Developments in the European Communities — Reports: Motion. – Dáil Éireann (25th Dáil) – Tuesday, 18 Apr 1989

Developments in the European Communities — Reports: Motion.

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

On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Reports: Developments in the European Communities — 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st Reports.

The European Communities Act of 1972 imposes an obligation on the Government to make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Communities.The motion before the House this evening asks the Dáil to take note of the last eight such reports which have been laid before the Dáil, covering each six-month period from January 1984 to December 1987.

First of all, I would like to say that it is a matter of some regret that a debate has not taken place on these reports since 1984. The reports provide a factual record of the principal decisions taken by the Communities, as well as summarising developments on the main issues at stake, with special emphasis on those which affect this country. It would be highly desirable for the Dáil to take the opportunity, every six months, of reflecting on the European Communities achievements as outlined in the reports, as well as on the main current issues facing Ireland and the Community. I would hope that we can now establish a rhythm of debate every six months from now on. That it has not happened in recent years is due partly to the fact that there have been other regular opportunities to debate developments in the Communities and these are availed of the Deputies.

Another reason for the fact that these reports have not been debated recently may be that of late a considerable gap has developed between the publication of a report and the ending of the period which it covers. This has meant that it loses some of is immediacy. For instance, the 31st report, covering the second half of 1987, did not appear until February of this year. This was due chiefly to pressure of other work not only in the Department of Foreign Affairs but also in other Departments which contribute to the reports. However, the 32nd annual report, covering the first half of 1988, is complete and with the printers and work on the 33rd report, covering the second part of 1988, has been put in hand.

Every effort will be made in future to maintain the rhythm of production of these reports so that they will appear within a reasonable period, which I would regard as six months following the conclusion of the period with which they are concerned, so that the material contained in them is still relevant for discussion in the House.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the fact that the reports have not been debated for some time gives us a unique opportunity to review a period which has been momentous for the development of the Community. It was instructive, when preparing for this debate, to look at the first of the reports listed in the motion — the 24th, covering the first half of 1984.

At that time the Community was in a state of stagnation, if not of crisis. It was paralysed by the problem of inadequate budgetary resources and its decisionmaking process seemed frozen. However, since then the Community has pulled itself out of the crisis and is better equipped to face the challenges of the nineties than one would have dared to expect five years ago. In this context it is instructive to consider some of the developments of the last five years.

In June 1985 the Commission presented its White Paper listing the 300 or so measures needed to complete the internal market — an issue which preoccupies all sectors of the economy as we prepare for the 1992 deadline. The year 1985 also saw the completion of negotiations on Spanish and Portuguese accession and these two countries formally became members in January 1986, bringing new and fresh perspectives to the Community.

The Single European Act was agreed in January 1986. Deputies will now be thoroughly familiar with the Act which has been debated extensively in this House. It provides chiefly for improvements in the Community's decision-making process, particularly the application of qualified majority voting in the Council in certain areas, most notably in the internal market area.

It also provided for the promotion of economic and social cohesion in the Community, an enhanced role for the European Parliament in the Community's operation, for closer co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy and for the development of Community policies in areas such as science and technology.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court on 9 April 1987 in the Crotty case, the Government moved quickly to hold a referendum in May 1987 which gave the Irish people an opportunity to consider the Single European Act and to renew commitment to the Community. Following their approval of the Single European Act, by a majority of 70 per cent to 30 per cent and the depositing of Ireland's Instrument of Ratification, the Single European Act came into effect throughout the Community on 1 July 1987.

The next stage was the achievement of agreement on a comprehensive package of measures designed to facilitate the future development of the Community. This package of measures, aptly entitled "Making a Success of the Single Act", or the "Delors Plan", was presented by Commission President Delors to the European Council in February 1987.

The Delors Plan included agreement on a new regime of own resources and budgetary discipline, new agricultural guidelines, a reform of the Structural Funds and a new arrangement for the British budgetary contribution. Negotiation on this package was at times arduous.However, agreement was finally reached on the package in February 1988, and thus full effect was given to the main lines of the Community's development implied in the Single European Act.

I would now like to turn in more detail to some of the main areas of Community policy. As has been the practice with debates of this nature in the past, I will not limit my comments to developments in the reports before us but will deal with current issues. Indeed my emphasis will be on current issues.

