Before the adjournment I had been dealing with the faltering in the development of the European Economic Community, the concern that this caused in the member states and the indications that at Heads of State and Heads of Government level a decision was taken that something had to be done about it. I related that faltering to a deliberate putting aside of the philosophy upon which the whole European Economic Community had been established, a philosophy which was very much to the fore when the attempt was being made to enlarge the original Community and to strengthen the European ideal generally.
I indicated that when the Community simply decided to concern itself with bread, wine, butter, beef, soya beans and so on the cement which the original philosophy provided was melted down and the Community was less of a unit than it had been at the beginning when it was guided by the philosophy of men like M. Monnet and the founding fathers who, in the real world, had, as we know, the impelling force of what had happened to Europe in the 1939-45 war.
I also spoke briefly on the question of security. I did express shock at some of what Deputy McCartin said with regard to military involvement. If I read him and Deputy Kelly correctly, they were both advocating military alliances, saying we should join military alliances for the defence of Europe. That is a legitimate view to hold, no question about it, but I would like to know if that is the Government point of view, if it is the individual Fine Gael Member's point of view in Government, if it is the Labour point of view, or are we to take it that the motion put down in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs is the real thinking of the Government? There are some who think the Minister is simply covering his backside against attacks from the Opposition or from the Labour Party within the Government as of now. What I am saying is that those views are held — blatant militaristic views like those of Deputy McCartin or the less blatant views of Deputy Kelly — and they are legitimate points of view — but I take it they are not the views of the majority of this House. They are certainly not the views of the Fianna Fáil Party. My own belief is that if such a point of view were put by way of plebiscite to the people, it would be totally rejected.
The qualified majority voting is something we are worried about. Admittedly, the power of veto is a strong and very effective one. Admittedly, it can be used to hold up developments and to neutralise any action that is attempted to cause stagnation at decision-making level. An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláir dó bheith glic. We do not have strong voting powers in the Parliament or in the Council of Ministers where the decisions are actually taken. As the veto applies to the activities of the Council of Ministers we should be very careful about using it. We should also be very careful and cautious about shedding this power, in particular in regard to a whole range of economic interests in this country.
Deputy Haughey, Leader of Fianna Fáil, while speaking yesterday made an intensely practical proposal, namely, that there should be a balance sheet of advantages and disadvantages of membership of the EC. Let us be blunt about it. The advantage has been great. Funds have been transferred to Ireland from the EC. The statistics are given in the explanatory guide to the Single European Act. We should realise that and appreciate that it has had an impact on our social fabric and, although not as big an impact as we had hoped, on our regional development. It has also had an impact on our industrial and economic development. We did not lose out. This is where the idea of a balance sheet was an eminently reasonable one. Labour intensive industries have fallen by the wayside since we joined the EC.
When the debate about our joining the EC was in progress in the early seventies people involved in those industries at the time expressed fears. On one occasion I attended a party hosted by a shoe manufacturer. He stated that the only way he could survive was if we in Ireland decided to purchase what was made in the country and to exercise discrimination in that regard. I could not help but notice at that party only Scotch whiskey was served. There was a total lack of logic in his approach. He could not see that he was breaking the counsel of perfection which he was advocating with regard to his own business. That industry has since died, as have many other footwear and textile industries, as a direct consequence of our joining the EC. The balance sheet is important. It would be a matter of political judgment as to when the strength of the veto should be called upon to protect our national interests.
That is linked to the desire to have the internal market completed by 1992. In the explanatory guide articles 13 to 19 of the internal market are explained. It stated:
the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the EEC Treaty.
The Community want to move that law. In theory, we should be 100 per cent in favour of that if we have subscribed to the Treaty. Taking this desire for a quick movement in the establishment of the completely free internal market with the idea that more power will be delegated to the Commission, we could run into serious problems with regard to the development of the internal market. The explanatory guide also states:
the Commission has the power to take rapid decisions to adjust refund payments for the export of agricultural products to countries outside the Community so as to take immediate account of any decline in world market prices.
That is true. It gives the positive side. It also has the power to reduce prices. The converse is not adverted to in this booklet.
