Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1988

Vol. 385 No. 3

European Council in Rhodes: Statement by Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

A Cheann Comhairle, I attended the European Council in Rhodes on 2 and 3 December with Deputy Brian Lenihan, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, was also in attendance.

Against the background of the Community's renewed momentum towards the single market, the main items discussed at the meeting were: (1) progress towards the internal market; (2) the role of the Community in the world and certain political co-operation items; (3) the environment; and (4) audio visual policies. I have had copies of the presidency conclusions laid before the House.

Following the decisive breakthrough at our meeting in Brussels last February on the major packet of reforms contained in the Delors Plan, our meeting in Rhodes devoted some time to examining the prospects for the further development of the Community and its place in the world. In this context, we noted with satisfaction that the progress made in implementing the Single European Act was already beginning to create a new dynamism in the Community's economy — economic growth in the Community this year is likely to be the strongest since the end of the seventies with the growth in investment the highest for over two decades while inflation should be down to the levels obtaining in the sixties. However, while unemployment has started to decline, it is still at an unacceptably high level.

At the Rhodes Council we had before us the mid-term report from the Commission on the progress achieved in the implementation of the internal market programme. This report indicates that, of the 279 proposals required to be submitted from the Commission about 90 per cent will be tabled by the end of 1988. The shape of Europe as it will be after 31 December 1992 will soon be clearly apparent. At present the Council has adopted one-third of these measures; if one adds "common positions" the proportion rises to almost 40 per cent. The Commission hopes that by the end of the year this figure will have reached 50 per cent.

In some areas progress has been good — particularly in relation to the removal of technical barriers to trade in goods and services and in the liberalisation of capital movements.

In services, and in financial services in particular, important advances have been made. The Council has adopted the far-reaching second non-life insurance directive. All measures needed to create a European-wide banking market have now been tabled including the crucially important second banking co-ordination directive; and all measures required for the complete liberalisation of capital movements have been adopted. The directive liberalising long-term capital movements is already in force.

Work on public procurement, which accounts for such a significant proportion of economic activity in the Community, is now also making progress, and the directive providing for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications has every prospect of being adopted by the end of the year.

The Community regulations governing the Structural Funds, which will double in real terms for the less prosperous regions by 1992, are now expected to be fully in place before the end of the year.

Work on our national development plan that will provide the strategic framework to enable Ireland to benefit from these funds in a fully co-ordinated manner is now well advanced. The plan will be completed early in 1989 so that we can take the maximum advantage of the new arrangements. The plan will essentially consist of national and sub-national expenditure programmes that will serve as Ireland's application for European Structural Fund assistance for the years from 1989 to 1993.

A special effort will be made to outline for the private sector how private participation will be possible either through public-private partnerships or through strictly commercial private investment which will attract European Community matching funds. The kind of projects envisaged include toll roads and bridges, marinas, caravan parks, tourist and leisure facilities, heritage and cultural centres, science parks and forestry projects.

Work is also well advanced in each of the seven sub-national or regional areas throughout the country on identifying strategies and projects for those areas to be incorporated within the framework of the total funds available to Ireland as an Objective No. 1 region. As a result there will be for the first time an input and margin for choice by those at that sub-national level in determining the content of the sub-national applications for European Structural Funds for the five years to 1993.

Deputies will recall from our debate in the House last May that the Cecchini report identified the major economic advantages for the Community as a whole from the achievement of the internal market. I am particularly pleased that one of my main criticisms of that report has now been responded to and, at Rhodes, the European Council called on the Commission to supplement the Cecchini report with an analysis of the macro-economic effects of the internal market on the Community's regions.

At Rhodes, we singled out for priority attention the areas of transport and energy, animal and plant health and the free movement of persons in addition to the other areas which we had listed at Hanover. The inclusion of transport reflects my concern to ensure that the second phase in the liberalisation of air transport should provide for the removal of existing constraints and limitations and for a further significant step in the liberalisation of this sector.

Each of these areas is of considerable importance to us. We have a high animal and plant health status and agriculture is vital to our economy. We have to protect that status which is a valuable asset for the Community at large. Consequently, we believe that removal of controls on movement of plants and animals should be preceded by actions necessary to attain a uniform high level of animal and plant health throughout the Community.

Many countries have difficulties in relation to fiscal harmonisation. VAT rates in the Community in 1987 vary from 1 per cent in Belgium to 38 per cent in Italy. For Ireland, harmonisation of indirect taxes which concentrates solely on the structures, rates and technical arrangements, runs the risk of neglecting the wider issues which the proposals raise for some member states. We will continue to urge, therefore, that regard be had to the development and cohesion objectives of the Treaty, and that the Commission's review of its proposals must ensure that our difficulties of a budgetary, economic and social kind will not be overlooked.

In relation to the free movement of persons, the Council took note of the real difficulties of attaining the Community's objectives and especially the area without internal frontiers. Progress here is linked to progress on the intergovernmental co-operation to combat terrorism, international crime and drug trafficking. The Council agreed that this co-operation will be stepped up to achieve rapid and concrete results and turn Europe into a tangible reality for its citizens. The Council agreed that each of us would appoint a person responsible for the necessary co-ordination.

On the social dimension, we renewed our commitment to ensuring that the internal market will be for the benefit of all our citizens, and we identified a number of particular aspects which need to be taken into account in the Community's work programme in this area. The development of transport infrastructure was also singled out for attention which, of course, is of particular importance for us, given our peripheral situation and needs in this area.

On the environment, we agreed that solutions are urgently needed to such global issues as the depletion of the ozone layer, the rise in the temperature — or the "greenhouse effect"— threats to the natural environment, the problem of water resources, soil erosion, safe management of toxic chemicals and waste, air pollution and problems of urban areas. On my proposal, it was agreed to add the Irish Sea as one of the seas and coastal regions requiring special attention.

What was particularly striking at Rhodes was the spontaneous philosophical discussions we had about the future shape of the Community, with particular reference to its people and its cultural diversity and development. Deputies will see from the Presidency's Conclusions the emphasis placed on the importance of the development of Europe's audio-visual capacity and that the Community's work programme in this area should take account of the recent progress made in finalising the draft Council of Europe Convention on Transfrontier Broadcasting.