I have mentioned how the Commission's White Paper of June 1985 formed the basic programme for the completion of the internal market. Over half of the 300 or so measures listed in that programme have now been adopted so good progress has taken place. Some of the remaining measures are important for this country, and potentially difficult, most notably the question of tax harmonisation.However, the Government are confident that satisfactory solutions will be found to the problems which arise in this area.

The movement towards the completion of the international market will give fresh impetus to economic growth and development in the European Community.It will also have significant social implications in addition to the economic opportunities which it will present. This has been recognised by the European Council which has stressed that the ultimate objective of the completion of the internal market is the promotion of the maximum wellbeing of all of the people of the Community.

Ireland attaches considerable importance to the realization of the social dimension. Unemployment, which has rightly been recognised as the major social policy issue confronting the Community, is a particular priority for us. We will continue to press for effective Community action to address this problem.

I should now like to turn to the progress which has been made to date in relation to the reform of the Structural Funds in the context of completion of the internal market in 1992.

Deputies will already be aware of developments in relation to the National Development Plan, which was considered in the course of a three day debate in this House last week. Because the details of the debate are, no doubt, still fresh in your minds, I do not propose to address specific aspects of the plan here this evening. I feel it would be more useful, instead, to take stock of the process of reform of the Structural Funds to date and the manner in which that reform has contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the objective of cohesion.

Cohesion, as you are aware, is the process designed to lessen the economic and social disparities between the less prosperous peripheral member states and the more prosperous central regions. Community commitment to narrowing the gap between the regions was given a new impetus in the Single European Act, in which the policy of cohesion was, for the first time, given Treaty status. This impetus was further developed in the Delors Plan which outlined the Commission's proposals for the implementation of the Single Act. The Delors Plan established clear objectives for the Structural Funds and identified the broad lines of the reform of these funds.

The main thrust of the Commission's proposals, particularly those relating to reform of the Structural Funds, was endorsed at the Brussels Council in February 1988, where it was decided that the resources available for the three Structural Funds would be doubled by 1993. In an effort to concentrate the funds where they are most needed, the European Council also decided that the contribution to the less developed regions would be doubled by 1992; that a special effort would be made for the least prosperous regions which, at the Taoiseach's insistence included Ireland, and the provision that, for these regions, the rate of assistance from the funds can be up to 75 per cent.

In the course of negotiation of the regulations which give effect to the Delors Plan, Ireland was successful in obtaining agreement that certain infrastructure projects with private sector funding will be eligible for Community assistance. Given domestic budgetary restraints this provision is of crucial importance to us. It means Ireland will be able to maximise the benefits derived from the increased funds.

Of course the reform of the funds is not just about increased budgetary resources for the Community's regions. It is also about making better use of those resources. As the Taoiseach stated in this House last Wednesday, this availability of increased resources represents a unique opportunity for Ireland — to raise the whole country as a region of the Community onto a new plane of development and to overcome the economic and social deficiencies that are holding us back.

In that spirit we have drawn up a national development plan which sets out our national priorities for Community assistance. The plan is of crucial importance because it will provide the basis for our negotiation with Brussels for Community assistance for Ireland over the five year period 1989-1993.

Deputies are aware, of course, that this plan is not just a set of expenditure tables projected over five years. It is a comprehensive, integrated national plan covering every region and to which each economic sector is linked. The plan is the outcome of close consultations at every stage with the European Commission.

The Government also undertook a wide spectrum of consultation, not only at national, but also at regional level. This ensured the participation of regional interests from each of the seven subregions in the formulation of the plan. I am confident that our logical and coherent approach at every stage, from the earliest negotiations right through to finalisation of the National Development Plan, will ensure that Ireland is well positioned to avail, to the maximum extent possible, of the doubled resources of the Structural Funds.

Right through the period covered by the reports and to date agriculture has continued to have a central place on the agenda and remains one of the Community's most important concerns. Decisions taken at the Community level over the past 18 months have essentially completed the process of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Measures for the stabilisation of expenditure are now being implemented in all of the main product sectors. The common thread of these measures is that the CAP should become a more market-oriented policy. The mechanism of intervention is being reduced and there is an increasing emphasis on quality production.