I mentioned yesterday that the social policy has deserved well of Europe and has benefited this country. We are told we have an advantage in the fact that a market comprising 320 million people will be available to us a result of the internal market being achieved by 1992. It will require very careful thinking on the part of the Community in regard to the social and regional policies in order to avoid the serious traumata that this will mean for this country. Throughout the seventies we gained from the Common Agricultural Policy, the social policy and the regional policy although this has always been disappointing. It may well be the fund of the future as far as this country is concerned. Very careful thinking with regard to those structural policies will be necessary. Effective thinking and thinking that will result in a proper and tightly organised policy for what are called peripheral regions — I do not like using the word "peripheral"— will be necessary.
There are five million people on this island and 320 million people in the European market. We had our doubts whether people whose one objective would be to maximise profits would choose Belfast, Dublin, Galway or Cork for major industrial expansion. That was a legitimate objective in their philosophy. The Government's guide mentions that with 320 million people in the Community we are bound to be in a position to attract foreign investment. That is true and it has happened. We know from statistics of the number of people employed by foreign companies that located here but it is also true that we have a 12 member Community and that Portugal and Spain are very attractive propositions for the establishment of industries and the location of investment from outside the Community. We should not forget that they have land frontiers with the mass market in Europe. It is important to remember that as a counterbalance against the euphoria of thinking of a market for 320 million people. We should take cognisance of that and be proud of the challenge but we must not forget that we are not the only people in the market for investment or trying to sell into the big market.
In modern industrial development the large corporation has a great advantage. It has the funds to advertise, something that means so much nowadays. We will have direct broadcasting by satellite soon and those large industrial projects will have unlimited money to spend on pressurising people to buy their products. That being so we will have to be extra careful about qualified majority voting and so on. We have achieved world markets with some products and established them in those markets. We are proud of such products like Waterford Glass. Baileys and linen from my own province although the latter product is not being produced to the same extent. However, it has a world reputation. We should not deny that the opportunities exist or deny that the country can achieve success if we specialise and are right up with production and marketing techniques.
I am tired of Ireland being cast in the role of a mendicant people, of bowing and saying, "Baksheesh, Baksheesh," to the European Community. For that reason we should gear our young people in our third level institutions to feel that they are well equipped to take part in the fight for development of that new market with the caveat all the time that we should not jettison the protections we have with regard to our national interest and its protection by a veto. When in Government I visited Athens and I came across a pamphlet from the EC which I felt was flattering as far as Ireland was concerned. It was written for the guidance of Greece which was not a member of the EC and indicated that Greece should model its expenditure of the Social Fund on the Irish model, that the Irish model was something Greece could look at and use to good advantage. Perhaps that was because of the social conditions of the two countries. The pamphlet stated that we utilised the Social Fund with considerable wisdom. I know some people have expressed doubts about certain expenditures on the training of young people. I am prepared to concede that there may have been mistakes in that area but in some instances people who did not do all that well at school got excellent training from AnCO that equipped them to take up jobs in factories. Some of those people got well paid jobs, even in my constituency. They would not have been considered at all in the first instance had they not got this training in welding or some other skill from AnCO, an organisation which is mainly funded from the Social Fund.
I welcome the provisions about the health and safety of workers. Last night I mentioned research and technological development and indicated that this was an area where we should try to support the policy as a European policy and get as much advantage out of it as we can. The indications are that in that area in our formal centres of learning, and in the informal training centres, we had made very rapid progress. I mentioned yesterday how proud we should be of the fact that on a number of occasions our Aer Lingus Young Scientist of the Year took first place in competitions covering the EC and, in other instances, took first place in competitions involving young people in the US. We have good material and for that reason we should take a deep interest in this development. Admittedly for the wrong motives the pressure is coming on this area now. The Japanese and the US, in that order, are putting the pressure on. We know all the names such as Mitsubishi or Toyota from advertisements. Advertising campaigns indicate that that pressure is on very heavily. No matter what the motivation is it is a worthwhile policy development and we should be in there pitching to get the maximum advantage from it.