We endorsed the proposals from the French Government for the convening next spring of an international meeting of all the parties concerned to develop the audio-visual market on a European scale. It is important that we derive maximum economic benefit from this lucrative market which is estimated to exceed $100 billion by 1991 as well as exploit its potential to strengthen European culture in all its aspects, including the needs of minority languages where Irish was again singled out for specific mention by President Mitterrand. Co-operation in this area clearly needs to be intensified and involve all countries in Europe, otherwise the market will be dominated by outside influences.

On its international role, the Council stressed, inter alia, that the Community will be a partner, not a fortress Europe, that it will be open to the world and that it will seek to strengthen economic and political relations with the OECD countries and co-operation with other countries and regional groups. The Twelve pledged to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations and to contribute actively to its peace-keeping role. The Council re-affirmed their determination to strive to overcome East-West division in Europe within the framework of the CSCE process and set out the objectives of their policy towards the countries of Eastern Europe.

The European Council also discussed the situation in the Middle East. They reaffirmed their welcome for the acceptance by the Palestine National Council of the Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for an international conference as well as its explicit rejection of terrorism. Recalling the Twelve's statement of 30 November requesting the US to review its refusal to grant an entry visa to the PLO leader, Mr. Arafat, we agreed that the Twelve should be represented by permanent representatives from New York as well as the Presidency Foreign Minister, when the UN General Assembly re-convenes in Geneva to consider the question of Palestine.

We called on the Lebanese parties to renew their attempts at an agreement which would make it possible to elect a new President and expressed our wish that the intercommunal talks on the future of Cyprus, which are being conducted under the aegis of the UN Secretary-General, will lead rapidly to a solution of the problem.

At the end of the Council, I met with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, for about an hour. The convention in now established that the details of these discussions are not publicised. I can, however, say that at Rhodes the discussion was wide ranging and covered a number of issues, including extradition, fair employment, security co-operation and the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We also talked about Community issues which had come up at the Council. The discussion took place in a realistic atmosphere and views were exchanged openly and frankly. On extradition, I expressed disquiet at the fact that each case now seems to become politicised, and this affects the whole background and is a matter of serious concern in its effects on the legal process and the rights of individuals.

The arrangements and the ambience for the Council were excellent, and I would like to take this opportunity of placing on record my appreciation of the hospitality and efficiency of the Greek Presidency in Rhodes.

Mr. Dukes

Today's review of the outcome of the European Council meeting in Rhodes gives us an opportunity to examine where we stand in relation to the development of the European Community and the move towards a unified market. The Government's approach to planning for the use of extra EC investment funds is seriously deficient. The economic interests that have to produce the jobs and the extra output are not properly involved in the planning process. Consultation of public representatives and consultation of representative groups is no more than a sham. There is a serious risk that the deficiencies in the planning process will prevent us from getting as much investment assistance as we need and as the Community is prepared to provide. If that happens our regions will suffer still further and there will be fewer new jobs for our people.

The Government, so far as I can see, have carried out no systematic study into the economic and social consequences here of the 1992 programme. They are working on the basis of best guesses and that is not planning. It is clear from the Taoiseach's remarks that relations between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister are cold — not wanting to put it any more bluntly than that. It is not enough for the Taoiseach to say, as he said last Sunday, that there will be difficulties for as long as there is a problem in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach has a duty that goes far beyond that, a duty to work towards the resolution of that problem.

I have examined the conclusions of the Presidency in some detail. Following that I can only describe the outcome of the European Council meeting as disappointing. It was disappointing for the European Community as a whole because rather than resolving any of the outstanding issues in relation to the whole 1992 enterprise, it saw the raising of a new obstacle by the French President in relation to taxes on savings and it witnessed a further reiteration of the UK Prime Minister's opposition to the necessary process of indirect tax harmonisation. The outcome was disappointing for this country and, indeed, for the other less developed regions of the Community in that no further progress was made in giving practical expression to the obligations taken on by the Community under the Single European Act to pursue a conscious and active policy of favouring the development of low income regions.

One of the decisions reportedly made by the Council is to appoint a national co-ordinator in each member state to speed up preparations for the complete removal of internal frontier controls after 1992. Frankly, I have to say that the rest of us had all understood that this was already in hand and in our own case we had been led to understand that this role was being carried out by the Minister of State at the Taoiseach's Department, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. Now we must ask if a new co-ordinator is being appointed? What has the Minister of State been doing up to now? If she is already co-ordinating why do we need another co-ordinator? I would suggest, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is time the Government got their thinking straight on this matter and made clear what is happening. We had another case, only a week or two ago, when we were told in this House that the Minister for the Environment was going to co-ordinate some of the work of the Minister for Finance but when we asked a question in the House the soft shoe shuffle appeared to have been done and the Minister for Finance had shuffled the deck back in his favour. I do not know what is going on between them and I do not know if the Taoiseach knows what is going on between the two of them. I am afraid that this Government's record on co-ordinating their own activities is not good and I am not at all convinced that they will co-ordinate our European action properly either.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dukes

The Minister would be well to keep his voice sotto voce. I must agree, however, that in the case of this Government at least there is a need to strengthen the structures that have been put forward to prepare for 1992 and they need strengthening from several points of view.

The structures that have been put in place will not ensure any real involvement in planning on the part of the people who have to make the plans work in practice. I would like to make the point that before coming down to the Chamber I read again the answer given by the then Minister for Finance on 25 October in which he outlined the structures. The more you look at them the barer they become. The national and regional plans will, in fact, be drawn up by the Department of Finance and the European Commission. Local authority managers who are nominally involved in the process will have no real say. I do not believe there is a Deputy in this House who has met a local authority manager, supposedly involved in this process, who believes he has any real role to play. The people who are the living links that turn the national economy into a living entity have no involvement at all in planning. Here I speak of workers, managers, managing directors, self-employed people, farmers, educators and all the people whose activity, when added together, makes up the national economy. None of the people who are charged with the task, however perfectly or imperfectly they carry it out, of turning popular desire into political action and of tailoring political action in the public interest, will have any influence on the plans. I am speaking here of members of local authorities and Members of the Oireachtas. The whole planning machine will motor on without the slightest input from those people.

