannot take total power into their hands and they work within structures. That is where the energy, dynamism and real knowledge comes from, at a regional level in the context of the Community's approach to the integrated funding and support in that manner. It is important to have cohesive clear regions with good structures and good accountability within those regions, and the identity within those regions of all the local authorities and sub-groupings in each of them. We will not take full advantage of what is a very welcome development at Community level unless we have a proper response here.
I am going to end with that because I do not want to speak too long on this subject. I felt it necessary to emphasise the importance of creating a competent structure within the Oireachtas to examine the legislative programme of the Communities in the preparation for 1992. I have become very familiar with the details of that programme in my involvement with the Irish Centre for European Law which Members of the House have been circulised earlier. That is a charitable company which is preparing the legal profession and allied professions for the challenge of preparing for 1992. It is spelling out to lawyers, accountants and the corporate sector in the trade union movement what the implications are of particular measures. It is only because we have concentrated on certain measures that the implications of the programme as a whole have really been borne in on us.
In my view the legislative programme for 1992 is of much more significance for its impact on Ireland than was our initial joining of the EC. We absorbed our first adhesion to the EC as a new member state in 1973 much more easily than we are likely to take on board the full thrust of the programme of 1992 and it is extremely important that we realise this and take stock of what the implications are, particularly for the Oireachtas, for the administration and for Government services as a whole. I hope we will see very constructive proposals in this area and I hope that the Minister in his reply will make it clear that the Government are aware of the need for a very significant response of an institutional nature to the challenge of the internal market.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this motion. I propose to deal with the implications for Irish industry on the completion of the Single European Act in 1992. One of the aims of the Single European Act which was strongly endorsed by the Irish people in the referendum is the establishment of a internal market within the European Community for 1992. What this essentially means is the removal of all barriers between member states to the free movement of goods, services and people. I believe that this aim to create an internal market is the most important component of the Single European Act which in hindsight probably did not receive the attention it deserved during the course of the referendum debate.
The internal market will have major implications for the Irish economy and for employment prospects in this country over the coming years. It involves the passing of over 300 separate pieces of legislation, practically all of which will have a direct influence in one way or another on this country. These proposals will include such things as the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties across the Community, the creation of a new European code of company law, the recognition in all other EC countries of degrees and diplomas recorded in one country and the harmonisation of technical standards for products throughout the Community, the abolition of border controls and full and free access in all the 12 member European states. In other words, after 1992 the Irish commercial sector will have to survive and hopefully prosper in a more competitive environment.
I am dealing with this, a Chathaoirligh, because, as Senator Robinson said earlier, I believe we have not fully comprehended the implications of the completion of the internal market and it is worthy of further discussion, given this opportunity today.
The completion of the market is very good news for the Irish consumer. He or she will be able to pick and choose the best and the cheapest products or services available anywhere within the Community. The wide range of goods and services which will be covered is something which, I think, is not fully understood by many Irish people. It will apply to such things as buying a new car, getting a loan from a bank, taking out an insurance policy, or buying a new television set. Not alone will Irish consumers be free to travel to other countries to purchase these goods and services but the manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services in other European countries will be free to come to this country and offer their wares directly to the Irish consumer.
All of this presents a huge challenge to the Irish commercial and industrial sectors. In the first instance, if they are to hold on to their share of the Irish market then our industrial and commercial sectors will have to be able to compete directly with their counterparts from other members states in the Irish marketplace. Secondly, and in my view this is more important, we will have opportunities which have been denied to us up to now because of technical barriers, border controls and bureaucratic controls, amongst other things.
In European terms, Ireland is a small country with a small domestic market, situated on the periphery of the European market of 320 million people. Our economic policy planners have long recognised this fact and have for many years concentrated on developing an industrial sector which is export-orientated. Our industry is much more dependent on export markets than is the case in the average member state. For this reason we should welcome the opportunities which the removal of artificial barriers to trade will give to our exporters but we must ask ourselves if we are fully prepared to exploit these opportunities.
In my view our commercial and industrial sectors have not as yet fully understood what is on the horizon. There have been precious few indications that Irish companies have been preparing themselves for the new conditions under which they will be trading in the nineties and after the turn of the century. The lack of activity in this country can be contrasted sharply with events in other countries. In France, for instance, planning for the advent of the internal market is at the forefront in commerce and industry. Companies there and in many other European countries are taking strategic planning decisions to position themselves properly for these new trading conditions. Small companies are being amalgamated and are entering into co-operation agreements with each other in order to be ready for the onslaught of competition which they are expecting from the big multinationals.
They are streamlining their production divisions, developing internationally-orientated marketing strategies and joint reseach programmes to prepare new products. It is time we began to do the same. Our marketing people, for example, will have to be able to move freely and efficiently throughout a community of 320 million people which uses nine major working languages. To do this properly and successfully they will have to develop linguistic skills. Indeed, anybody thinking of a career in marketing in the future would be well advised to give priority to developing a working knowledge of as many European languages as possible. Production departments in our industries are going to have to streamline and modernise their operations. I very much doubt if there will be any future for companies which have rigid demarcation lines and restrictive work practices in a fiercely competitive environment which will be the internal market. Workers will have to be prepared to adopt flexible work practices if their companies and their jobs are to survive.
These are some of the challenges confronting us in the future. If we are to meet these challenges successfully and, indeed, to prosper under these new conditions, then it largely depends on the efforts of managements and workers in the industrial and commercial sectors. Our politicians have thrown down a challenge to the leaders of the private sector effectively saying: "Prove to us that you can do what you have been long saying; that you can be the powerhouse of the economy; that you can generate employment which we so badly need in this country". I very much hope that the private sector can respond to this challenge.