The reform process has, of course, entailed painful decisions for some member states. Ireland has been particularly affected by the changes in the milk and beef regimes. However, the unsustainable budgetary situation created by surplus production made change unavoidable if the policy itself was to survive and its long term viability ensured. The earlier reforms are already bearing fruit in the form of improved market balance and higher producer prices for major commodities, in the dairy sector in particular. The CAP now has a stable and adequately financed basis for its effective future operation. The Government are determined that the policy should continue to serve its fundamental objectives, in particular the safeguarding of family farm income. We will actively seek to ensure that it also provides a suitable framework for the development of agriculture and of the food industry in this country.

A further important development last year was the agreement of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to a revision of the programme for western development incorporating some major improvements to the original programme. The most significant of these are the extension of the geographical scope of the programme to cover all disadvantaged areas in this country and the provision for higher rates of Community contribution, ranging up to 70 per cent for certain types of investment undertaken within the framework of the programme.

The Community is, as Deputies are aware, the largest trading bloc in the world and its external relations are a particular concern not just to the member states but also to its trading partners.

One of the most significant developments in the Community on external relations in the period under review has been the launching of a new round of trade negotiations, under the auspices of GATT, in September 1986. The negotiations are due to end in 1990 and embrace a number of sectors not hitherto covered by GATT — notably, agriculture and services.

As Deputies will be aware the mid-term review meeting in Montreal in December 1988 had to be suspended because of differences between the Community on the one hand and the US and members of the Cairns Group on the other, principally over agriculture. This meeting was resumed in Geneva at the beginning of this month and the results achieved were generally satisfactory to the Community, including Ireland. We are now embarking on the most difficult phase of the round — the negotiations. On the basis of progress to date in the round we are satisfied that the eventual outcome will result in agreement on the broad range of areas covered by the GATT. In turn this will encourage the expansion of world trade and strengthen the open international trading system.

The Community's external relations have continued to expand and diversify in the period under review. This reflects the growing interest in and importance attached to the Community by third countries, since the adoption of the Single European Act. The creation of the internal market in 1992, which will open up a market of over 300 million customers to the world market, has resulted in a new impetus being given to the Community's external relations.

The joint declaration on the establishment of official relations between the EC and the COMECON, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 1988, is a significant development in this context and opens the way through bilateral agreements for the development of relations between the Community and Eastern Europe.

Relations with long standing partners have continued to develop. A new impetus was given to EC-EFTA relations in the period under review. The first meeting between Foreign Ministers of EFTA and the Community was held in Luxembourg on 9 April 1984.

A further impetus was given to our relations with EFTA by the second ministerial meeting at Foreign Minister level held last month in Brussels, when it was agreed to explore how relations could be restructured and intensified.

Relations with Japan have improved since 1984. Although the Community's trade deficit with Japan has risen to $22.79 billion and continues to be a source of concern, the Japanese Government have attempted to resolve some of the problems we have raised with them. EC exports to Japan have increased in the last two years — by 20 per cent in ECU terms in 1988. We look forward to the continuation of positive trends and to the expansion of mutually advantageous and balanced trade between Japan and the Community after 1992.

Since 1984, relations between the Community and the US have at times been strained by problems affecting trade. In particular, agriculture has presented difficulties, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora. However, the successful outcome of the resumed GATT mid-term review meeting in Geneva, to which I alluded earlier and our own contacts and those of the Commission with members of the new administration in Washington, give us grounds for optimism that both sides will be able to approach these problems anew and to find lasting solutions.

Turning now to European political co-operation, during the period under review its procedures and practices were codified and given legal form for the first time in Title III of the Single European Act. This puts into treaty form the EPC process in which Ireland has been engaged since we joined the Community in 1973. It enables the Twelve to take a view on foreign policy issues of general interest. As it is based on the principle of consensus all statements and actions have to be mutually agreed. So far as security matters are concerned the scope of EPC is limited to its political and economic aspects, to take account of Ireland's position.

There have been many developments in the period under review in which the EC member states, through EPC, have played a role. I should like to mention just a few.

East-West relations have been a major preoccupation of EPC during the period covered by the reports. Hopes were greatly heightened by the treaty between the superpowers eliminating nuclear weapons from Europe and by the Soviet Union's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.They were raised further by the agreement in principle by the superpowers to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals by half. We hope that negotiation on strategic nuclear weapons can resume in the very near future. Another encouraging development has been the growth of movement towards democratic pluralism in several countries of Eastern Europe, especially in Hungary and Poland. The recent elections in the Soviet Union give us grounds for hope that something similar may happen there. This has been an exciting period during which we have all become more aware of the other "lung" of Europe, to use the striking metaphor from the Pope's address to the European Parliament.