With regard to the question on security I have mentioned the near shock I got in listening to Deputy McCartin last night. Deputy Kelly's views were known to me and, as always were very colourfully presented but the thrust in both cases seemed to be that they would feel less ashamed if we had decided to join a military alliance in Europe. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the other hand, has tabled a motion that seems to indicate that he is protecting himself against somebody, whether it is somebody in Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party I do not know. The Fianna Fáil declaration refers to Protocol 30 and covers our programme of industrialisation, economic development and the evening out of regional differences. It also covers the whole area of neutrality, and states:
Ireland states that the provisions of Title III do not affect Ireland's long established policy of military neutrality and that co-ordination of positions on the political and economic aspects of security does not include the military aspects of security or procurement for such purposes and does not affect Ireland's capacity to act or refrain from acting in any way which might affect Ireland's international status of military neutrality ...
When one examines that alongside the motion tabled by an tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha one will see that there is very little difference. The only difference is that we are pushing for this declaration to be included in the Act. If it is desirable that the Dáil pass it as a motion I cannot see opposition to it being included as a formal declaration in the Act. I do not think it will rock any boats or cause any upsets in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will not lose any face if he accepts what we are urging.
I will have a quick look at a report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Community, a document well worth studying. Deputy G. Collins and his committee did creditable work and so did Deputy Manning who was chairman of the sub-committee which studied the matter in depth. I commend them for their work.
The committee complained that their work is simply done and shelved and that there should be an obligation on the Oireachtas to debate their work, particularly important matters like this. Indeed we have a legitimate complaint about the Taoiseach and the Government and their lack of provision for debates on the Single European Act. We would have cut the ground from under them if we had been given an opportunity to debate the report I am now referring to. Before Deputy FitzGerald became Taoiseach, before he was elected to the House, he was a noted European, supposedly, but important reports like this are never brought before the House for discussion.
The committee considered that the Single European Act is an unorthodox sort of instrument. It weds two things, the EPC being one. The committee say that the EPC does not come within the framework of the Treaty and like other provisions it is not included in the Bill to amend the 1972 European Communities Act. There seems to be a strange marriage here, whether of legislative convenience or whether one is expected to carry the other. I suppose it is true of any legislation, even domestic legislation, but the committee expressed criticism about possible difficulties in interpreting the Act. I am sure they expressed that fear because in the Act there is more scope for difficulties of interpretation than in most others. The analysis by Deputy Haughey yesterday indicates that there is scope for difficulties of interpretation already apparent in the Act.
The internal market was dealt with by the committee and they give a rather shocking figure from the Albert and Ball Report called "European Economic Recovery in the Eighties", which is cited, to the effect that technical, fiscal and bureaucratic barriers to trade are estimated to cost European business £8 million per annum, or 2 per cent of GNP. Though we consider that the transfers we are talking about in Ireland, which are substantial and welcome, though not to be clothed totally in euphoria, are less than £1 billion, they constitute a very substantial sum that could be saved, and it is something we would desire and support. The only problem I can see about it is the cost to European business. If that money were saved, where would it be deployed? I repeat what I said earlier about the structural funds. That area should be supported from any savings through completion of the internal market.
On page 50 of the report, Jacques Delors, President of the Commission, called for a co-operative growth strategy which, by adding 1 percentage point to the Community growth rate could reduce unemployment by 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the next five years. I cannot tell the House how sweet that music sounds to my ears. Whether anything will be done about it is a different matter, but the Government should listen to that type of suggestion.
On a number of occasions here I cited an Economic and Social Research Institute document prepared some time ago called "Employment and Unemployment in Ireland". It was never debated in this House. It analysed unemployment and the labour market; it indicated what the labour market would be because of increases in the population and more women coming into the work force in a period of years; it analysed what the employment requirements would be and it had scenarios indicating what would happen with minimal or non-existent emigration, moderate emigration and severe emigration, which is what we have at present.
Ireland is the best country in the world for analyses but the important thing is to do something about what we discover from them. That is where we fall down. The Government never even considered what should be done with regard to developing unemployment and emigration. The study I have just referred to — it is a bit out of date now — could be brought up to date. It contains suggestions about what to do to tackle the unemployment problem.