Consultative structures have been set in place and as I have said they are only a sham. Day after day we hear that opinion being voiced by the very people who are themselves being consulted. Now we find the Minister for Finance in hot water with the association of municipal authorities because he cannot even organise those sham consultations in an efficient way. He puts in a totally artificial population criteria on the local authorities that he will "consult". I have heard reports——

Mr. Quinn

Are we talking about the Rhodes Council or are we talking about the regional plans?

Mr. Dukes

We are talking about the outcome of the European Council meeting because the European Council had rather a lot to say about its hopes for Europe and what was going to be done under this new planning process that is being set up. If the Deputy's patience is wearing as thin as the top of his head then I will not detain him in the House. I have heard reports, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, of some of the meetings that have been organised up and down the country by the Government under this slogan, EUROPEN. Time after time I have heard it said that the only area of economic activity that gets any attention from Government speakers is manufacturing activity. That is clearly a very important part of the whole picture but it is only a part. A great many of the 1992 directives will, of course, have fundamental effects on manufacturing industry but there is also the whole range of service activities ranging from activities that are already in place to new ones that we should develop as was envisaged in the project the Taoiseach mentioned on the audio-visual side and, indeed, as my colleague Deputy Richard Bruton has recently proposed.

According to the reports I hear of those meetings very little attention is given to the whole area of infrastructure planning. Yet this must obviously be a very high priority in integrated development plans and it must be given very particular attention if we are to turn the results of the Single European Act into real benefits and more jobs for our people.

It is not enough for the Government to agree with the other governments in the Community that each member state will appoint a person responsible for the necessary co-ordination. There is no point in appointing another person to co-ordinate if there is no clear view in the Government's mind as to what has to be co-ordinated.

Reading through the conclusions of the Presidency it is difficult to see what the real purpose of the meeting was. The Taoiseach has said that the most extraordinary thing to happen at the summit was a major philosophical discussion led by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl about what kind of Europe they would like to see emerge. That discussion apparently took place in the context of President Mitterrand's proposal on audio-visual developments. I am sure that may well have been quite fascinating and I know that both the President and the Chancellor are compelling speakers, each in his own way, but that was not the business of the European Council. I would have thought that the proper business of the Council was to push forward with the 1992 enterprise in some concrete terms but that does not seem to have happened.

One of the conclusions is that the European Council expects the Council rapidly to complete the adoption of a number of directives aimed at completing the internal market. Public contracts, banking and financial services, the approximation of technical standards and intellectual property were singled out for particular mention. Of course they should all be tackled but what I find disquieting about all of this is that there is no public information as to what our Government's view is in relation to any one of these issues.

During the course of a similar discussion in this House after a previous European Council meeting I underlined the necessity for the Government to consult widely, both inside and outside of this House, on the approach we must take to each one of these directives. From the contacts I have in one sector — to mention only one — banking and financial services, I have come to the conclusion that they are not sure what the Government have in mind and I am forced to the conclusion that the Government themselves are not sure of what they have in mind for the development of that particular sector and how we fit our banking and financial sector into an integrated market in the European Community.

The conclusions point out that the European Council is now urgently appealing to the Council of Ministers to step up its efforts in areas where progress has not been so rapid. Areas singled out for particular mention are transport and energy, and animal and plant health controls. Here again we need some clarity and some definition as to what the Government have in mind. The Taoiseach particularly mentioned animal health controls but he has not spelt out what the Government have in mind, what objectives they have in mind. It is all very fine to come into this House and say that before any harmonisation can take place we must make sure that everybody has attained the same standards we have attained but what is the Taoiseach doing to make sure this is going to happen? What are the Government's plans for influencing the other member states so that they attain the same high plateau of quality we have attained? That is what the enterprise is all about and that is what the Taoiseach should be telling us about in this House today.

The Taoiseach mentioned transport policy, air transport only, mind you. I would like to know if the Taoiseach and the Government have any particular ideas about other forms of transport, such as surface transport and sea transport which are so important to our industry. Are there any proposals in this regard? Do the Government have any proposals in relation to intra Community road transport or will they be tempted to go down the old derogation line again, something that will eventually work to the disadvantage of our industry? All of these areas need to be teased out and again I would have thought that presenting a report of what happened at a European Council meeting would have offered an appropriate opportunity for the Taoiseach to at least indicate what the main lines of Government thinking are in this area. We hear time after time, in area after area, that the Government are not bringing forward proposals in relation to transport, banking and other areas because they are not yet sure of what is facing them in the context of the 1992 enterprise. That is not the way to go about it. The Government should now be planning what we are going to do to fit each of those sectors for the kind of world we are going to be living in from 1992 onwards.

The Council stressed the need for progress in intergovernmental co-operation to combat terrorism, international crime, drug trafficking and trafficking of all kinds. I am bound to say that the recent record of this Government in intergovernmental co-operation in combating terrorism is not impressive, to say the least. For example, I believe that this House made the wrong decision last night and in the light of this I am not at all hopeful that the Government on our behalf will throw themselves whole-heartedly behind the major effort required to step up international co-operation against terrorism. Do the Government have any idea as to how this might be done in an integrated Europe without internal frontiers? Will this Government take the steps required to use the manpower which will be made available following the abolition of customs controls and convert it into an effective force to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and so on? Are there any proposals for using what will then be surplus manpower for any one of these important jobs?

The European Council called on the Council to speed up its work so that tax measures to the extent that they are necessary for the establishment and operation of the internal market can be adopted in accordance with the timetable set. I am afraid that we will have to regard that as a pious aspiration. We can now see that there are forces in the European Council pulling in different directions. This is neatly illustrated by the reference to tax measures to the extent that they are necessary for the establishment and operation of the internal market. President Mitterrand said apparently that it would be difficult for France to implement complete freedom of capital movements from 1 January 1990 unless there was agreement by then on Community-wide approximation of savings tax rates. On the other hand the British Prime Minister apparently reiterated her view that Community decisions in the area of indirect tax harmonisation are not necessary to complete the internal market.