The Vienna Meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe began in late 1986 and concluded early this year with new undertakings in the field of human rights and contacts, in inter-state relations, in the area of military security and in economic co-operation.These results mark a qualitative jump forward in the CSCE process in which Ireland has been engaged since its inception in 1975. The benefits of these agreements should be felt by individuals, especially in Eastern Europe.

The growth of openness and the popular demand for democratic pluralism and respect for human rights that we now see in many East European countries owe much to the CSCE which has been a standard bearer and an encouragement to those who have been repressed and denied freedom of expression. Ireland co-ordinates most positions in the CSCE with its partners in the European Community.The Twelve have been active in promoting the CSCE as the most reliable framework within which the relations between the countries and peoples of Europe, in association with the US and Canada, can be discussed.

We co-ordinate our position with that of our partners in the United Nations also. The Twelve have given their full support to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to build on the ceasefire reached in June last year and to find a lasting settlement to the conflict between Iran and Iraq.

They have supported the UN's efforts in Afghanistan in which Irish observers play a part. They have called for an international conference under the auspices of the UN to discuss a lasting solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The violence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — which seems daily to become more worrying — should demonstrate to all that the situation is untenable and can only be resolved by the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace based on the principles set out by the Twelve in the Venice and Brussels declarations.The situation in Lebanon has long been a source of preoccupation for the Twelve and has again deteriorated.

We, along with our partners in the Twelve, have appealed to all parties in the conflict to put an end to confrontation and to permit the emergence of a peaceful solution to the current crisis. In this connection, the Twelve have reiterated their support for UNIFIL, in its operation in the south of that country.

The transition to independence is finally under way in Namibia on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 435 and within the context of an agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Although the beginning of the transition process has been marred by terrible events, the process will now hopefully continue peacefully. With our partners we have reiterated our unqualified support for the Secretary General and for UNTAG in which Ireland and most other EC member states are direct participants. The evolution of events in Namibia will have an important influence on developments in South Africa. We continue to advocate in EPC the maintenance of effective pressure on South Africa to take the necessary steps to bring about the dismantling of the apparatus of apartheid and the opening of a genuine political dialogue between the legitimate representatives of all the communities of that country.

My remarks have only covered some of the developments during the period. Looking back over these years we can see that it has been a time of historic developments, both in terms of the relationship between the Twelve member states of the Community and also in the world as a whole.

It is, however, in the realm of EastWest relations and disarmament that the most promising developments have occurred with the most immediate relevance for all mankind. Some regional problems have been resolved or are on the way to resolution. Ireland through its partnership in the Twelve will continue to play a constructive role in important international issues.

Deputies will be aware that Ireland assumes the Presidency of the Council of Ministers on 1 January next. Preparations are well under way to enable us to carry out a successful Presidency. We have decided on many of the practical arrangements and are reviewing the development of the Community's agenda on an ongoing basis in order to draw up the priorities for the first six months of 1990.

The Presidency is of vital importance. It will place Ireland in a key position next year, when we will be charged with presenting the Community's views on many key issues to its partners on the world stage.

I would like at this stage to refer to the European Parliament. The present Parliament holds its last session next month. It has many achievements to record, for example, the Spinelli Draft Treaty from which the Single European Act emerged and its growing involvement in Community decision making. We look forward to similar achievements by the new Parliament which will assemble in July and to co-operating closely with it, especially during our presidency.

The new Parliament will be working with an almost new Commission. President Delors had many historic achievements to record during the period of office of his first Commission. I am sure that he will continue his achievements in his new term. The Government have given major priority to their relationship with the Commission. I am glad to say that we have established close and continuous links at the level of Taoiseach and President of the Commission and at all other levels. This will enable us to ensure maximum co-operation not least during the Presidency.

I would conclude, therefore, a Cheann Comhairle, by saying that we have seen during the period under review a set of inter-related developments in the European Community which have put it on a xsound footing to face the challenges of the coming decade. It has been a period in which member states, including Ireland, renewed, through the Single European Act, their commitment to the ideals enshrined in the Treaties and, in this context, could I say that I welcome the broadening of the consensus regarding our participation in the European Community which has recently taken place in Irish political life.