As I have already said, now is the time to prepare. It will be too late in ten years' time. In the overall context of ensuring that this country has a successful economic role within an internal European market, our national and European politicians have essentially a secondary role to play. It is their function to ensure that the legislative framework is a fair and just system from a purely Irish point of view and that the conditions under which the internal market is established as well as the structural adjustments which are made are pitched as far as possible in favour of the Irish industrial and commercial sectors.
A I mentioned earlier, Ireland is a peripheral region and in common with most other peripheral regions we have an underdeveloped economy which is too heavily dependent on agriculture, which requires considerable investment to bring our infrastructural and industrial facilities up to the level of the European average and which is also relatively remote from central European markets. Some measures agreed in the European institutions and others under discussion are intended to help economies like ours to overcome these disadvantages. The decision to double the size of the Structural Funds is a good example of this type of measure. This will ensure that there are considerably more funds available from Brussels to improve our basic infrastructural systems such as our roads, our communication systems, as well as making a lot more money available for industrial and technical training.
Another positive example of political decisions made in Brussels concerns the transport sector. Because of our remoteness from major population centres, reduced transport costs are vital for this country. The recent agreement to liberalise air transport has caused substantial reductions in the cost of getting to and from Europe. This has very obvious benefits for our tourism industry but it is also very important for small and medium-size industries trying to establish contacts and trying to generate exports to Europe on very limited budgets. Practically all our industry is in the small and medium size sector, which means companies with fewer than 500 employees. It is this type of company which is most handicapped by border controls, bureaucratic, administrative and technical obstacles which the internal market is intended to eliminate.
The European Community is at present putting together a whole range of legislative and practical proposals designed to assist these companies to take full advantage of the new trading conditions. This is being done because it is generally recognised that the big multinational companies have the resources available to take full advantage of a single unified market, whereas the smaller companies often do not. The type of measures being discussed at present includes such things as encouraging co-operation among these companies in the areas of marketing and research into new products, the establishment of European data bases on research and market opportunities, the development of new company legal structures, and the development of opportunities to raise venture capital as well as a wide range of other measures. Irish companies will have to acquaint themselves fully with these proposals and will have to involve themselves fully in these programmes as they have been established. Otherwise, they will be left behind. This is particularly so in three areas, research, market access and investment.
One of the major problems which Irish industry will have to overcome is in attracting investment into the country. Foreign investors, naturally enough, will ask why they should invest in this country, located on the periphery of the Community, relatively remote from the main population centres. We will only be able to overcome this natural disadvantage if we can show that our industry is at the forefront of research into new products, is as innovative in its approach to new products as anywhere else in the Community, that we are as fully aware of market opportunities as the new information technologies will allow and that our workforce is as highly motivated and adaptable as anywhere else in the Community.
I believe that we should be clear in our minds about one thing and that is that we are very welcome members of the Community. We joined primarily because we needed the Community, not because they needed us. Europe has been very good to us, particularly as far as our agricultural industry is concerned. We have received substantial assistance to modernise and develop our economy and we can look forward to increased assistance in the coming years. As far as the internal market is concerned, we will be given the same opportunities as anybody else. We are being invited into a market of 320 million of the most affluent consumers in the world. In return, we must give European industry and commerce the same access to our market. Our response to this challenge and more particularly the response of our private sector, both the management and workforce will, I believe, largely determine the pace of our economic development and the employment prospects of our citizens over the coming decades.
If anybody is sufficiently interested in future years — perhaps a student in UCC doing a minor dissertation on Independent Senators in the 1970s and 1980s — and is disposed to look up my name under the index in the bound debates of Seanad Éireann, he or she will find relatively little on what I had to say in debates on these periodic reports that have been coming before us now for a long time. In fact, I must admit that the general tenor of my contributions was negative in that I was never enthusiastic about membership of the Community and I must confess to a fault there. I was what I would describe as "a little Irelander". In recent weeks I felt a great affinity for the kind of things that Mrs. Thatcher was saying in Bruges and indeed I felt that it is one of the paradoxes of the Anglo-Irish relationship that it needs a Tory and, one might almost say, an anti-Irish British Prime Minister to remind us of our nationalist commitments and of the danger of becoming super-Europeans and being over-optimistic about what can be achieved.
But, I have changed. I accept the Community is inevitable, there can be no going back now and to that extent I am a belated participant in these debates. I would like to think I occupy a middle ground now or I am moving towards it, between the purely negative anti-Europeans and those who are too starry-eyed in their optimism, in my view, and who are, perhaps, far too deferential in their attitudes towards what I call without any apology our paymasters and our superior partners in the Community. I would like to move towards a middle ground there, to explore the possibilities arising out of the last year and at the same time to warn against tendencies which, as an Irish person, I would find difficult to accept.
I would like to move on, when I resume the debate, to the wider ground. Other people have dealt very competently with the commercial implications. Senator Robinson has given us proper warning about our lack of legal commercial preparations. I would like to speculate about where we go from here in the larger philosophy of the Community, and this is my final part, because even though the Senator is right in saying that it is only now we begin to realise how unprepared we are compared with the rather facile decision in 1973 to become a member, at the same time it is also true that it is only now that we begin to discern the possible scenarios opening up in Europe and the possible shape of the future Community which we were not able to see until now. The events of the past year helped us very much to make an effective contribution to that kind of debate.
Debate adjourned.