The Government seem to find themselves in the middle of that titanic struggle, presumably being pulled in all directions at once without any clear express view as to how we should go about preparing ourselves for that process. Time and again I and other members of my party have insisted on the need to plan our participation in the harmonisation of indirect taxes, to plan it now and to set it in train in the 1989 budget. So far as I can see, the Government so far have shown only the faintest understanding of how important that whole process is going to be for us. The Government should now be planning and beginning to execute a political campaign to ensure that the necessary transitional budgetary arrangements are put in place in the Community so that we can begin the process of aligning our excise duty rates and our VAT rates with the common European target rates. They should now be planning each stage of that process with a clear view of the budgetary implications, year by year, and a clear view as to how those implications are to be dealt with.

The European Council laid some stress on the necessity to ensure progess by strengthening economic and social cohesion. I am glad to see emphasis being placed on social cohesion in particular. It is encouraging to see that the European Council recognises the need to contribute towards putting the available human resources to the best use. I think that what this means is they want to provide more jobs in the Community. Because of the language of these conclusions it is inevitable that we come out with that kind of phraseology but I think that is what they mean and I am glad to see that being mentioned.

The Council emphasised in that connection the crucial importance of reforming training schemes, including vocational training. That is an area which will be of particular importance to us given the daunting level of our unemployment and our levels of emigration. Here again I would like to hear from the Government what plans they have to modify, up-date and recast our training schemes so that we can obtain maximum advantage from this stated view of the European Council and from the new funding that is to be made available.

That leads me to look at the preparations being made to ensure that the Community structural policies are developed and used in this country in the most productive possible way. I have very grave worries in that connection. The European Council noted with satisfaction and the Taoiseach referred to this also, that, "all the legislative texts on the reform of the various funds will be adopted by the end of the year so that they will be operational from 1989". I am afraid I cannot share that satisfaction. There is cause for major disappointment here in view of the situation which will prevail in 1989. Within the last couple of weeks the Council of Ministers decided that the rate at which the Community participates in financing structural expenditure will be increased to 75 per cent in 1989 for the Regional Fund only. The Minister for Foreign Affairs claimed some credit for this but he has made very little reference to the fact that the Government have failed to secure a corresponding increase in Community participation in funding activities under the Social Fund and the agricultural structures fund in 1989. That, for us, is a major setback on the road to greater European integration. It means that in 1989 we will not see a comprehensive commitment by the Community to achieving economic and social cohesion as between Ireland and the more prosperous regions of the Community.

We had all hoped, and indeed the Government had led us to believe, that in 1989 we would see a major expansion in the operations of the Social Fund and the agricultural structures fund on the basis of increased Community participation. That is not going to happen and it means that unless the Government make different decisions about our national expenditure we will not, for example, have the resources to start off a major programme of expansion in our beef herd nor will we have the resources to start off a major programme of building up and upgrading skills in our workforce, skills we need to develop if we are going to be competitive and use all the opportunities which the new integrated market will open up to us. As I said, that has been a major failure on the Government's part and I am afraid that it is probably now too late even to try to mend the Government's hand for 1989.

It is ironic that in the face of this signal failure on the Government's part, the European Council should have recognised specifically the particular socio-economic problems of certain island regions in the Community. That is only one example of where the Government's failure to plan properly and to get political action at Community level will prejudice our attempts to promote regional development in a meaningful way. We all know the needs of our island communities. We all know the needs for basic things like electricity supply, for access, for port facilities and for a decent search and rescue service which can come to their help when they need it in emergencies. We are not going to see in 1989 the kind of expansion in those provisions that should have been available to us had we had the full development and full implementation in 1989 of the extra Community participation in Structural Fund activities.

The European Council — and again the Taoiseach referred to this — called on the Commission to supplement its analysis of the macro-economic consequences of the internal market as regards its regional impact. Again, in the slightly Delphic language of these conclusions, that means that the European Council would like the Commission to spell out what the effects of its proposed actions are going to be on the different regions of the Community, on income levels in the different regions and on the levels of development in the different regions. It is about time that was done. I remember on a previous occasion in this House when the Taoiseach criticised the Commission for not having done that I asked if the Government had any intention of carrying out such a study at national level. I did not get an answer to that question because in the form of these discussions there is not the opportunity for the Taoiseach to answer——

Mr. Quinn

The Deputy got an answer today.

Mr. Dukes

——but he has not answered it in the meantime. The simple answer to the question of whether the Government are carrying out any systematic analysis of the effects of all these on our regions is no. Are the Government going to give the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Environment or whichever Minister it happens to be, any basis for deciding where to put the weight of our structural expenditure by telling them how it will affect different regions? The answer is no. They will be flying by the seat of their pants. I was tempted to think that if these were the old, old Fianna Fáil, the ragged pants Republicans, they might have been more in contact with what they were flying in but there is an arse in their breeches now and they seem to be a good deal more out of touch with the reality as a result.

The European Council went to the trouble of adopting a separate declaration on the environment. As with most such declarations it is very general and rather bland although it does highlight the importance of the Irish Sea from an economic and ecological standpoint and on the basis of what the Taoiseach has said I must agree that it is significant that at his insistence this reference was made. However, I am appalled to find that in a statement for the European Council on the Environment no mention is made of the fact that the UK and some other member states have clearly failed in their duty to ensure that their nuclear industries do not put the rest of us at risk. I should like to know whether the Taoiseach even tried to have this matter addressed by the European Council or whether he just passively accepted this rather bland and pre-packaged statement. I know that is an issue which raises hackles in the European Community. I know that all of the member states which use nuclear power to generate electricity resist attempts being made at European level, whether in the Council or in the European Parliament, to have this problem aired. That is a further reason for our drawing attention to it on every possible occasion because if we do not as the record of the last 20 years shows those other member states will always be inclined to take chances, cut corners and to produce the kind of results we all fear.

The European Council also adopted a declaration on the international role of the Community. There is a great deal of food for thought in that declaration. Paragraph 3 of the declaration states:

The European Council emphasise the need to improve social and economic conditions in less developed countries and to promote structural adjustment both through trade and aid.

I hope the Taoiseach had the grace to look a little bit shame-faced when he put his name to that declaration in view of the way the Government have slashed our bi-lateral aid programme during the past two years.