Mr. Durkan

I congratulate the Minister of State on cramming into a very short space of time what I would regard as a 35 minute or 40 minute speech and doing so in a very palatable fashion. In relation to debates on the various reports which come before the House, like the Minister of State I believe they should be held much more regularly, thereby giving the impression to our own people that we are up to date with and really interested in what is going on in Europe. We should not debate reports two or three years after their publication. I note that the latest report has come on stream much quicker than previous reports and I hope that future reports on developments in the European Community come on stream even quicker so that we can debate the reports as near as possible to their publication date.

The coming five years will probably prove to be the most exciting and most important period in the development of the European Community for many reasons. The Community, relative to the United States, Japan, EFTA and other trading blocs, has a long way to go. In believing that the Community has achieved a great deal to date and all we have to do is sit back and absorb the benefits, we are being quite insular in our thinking. In fact, we have a long way to go, including the major trading powers within the Community, before we achieve, for instance, the income per capita that has been achieved already by the other trading blocs.

Many people have come to the conclusion that we have already achieved our goals and objectives but this is not the case and we need to keep that fact in mind. To date we have not accured any of the benefits of the putting in place of the Single European Act. Every Act of that nature has both its positive and negative sides. As the benefits accure I hope we do not find that tariffs of one kind or another have not been removed or that tax or excise duties have not been harmonised.Failure to do so would leave us in the worst possible position. On the one hand, there could be the doubtful benefits of competition and on the other we could be faced with the obstacle of not being able to compete on a level playing field. It is important to ensure that we get both sides of the coin, the downside as well as the upside.

During the coming five years the Community will achieve new levels. Development is going to accelerate at a speed hitherto unknown. This will happen for a number of reasons and if it does not, something will have gone radically wrong. An indicator is the interest being shown in developments within the Community by the other trading blocs, such as EFTA, the Eastern bloc countries, the United States and Japan. There is a certain amount of curiosity and, greater than ever, benign interest being shown. Concern has also been expressed by a number of those trading blocs. We can get an indication of the way the wind has been blowing from the GATT negotiations.The concern in some quarters was very well expressed there.

The one good thing about all this is that we are part of the European group and sit at the negotiating table. Far from having to negotiate alone in the world market, we are part of a large umbrella group who have the necessary clout, both economic and political, to achieve the kind of agreement and deal we deserve. We should remember that in development terms, relative to other Community countries, Ireland lags behind. We were behind to start with and in comparison with the other members of the Community we have not gained a great deal. A great deal of ground had to be made up.

Let us compare income per capita in the European Community with income per capita in the United States, Japan and the EFTA countries. Oddly enough, the EFTA countries come out on top with, according to 1988 figures, an income per capita of US$19,000, followed by Japan and the United States. One would have expected either Japan or the United States to be on top of the league but, because of their peculiar structure EFTA seem to have achieved a great deal more. If one looks at the way trade has developed between the EFTA countries and the European Community during the past five or six years, and the rate at which it is accelerating, one would readily recognise that the EFTA countries are showing a greater interest in the Community than in trading with another bloc. One or two of those countries are now thinking of much closer co-operation with the Community. This is an indication that they see what we should be seeing more readily, that Europe is going to take off economically and politically and is going to be one huge success; likewise, the Eastern bloc countries, Hungary has already concluded its trade agreement with the Community and other progressive east European countries are showing an interest. I use the word “progressive” advisedly as I honestly believe there is a sense of urgency in some of those countries to avail of the umbrella of glasnost— in the hope it will continue — and to establish economic links with the Community lest there be a change of opinion in other places. That is a desirable development. It is important that it take place and that there be that kind of economic co-operation and trading within Europe itself.

There is another consideration. With the removal of tariffs and various other barriers, trading with the Community becomes much easier because, instead of having to draw up 12 sets of papers in order to deal with each member state in the Community, an outside trading industry merely will have to draw up a single set of papers whereupon they can deal at a much more economic and convenient rate with the Community.

The reverse of course, is true as has been found in dealing with Japan and the US. The deficit which has grown from US $18 billion in 1987 and is now at US $22.79 billion, according to the Minister's speech, is a dangerous development in one sense and is a salutary warning to those countries within the Community because it has proved, and is proving as each day goes by, that the Japanese economy is very vibrant, efficient, progressive and moving forward fast, which is something the Community has not been doing. In that area trade with Japan in future will have to be watched, otherwise the industries with whom the Japanese are likely to be competing in Europe will find some very stiff competition on their doorsteps. The need for efficiency cannot be over-emphasised among those industries.I do not propose in the short time available to go through these industries in detail, but we can refer to the electronic and high technology industries in which the Japanese have been extremely successful.