Jacques Delors had the right idea. He expressed a development philosophy. The important thing is to do something about it. Yesterday Deputy Haughey indicated that there are 16 million people unemployed in the Community. That is no recipe for smugness or lying back and doing nothing. There is nothing that would breathe life into the whole idea of a vibrant and living community more than a comprehensive effective policy to deal with unemployment in the future. We have heard what would happen if West Germany allowed reflation, and if France and the other stronger countries would do something along the same lines. There we are talking about individual countries while Jacques Delors was talking about community action. It could be done. If it were seen to be a road down which progress could be made the member states would not be as reluctant as they have been in the past to provide the funds for that kind of development.
I have already made the point about competition. Our weakness will be that large industries, large economies will be in a better position than we are for dealing with that. The joint committee make a comment about temporary derogations. We do not want to be doing the baksheesh bit all the time, but the possibility for temporary derogations should be there.
I have already dealt briefly with economic and social cohesion in the Community in the context of Jacques Delor's statement. We only just got the contribution up to 1.4 per cent of VAT returns. There was a battle about that because some states felt it was nearly all being absorbed by the CAP. There must be a blueprint for improving employment within the Community. We are in a very bad state in this respect, as are Spain and the UK. A policy thrust should be initiated and kept up until something effective is done about it.
I commented last night on the provisions about the European Parliament, which is being brought more into the picture. There will always be a difficulty about the Parliament due to the difficulty of cohesion. It is difficult ever to see it in a legislative role, but we do not want it to be purely a talking shop. It has done some very good work already and is a wonderful concept, but it will be a good few centuries down the road until we see the European Parliament being a legislative essembly in the sense of the Dáil or the House of Commons, or the US Congress.
The Common Agricultural Policy has been at the top of the pile as far as our interests are concerned. Some of us feel aggrieved about what actually happened, about where the large profits went, whether it was to East Anglia, or north west of Paris in the cereals area, or to the dairy industry, sustained by imports of feed from the Far East and elsewhere. There has been a distortion of what we thought would be achieved by CAP. We cannot blame people who are working within the rules. I am not sure about the importation of feed. We have all expressed doubts about the continuation of facilities to other countries for the importation of products to the EC.
Nothing is simplistic. We know there are political and strategic considerations that must be taken into account in this area but we should bluntly and stubbornly hold on to CAP in so far as that can be done. We should see to it that we salvage as much of the original idea as possible. Perhaps we may have to take a different line in production and ban all kinds of artificial stimulants to growth and specialise in having organically produced products. There is a growing market for that kind of thing but it will take a lot of study. We have now developed agricultural expertise through Macra na Feirme, ACOT, An Foras Talúntais and the media to a far higher degree than when we joined in 1973. The soil is fertile for some close thinking regarding where we are going. If we specialise and have available products for the Fortnum and Mason type of shop, they will be purchased. Only a few years ago French housewives went on strike because the veal in the shops was contaminated with growth promoters and antibiotics. That practice was stopped very quickly because the meat was left in the shops.
The joint committee believe that the commitment in the Act to strengthen the structural policies of the Community must allow for appropriate compensatory measures for the farming community in the most disadvantaged areas where agriculture plays a major role in the local economy. The original concept we were debating and discussing in 1973 involved a concentration on the highly developed and industrialised central quadrangle. The selfsame thing is true of the agriculture industry and I welcome that recommendation of the committee.
The joint committee also caution that there are strong indications that CAP is running out of political goodwill. Shallow but influential commentators in this country — sometimes their influence is enhanced, the more shallow they are — are following that simplistic line with regard to this CAP. It is something to which we must address ourselves. The committee say that an inflexible approach to other aspects of the Single European Act, such as the completion of the internal market, might not serve our best interests in negotiations relating to CAP. This is where I come back to the suggestion made yesterday by Deputy Haughey about the balance sheet. We have loud complaints coming from certain heavily industrialised countries about the CAP's absorption of funds but there is no mention at all of the balancing advantages which those countries have. West Germany is always mentioned as the member state paying the piper. An analysis of the benefits to West German industry would indicate that they did exceptionally well — I am only taking that country as an example — out of membership of the EC. There has been a concerted and very subtly-conducted campaign against the Common Agricultural Policy in Britain from the word go. There is the kind of illogical situation in which the Minister of Agriculture in Britain is fighting on the Council of Ministers against the best interests of farmers.