Dealing with the improvement in East-West relations the declaration goes on in paragraph 5 to say, among other things, that the European Council will strive to achieve, and I quote:

... the establishment of a secure and stable balance of conventional forces in Europe at a lower level, the strengthening of mutual confidence and military transparence and the conclusion of a global and verifiable ban on chemical weapons...

I welcome that statement and I welcome the determination of the European Council to act in that way. I welcome the fact that the Government subscribed to that statement in sharp contrast to the non-sensical bleating we heard from some of its more prominent members when the Single European Act and all it entails in terms of European political co-operation first came before this House in 1986. I am all the more pleased to note that declaration of the European Council on a day when it is reported that Mr. Gorbachev in the United Nations is going to announce a reduction of between 20 and 30 per cent in the level of Soviet conventional armaments in Europe and on the borders of China. That is a very good illustration of why European political co-operation is good for us and good for our neighbours in the world.

Paragraph 6 of the declaration states:

The European Community and the 12 are determined to make full use of the provisions of the Single European Act in order to strengthen solidarity among them, co-ordination on the political and economic aspects of security, and consistency between the external policies of the European Community and the policies agreed in the framework of the European Political Co-Operation. They will strive to reach swift adoption of common positions and implementation of joint action.

That is the kind of statement which has to be looked at for a few minutes before the language becomes somewhat transparent, but I recommend that we regard that statement as a sane and practical expression of the objectives and the benefits of European political co-operation.

I will conclude with a brief reference to the Taoiseach's meeting with the UK Prime Minister in Rhodes. I know it is not the custom to reveal in this House the details of the kinds of conversation which take place at such meetings and I am bound to say that this is probably a good thing on this occasion. I believe the Taoiseach was right not to respond in kind and in public to the statements made in Westminister early last week by the UK Prime Minister. I should also put it on record that I believe the UK Prime Minister in turn was provoked into making rash and excessive statements by what can only be described as deliberate and blunderheaded leaking by Government sources over the course of the previous weekend. It is regrettable that the latest meeting between the Taoiseach and the UK Prime Minister should have been another frosty one and it is not enough for the Taoiseach to say in the very vague language he used last Sunday night that for as long as there is a problem in Northern Ireland relations between Ireland and the UK will be difficult. That is looking for the easy way out and it almost amounts to defeatism. It is certainly not the frame of mind in which Anglo-Irish relations should be conducted by our Government.

Whether we like it or not and even with a difficult partner on the other side of the Irish Sea, we have to live with our neighbour and work with our neighbour to protect and promote the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and of this island as a whole. That requires determination and application and above all it requires a detailed and painstaking approach to the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Irish people will accept nothing less from this Government and this Government should try to offer them nothing less.

Miss Kennedy

Given that we had a debate last night on the European Single Market, I want to concentrate the main body of my remarks on the Anglo-Irish summit meeting between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher on the fringe of the European Council meeting in Rhodes. I fear that this meeting will have more far-reaching and immediate implications for the interests of this country than the rather bland, philosophical and disappointing reports of developments towards the Single Market in 1992. It was for this reason that I tried unsuccessfully earlier this week by means of a Private Notice Question to get the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, to inform the House fully of his discussions with the British Prime Minister on extradition and Anglo-Irish matters before last evening's debate on the motion to extend permanently section 7 (4) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987.

Given that the Taoiseach received the full support of Deputy Des O'Malley and all party leaders before going to Rhodes and that he was enabled to use it to strengthen his hand in the continuing extradition exchanges with Mrs. Thatcher, I am very disappointed that the Taoiseach has chosen to restrict his remarks on the Anglo-Irish implications of the Rhodes summit to a mere paragraph in his contribution today. There is no doubt that the current row on extradition has broken out at the worst possible time for Anglo-Irish relations, that is, during the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement over the next couple of months. It is impossible to see how the great opportunity presented by the review will be realised when the two leaders, in whose hands the stewardship of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is now placed, are locked in difficulties over extradition and the rule of law in each jurisdiction. There is little chance now of a full Anglo-Irish summit meeting to give political direction to the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the next few weeks.

We strongly condemned Mrs. Thatcher's outburst about the Fr. Ryan case last week which caused such deep offence in this country, especially among those politicians who have shown no ambivalence on the extradition issue. Her remarks were based entirely on wrong assumptions about the separate legal process operating in this country. I note, in passing, that the Taoiseach's meeting with Mrs. Thatcher must not have had much effect since she repeated her claim in the House of Commons again yesterday that she expected Fr. Ryan to be arrested while a decision on his extradition was being considered and pending in this country. It is no "nit-picking"— to use Mrs. Thatcher's words — to state that such an arrest and detention without charge is simply not possible in this jurisdiction where we have a written Constitution with stronger personal rights than those prevailing in Britain.

Standing aside from the particular case now in contention, we in the Progressive Democrats believe that the present extradition arrangements between Ireland and Britain cannot work satisfactorily because of the role given to the Attorney General to implement safeguards. We make no apology for stating and voting for safeguards in the extradition process between the two jurisdictions. It was for this reason that, given the stark black-and-white choice last night, we voted for the only safeguard on offer — even though we regard it as unsatisfactory — rather than no safeguard at all.

We believe that the role given to the Attorney General — because he is a politically-appointed legal officer to the Government of the day — does lead to confusion, misinterpretation and charges about the politicisation of the extradition process here. It would be infinitely preferable, as we suggested in our amendment which was disallowed yesterday, if amending legislation were introduced to provide that all extradition proceedings be heard and disposed of in the High Court and that the functions of the Attorney General in relation to extradition should be carried out by a judge of the High Court. That is short of a prima facie case. It removes any political complexion from the issue of extradition.

The need for some satisfactory safeguard in the extradition process in undeniable, given recent developments in Britain even over the last couple of days. It is absolutely unacceptable for Britain, a country which is questioning the rule of law here, to dither over whether it should derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights ruling against detention for seven days without charge.

On top of this apparent disregard for the rule of law, I note that an officer in the Information Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, a Mr. P.J. Haseldine, in a letter to The Guardian today, states:

It is all very well for Mrs. Thatcher to inveigh against the Belgians and the Irish with such self-righteous invective. Naturally, she would not care to admit it but in the not too distant past her allegations of being soft on terrorism and allowing political considerations to override the due legal process could have been levelled at Mrs. Thatcher herself.

Mr. Haseldine then referred to alleged political interference from the Foreign Office in the case of the Coventry Four in 1984. I understand that the official response this afternoon to Mr. Haseldine's claim is that he has been suspended pending an inquiry.

In the continuing atmosphere of charges about double standards and political interference in the extradition process which is doing no good whatsoever for the future of Anglo-Irish relations, I want to ask the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, if he would consider meeting the leaders of all parties in the Dáil in the New Year with a view to considering the most appropriate safeguards which should be placed in the extradition process with Britain. I hope the Taoiseach would agree that there was a general view in the Dáil last night that the Attorney General's role was not the right or the best one, but it was the only option put before the House as a safeguard. Since the Taoiseach has undertaken to consider the workings of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, and report to the Dáil on the matter in the New Year, would he also consider having consultations with Members of Opposition parties on more suitable safeguards to be put in place if they could be agreed among the parties in the House?

Before leaving the Anglo-Irish summit meeting at the fringe of the European Council meeting, I want to ask the Taoiseach if any joint political initiative was agreed between the two leaders in the context of the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and whether any joint plan has emerged to get the Unionists involved in the Anglo-Irish process. Otherwise there were two points of fundamental importance to the interests of this country at the Council meeting.

I noted with disappointment that the Taoiseach stated in his press conference after the meeting and indicated in his contribution today that the leaders had not got very far with VAT and excise duty harmonisation. He said this was one of the issues that he had discussed in his bilateral meeting with Mrs. Thatcher. The Commissioner-elect and outgoing Minister for Finance, Deputy Ray Mac-Sharry, gave the go-ahead, as I understand it, in principle for the full harmonisation of Irish VAT rates under the 1992 proposals at the Crete Council of Ministers meeting last September. That is a welcome development. I would like to ask the Taoiseach what plans, if any, the Government have to proceed with this proposal. Will it be done, as would seem the obvious way, over the next three or four budgets? I would also like to ask the Taoiseach, in regard to another matter arising from the Council meeting — the only other concrete matter which seems to have arisen — if he would consider putting the national development plan for applications for structural funds before this House for debate before it is submitted to Brussels in the early months of next year.

Mr. Quinn

We have had a fairly extensive debate this afternoon. I will try to confine my remarks to the Taoiseach's report on the Council meeting in Rhodes. He reported on four categories and I will confine myself to those. First, he referred to progress in regard to the internal market. We have to take at face value the Taoiseach's assurances that progress is being made and that on the various fronts, including the directives that have been adopted to date and the ones which are likely to be completed by the end of the year, the progress which is satisfactory and to which the Taoiseach referred will continue. As other Deputies who have already spoken have said, we have no other way of knowing what progress is made because various Ministers consistently refuse to tell us either by way of Parliamentary Question or otherwise. I do not doubt the Taoiseach's assurances but I have to tell him, as one parliamentarian to another, that I have no other way of knowing how accurate his assurances are because we have no official or formal way of verifying what he says.

I will not speculate in this House as to the rumours on the positions that are being taken in relation to various matters. I note the presence in the House of the Minister of State with responsibility for marketing and trade, Deputy Seamus Brennan, who has taken a position in relation to the social dimension of Europe that would give pride and pleasure to the staunchest Thatcherite supporter.

I would like to refer to other aspects of the internal market, specifically the large question of the Structural Fund on which this House has had some debates already. I do not wish to repeat the extensive comments that have been made by the leader of Fine Gael, comments which I welcome, however belated they might be in their realisation of the scam that is going on in this country. I use that word advisedly and I have used it in an Adjournment debate. We can remove that political scam by having a full and frank debate in this House on the nature and the extent of the national programme of Community interest and the extent to which there can, should or will be public participation in the preparation and finalisation of those programmes before they go to Brussels. We have between now and 31 March to do so. My position on this matter is already clearly on the record and I will not take up the time of the House now to restate it.

I share the concern that Deputy Dukes has expressed in relation to not only the method of programme formation but also the role of the Department of Finance in nobbling certain projects and in restricting certain kinds of investment on the public side. Let us not be fooled about the possibility of private sector involvement. There have been only two private sector involvements in infrastructure by the same individual. I am referring to two bridges in the Dublin area. Every other infrastructural investment in the last ten to 12 years has amounted to nothing. I want to put down a marker in relation to that matter but I do not think this is the time to go into it in detail. I and the Labour Party are not happy with this matter. There is much concern about it. I would say to the Taoiseach that we share very similar objectives. This House should be properly trusted. I do not think the Department of Finance have anything to fear in this respect. In relation to the social dimension, worker participation and the Regional Fund there are serious questions which have been repeatedly asked but which have been answered unsatisfactorily.

The second point of the Rhodes Council report referred to the role of the Community in the world and certain political co-operation items. The Taoiseach spoke about peace generally and about the Middle East, which I welcome. There was no significant reference to South Africa. I do not know if it was discussed but if not I regret that. We have, in Europe, a unique responsibility, with the new United States presidency, to jointly apply substantial pressure on the apartheid régime. The western world — I include Ireland unequivocally within it, and colonial Europe of which at one stage we were a part although not necessarily a willing part—has a moral responsibility to impose mandatory financial sanctions on South Africa. Alternatively, that entire society will collapse in some form of physical violence and with it will go the whole economy of a sub-Continent, capable of sustaining the lives of millions of people.

I am saddened that there was no reference to that country. I know the Germans and the British have been consistently opposed to concerted European political co-operation type action on the question of South Africa. It is a matter that has the support of this Government, notwithstanding the position that was adopted with the various resolutions in the United Nations, which we will have time to talk about on another occasion. I know it has the support of Spain, Greece, President Mitterand and many others. I would ask the Taoiseach to refer to that point in his reply or on some suitable occasion.

The other point to raise in relation to the question of Palestine and the Middle East, which is a continuous source of concern on the international side, is that consistent requests have been made by the Israeli State to have a residential embassy established in this country. Having regard to the critical nature of the negotiations, in which Europe will have an increasing role, it is my regret that previous administrations did not respond to the Israeli Government's request to have a residential embassy in the capital of this Republic, without any obligation or understanding that we would reciprocate by having a similar presence in the State of Israel.