I might say a quick word on the monetary capacity of the Community. Again the Prime Minister in Britain is indicating that, had she the power, she would rid herself of the Common Agricultural Policy in the morning. She said yesterday she was a highly "communitaire" person, so is her Government and so is Britain. Nevertheless, when the European Monetary System was established, she remained out. That has had an impact not merely on the general European Monetary System but as we know has had a special impact on this country. We had an unfortunate devaluation in the autumn of this year which compounded our problems in that regard. I would not mind but quite conservative-minded economists in Britain have been urging that Britain should join the EMS. There is no question but that if Britain did there would be some evidence that that Government was communitaire-minded. The fact of the matter is that it is generally believed that it is the Prime Minister in Britain herself, personally, who objects to joining the EMS. Writers in The Economist now for a number of years have been advocating that Britain should join the EMS, that that would help not merely the British economy but also those of the other EC countries and help to bring order to the Community's finances which, as we all know, constitute a serious problem.
The joint committee also dealt with science and technology — I have already referred to that — and said how important it is that there would be a mandatory requirement on the Council to adopt a science and technology strategy for the Community.
I will leave the lawyers to deal with the question of the courts. As somebody who has no qualifications in that area it seems to me to be a good idea that there is now a court from which there is the possibility of an appeal to the European Court as it obtains at present. In the course of their report the joint committee dealt with the Treaty on European Co-operation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy. The joint committee said they should have preferred to see Title III as a separate Treaty fully severable from Titles I and II of the Single European Act. They said at the very beginning of their comments on the Single European Act that it was a strange kind of wedding together of two different things. They said they would have preferred to see Title III as a separate Treaty fully severable from Titles I and II of the Single European Act and that this would allow for a separate debate on the whole issue of European political co-operation.
We are having, if you like, within this debate a separate debate on European political co-operation. I have already referred to that. With regard to it and the security aspects mentioned, the House should accept our declaration. It is, in substance, what the Minister for Foreign Affairs himself has put down by way of a motion but unconnected with this. Everybody who has had any contact at all with Europe knows that there has been a certain urging of us towards security areas, towards alliances, towards military commitment, a subtle not brash, urging in that general direction. I do not believe that is the policy of the majority of this House. Neither do I believe it is the thinking of the majority of our people. There are Members of this House, such as Deputies Kelly and McCartin who hold different views. They are entitled to hold those views. We are also entitled to know how far those views are held by the Government. If our declaration was formally annexed to the Single European Act then we would have a more up-front view on the matter.
The joint committee said that to avoid any possible ambiguity or misunderstanding of Ireland's position and to prevent any possible erosion of it, they called on the Government to append a formal reiteration of our position of military neutrality to the act of ratification. Nothing could be stronger than that recommendation. It is very important.
The Leader of our party did mention the Articles of our Constitution — I think Articles 30 to 34. The joint committee addressed themselves also to those Articles. They said:
The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 (dealing with the elimination of quantitative restrictions between member States) shall not preclude prohibition or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy or public security ...
I do know that Members of the House had communications with regard to that. The joint committee, in their wisdom, think it is adequately covered.
I hope there will be a resurgence of the spirit and philosophy on which the European Economic Community is based. When the late Deputy Seán Lemass first mooted the proposition of joining the Community when, as the House will remember General de Gaulle knocked it on the head through knocking the British application, those of us who at that time established associations like the European Association of Teachers and so on, and worked on the European idea and ideal feel now somewhat fooled by what happened. We feel that this was used at the time to prepare people's minds for the Community and that, as soon as the Community became a fait accompli, the decision was taken to move away from it into the bread, the butter, the beef, the wine, the olive oil area and forget the philosophy on which it was based. If there were a renewal of that ideal, and there could be, it would do great good. We should advocate European studies as a compulsory subject, if necessary, though I am reluctant to use the word “compulsory”, in our secondary schools. The whole thing will wither if it is based purely on the réal politique of economic development; it will wither and die.
I am pleased that the Parliament has been brought more into the situation than heretofore. The House should give due consideration to the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Vincent Brady about having this included as a formal declaration. There are many other declarations from various countries. The Government have one down about insurance, so it would not in any way be damaging to the commitment we have to Europe, to our economic well being or to the political development of the EC.