Deputy Dukes has already referred to the bilateral aid programme and I concur with his views. I will not take up the time of the House but I just wish to say that I too share his concern.

The third point in the Taoiseach's statement referred to the environment. I welcome very much the increasing concern that the politicians in general are expressing on environmental issues. About five weeks ago The Economist referred to green as the new political colour of the 21st political agenda. Some people have travelled a long way while others, including the Taoiseach, have not had to travel very far in regard to an awareness of environmental issues. I welcome the fact it is forcing its way up the political agenda, but that is only the beginning; concerted action is the next step. Whether this is the appropriate occasion or whether it would be more appropriate at European Councils I do not know but certainly serious co-ordinated Community action to deal with environmental matters is now needed urgently. For the last ten to 12 years, during the four political administrations — the Taoiseach will be aware of this — there has been a political empasse in respect of a toxic waste facility in this country. There have been numerous reports from the IDA and other organisations about the impediment to economic growth that the absence of such a facility imposes upon us. We have been served notice in varying degrees by the United Kingdom, who accept, process and neutralise our toxic waste, that they cannot do so indefinitely. It is a problem and there is no easy solution. Perhaps the solution cannot be found exclusively within the narrow framework of the State, but maybe there is a solution to be found within the broader framework of the European Community. I hope the Minister and Council responsible, and ultimately the political leaders of the 12 member states, would grasp this bunch of political nettles, because there is not just one.

That takes me to the second point which relates to what has been said already by other speakers — the whole question of the nuclear industry — and the Taoiseach's vociferous condemnation of what is happening in the Irish Sea. I unreservedly welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has succeeded in having the Irish Sea put into the category of coastal areas and seas that warrant special environmental attention. But we must go beyond the level of rhetoric in which all of us have indulged in the past and endeavour to work out some appropriate measures to monitor the whole management of the coastal zones on both sides of the Irish Sea, north and south on our side, right across the Scottish, Welsh and English frontiers. I might add that this has nothing to do with the present state of Anglo-Irish relations and the current problems in Northern Ireland.

For a whole variety of historical reasons I do not believe that that can be done outside the framework of some kind of European inspectorate. There are all sorts of historical and cultural impediments to that. Indeed we are part of those impediments and I have no reservations about saying so. We should press on with some form of European inspectorate. It will not be easy to achieve but it constitutes the next logical step after the rhetoric. The rhetoric is necessary to arouse consciousness. Unless we want to run the risk of bitterly disappointing a whole generation of young people — most of whom are politically concerned with environmental issues to the exclusion of others — we must put something in its place.

The last point I want to make is in relation to the fourth item listed on the front page of the Taoiseach's statement this afternoon, as having formed the agenda of the Rhodes Summit, that is audio-visual policies. I know that the translation of French philosophical statements sometimes comes across in a rather strange Anglophone manner, as exemplified by the use of the words "social cohesion". Indeed the phrase "audio-visual policies" is another. Nonetheless it is fundamental to what the whole European project is about, that is the consolidation of European culture, of which audio-visual manifestation is as technocratically and technologically the most up-to-date example. In that regard, if the Taoiseach really wants to give tangible effect to the marvellous and invigorating philosophical musings and dissertations that undoubtedly came from the mouth of President Francois Mitterrand — whom we heard in full flight in this Chamber — he might consider the re-establishment of the National Film Board. He might consider examining a policy that would give tangible effect to such a goal, perhaps with the assistance of Regional or Structural Fund moneys because, at the end of the day, the only way we will keep out Japanese or American-type invasions of the European audio-visual space — to maintain the awkward translation of French into English — is to have a funded type of European alternative in its place. That was what the National Film Board was originally. We should remember that we are not short of talent in that regard here. Perhaps the Taoiseach who now has full Departmental responsibility for culture, including audio-visual-type activities — since he has seen fit to refer to it in his statement — would give another thought to that aspect. The constraints imposed on him in the first instance have not been removed. If he wishes to address some of the very real concerns expressed by European Leaders in Rhodes, then he should ensure that the State, in partnership, with whatever alternative sources of private funds, should be used to underpin our enormous cultural activity and capability. The Taoiseach may have heard this already on numerous occasions from other people. By virtue of the fact that we speak English we have an enormous export market beyond this island so that the constraints normally applicable to the traditional market base do not necessarily apply to us.

The House will note that I have deliberately made no reference to Mrs. Thatcher other than within a European socio-economic context. I have not mentioned the word "extradition". I refuse to jump to the agenda constantly being rammed down our throats. I wanted simply to put on record in this House that the Labour Party Leader sought to have this matter raised by way of a Private Notice Question earlier today. Understandably it was ruled out of order on the grounds that the Taoiseach in his statement would refer to his meeting with Mrs. Thatcher. However, the Taoiseach will agree that his report of that meeting at the end of his statement was rather short. The Labour Party Leader has responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs and has already expressed our position extensively in relation to extradition. Since other Members have raised this question in response to the Taoiseach's statement on the Rhodes Summit I want to state that what we have said already, what is on the record as expressed by Deputy Spring on these matters, stands.

The Taoiseach's statement was a report of the European Summit. I said in this House last night — at a time when perhaps most Members have the sense not to be in here and therefore their remarks are not reported — that we need to devote more energy and time to the 1992 project.

I might reiterate to the Taoiseach — because probably he is not aware — that the Oireachtas joint committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities are incapable of functioning at present, incapable of scrutinising the work of this or any other Minister through sheer lack of staff. I believe that committee should be renamed and called the Joint Oireachtas 1992 Committee. There is a motion to that effect on the Order Paper. They should be given adequate staff beyond the priorities or constraints prevailing. I realise resources are scarce but we must remember that we are talking about the single largest project this nation has encountered or undertaken since we entered the European Community in the first instance.

There should be built into the regular weekly routine of this House an hour, perhaps on a Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, some time to be agreed with the Whips, when we could get a regular report on this matter. The democratic deficit about which we complain so much in the European Parliament is beginning to erode our status in this House. We should be able to ask the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, the Environment and Labour what exactly they are doing in relation to the various Councils, why they may be adopting a particular line, ascertaining, if necessary, how we can help. As the Taoiseach probably will know from the co-ordinated replies I received from various Departments to questions I have attempted to ask in relation to this matter, resort to Parliamentary Questions is absolutely useless in this regard.

Proinsias De Rossa

It has been fairly clear from the Taoiseach's statement today and from the various press reports that the Rhodes Summit, by and large, was a non-event in terms of decisions taken or progress made. The Taoiseach had many references to the fact that it had been agreed that urgent action was needed on this or that matter; that it had been agreed to appoint a co-ordinator in respect of this, that or the other. There are many issues that might have been dealt with more specifically and decisions taken on them.

I have in mind in particular the tax and excise harmonisation issue in respect of which it is quite clear this Government have capitulated to whatever pressures exist within the EC with regard to agreeing to such harmonisation. For example, in the course of the debate on the Single European Act I recall the former Minister for Finance saying that under no circumstances would he countenance tax harmonisation, that if necessary he would use the veto in order to prevent the effects of tax harmonisation on our people. Yet there are reports to the effect that he has now accepted tax harmonisation and is seeking some kind of assistance to relieve the shock. It is interesting to note that the British Prime Minister made it quite clear that, under no circumstances, would she accept tax or excise harmonisation, obviously for very different reasons. Nevertheless it is an indication of how that Prime Minister's strength, to put it mildly, can be used in the interests of the people of Britain.

It must be acknowledged that tax harmonisation will have serious effects particularly for those on low pay and on social welfare. What is being proposed is a tax band which will ensure that luxury items are reduced to a low level and that tax will come on essentials such as food and clothing, public transport and so on. We are not seriously addressing ourselves to the problems which will face the ordinary man and woman here if we ignore the reality of the effects of tax harmonisation.

Obviously there is also an effect relating to a loss of income to the Exchequer as a result of tax harmonisation. There are various estimates as to how much it will be from as low as £300 million or £400 million to as high as £1,000 million depending on the rates which will apply at the different levels. It is difficult to see how that kind of fall off in Exchequer revenue will be made up. Perhaps the Government will succeed in getting some assistance for the first few years, but inevitably they will be faced with the choice of increasing PAYE taxes which produce the bulk of income tax here or of further cutting the social servcies which are already under severe attack. It is unfortunate that the Taoiseach in his speech referred to this issue only in passing when he said:

We will continue to urge therefore that regard be had to the development and cohesion objectives of the Treaty, and that the Commission's review of its proposals must ensure that our difficulties of a budgetary, economic and social kind will not be overlooked.

Perhaps that is a secret code of some kind for saying that we will not allow it to happen but it seems to me that we are again going cap in hand arguing from a weak position instead of maintaining from the beginning that we will have no compunction in using the veto if it is found that tax harmonisation is going to have a very serious effect on our people.

Another matter of concern must be the reports that Mrs. Thatcher is opposing the implementation of the social element of the 1992 proposals. It is interesting to note specifically that she opposes the provision of the right of workers for representation on private company boards. It is also interesting to note that our own Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, has gone on record saying that we do not regard that as a matter of importance and that we are not pressing it either. It is nice to see the British and the Irish representatives agreeing on something but unfortunately it is not something which will be acceptable to the working classes here or to the trade unions who have quite clearly stated that they want a charter of rights for workers in the EC, both Irish workers and EC workers as a whole. It is unfortunate that we seem to have got ourselves into a position where we on the one hand are making declarations in this House and elsewhere that of course we support the package on social policy but on the other hand in meetings of various kinds we seem to be rolling back from that position when it comes to the point of actually interfering with the rights of private enterprise either nationally or in Europe as a whole.

It would not be right to speak in this debate without acknowledging the advances in having the Irish Sea accepted as an area of special concern. I welcome that and congratulate the Taoiseach on achieving it. However, that must be followed up by demanding that action be taken in relation to the pollution of the Irish Sea particularly by Sellafield, although that is not the only problem in relation to the Irish Sea. The Sellafield nuclear processing plant is constantly polluting the Irish Sea and we believe there is urgency for international action in that regard. The Taoiseach has expressed his interest in this whole issue on a number of occasions and I have no doubt that he will take action on it. I hope in time that the Taoiseach will be reporting on a regular basis to the House on the progress we have made.

I am disappointed that the meeting of the Heads of State did not more positively welcome the declaration by the Palestine National Council in relation to the declaration of an independent state. The wording of the welcome was a bit lukewarm but I suppose it is difficult to reconcile the various political interests amongst those Heads of State in the EC. It is important, apart from what the EC may say, that the Irish Government should make clear their unequivocal support for the step the Palestine National Council have taken. They have cleared the way for an international peace conference on the Middle East. They have accepted resolution 242 which had been an obstacle to them participating in such peace talks. It is important that Ireland, given our special relationship with the US in particular, should impress on the US the urgency of getting down to talks with the various parties in the Middle East so as to resolve the problem there. It will not be too easy, but the Palestine National Council have taken a major step which facilitates the setting up of a peace conference on the Middle East. I would urge the Irish Government to either publicly or privately exert pressure where appropriate to get the US to accept that the Palestine National Council have taken a valuable step forward.

There are many other areas which it is important to cover in relation to the EC but it is not right to cover them in relation to statements being made here today. However, what must be borne in mind particularly in relation to the Cecchini report is that it does not cover Ireland in its consideration. It makes general reference to the regions as perhaps benefiting from the effect of the internal market. The Taoiseach in his speech indicated that he had succeeded in getting agreement that there would be a review of the effect of the internal market on the regions and that is very welcome but I hope he will indicate to us when this report will be available. Will it be available for the next meeting of the Heads of State of the EC and in what way will the outcome of this report affect the decisions by the Heads of State or indeed by our own Government? The Cecchini report does not deal with the question of the internal market as it relates to Ireland. It fails to point out that despite the fact that there will be new jobs created as a result of the internal market, many more jobs will be lost. It is difficult to see how regions on the periphery, like Ireland which are relatively speaking under-developed can benefit from these new jobs unless specific policy decisions are taken to ensure that we are brought up to the necessary level of competitiveness.

There are other matters relating to social policy which are important but I will leave them to another day when there might be a more appropriate occasion to discuss these issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes the statements.