The Minister referred to the fact that in the period we are now reviewing the finances of the Community came into order. That is true. The Delors Plan has set out in more ways than one the ground rules whereby the Community can move forward. That is good because there was a certain indecision and lack of objectivity for a long number of years which led to the Community meandering, as it were, from one economic crisis to the next and not being able to come up with any conclusive or objective decisions.

The only thing I am a little worried about in this agricultural country is that if one looks at graphs anywhere one sees the steady decline in employment in agriculture. The flight from the land was never more obvious than at present. It is not just in Europe or Ireland, it is a worldwide phenomenon. It seems to be part and parcel of development.Increasing standards of living and the affluent society seem to go hand in hand with the gradual diminution in employment in agriculture.

The other side of the coin is that from the point of view of Irish agriculture — this is still essentially an agricultural country — supports that were there in the past will not always be there; quite the reverse. Certain indicators, signposts, stabilisers, depending on which way you look at them, have now been introduced, the objective of which is to curb production in a couple of areas. For instance, milk and beef have been particularly hit and this will have a serious effect on our economy whether we like it or not. It is part and parcel of EC policy and part of the policy within the GATT round, but there is also the question that this country, relatively speaking, does not contribute nearly as much to the creation of the surpluses as do some of our European partners. To this day, quite an amount of those surpluses is being generated by the use of cheap substitute feedstuffs imported from the US which are used to produce efficiently products in the area of beef or milk but, at the same time, they are not producing a natural product in the sense we know it. They are producing the product under artificial conditions, under battery unit type operations, and of course, the farmers get higher output and great efficiency. We will have to concentrate on producing a product by natural methods in a good, pollution free environment and being able to sell our products on the world market on that basis. If we can do that, and we can, provided we emphasise it sufficiently, we can be very successful.

Another area which is important for this country and for the rest of Europe is the future role of the Structural Funds, which has been referred to by the Minister and in the 31st Report — the size of the funds, where to apply them and the effect they are likely to have. One question that must arise especially over the next five years, is whether jobs should be brought to the people or the people brought to the jobs. People will say very quickly that you cannot bring every industry to the people. You cannot bring industry from the Rhur in Germany to this country, for instance, but quite a number of large industries in Europe — in Germany in particular — want to relocate for one reason or another. Some of them have relocated within Germany, and some have tried and got benefits to relocate. Without doubt relocation is taking place. If relocation is to take place we should be prepared to capitalise, particularly on high technology, light industries in electronics. Some European companies wishing to expand could find it opportune, advisable and economically beneficial to locate in this country for a number of reasons. Greater use of the Regional Fund and the Social Fund to encourage that kind of relocation should be considered.

Two points follow: in order to enable Irish workers to capitalise in that type of arena they must have another language. We have listened to the debate tonight and we recognise, albeit at a late stage, that the need to learn major continental languages was never greater than at present. In a sense I should not say that because I have no language except the one I am now using and a little Irish. It is a failing in a number of us that we do not have a continental language. One is at a loss on the Continent for a number of reasons but particularly in terms of everyday trade when dealing with Germany, France, Italy and Spain, countries with large populations.

There is a large market there, a large consumer force that needs to be tapped, and is waiting to be tapped. To sell on that market we need to have the key that is most important, a common language. There is a great need for the Community to think seriously about relocating industry in a way that will be convenient for people, otherwise we will see the denuding in terms of population of large areas of the Community, and perhaps our country to an ever greater extent, unless there is greater emphasis on that type of relocation. It is not possible to do that with every industry, but it is possible in the case of high technology, light industries.

The Minister has dealt with what is in the 31st Report in particular, EC-US relations and the GATT round. We can take consolation from the fact that we are part of a population of 320 million people. Whatever chance we would have in that kind of arena, we would have absolutely no chance outside it, trying to fight a case alone and trying to establish our rights among, for instance, the EFTA countries, Japan, the US and perhaps the East European countries. It would be as well to forget about that area and to depend on our strength in numbers and in the European economy. We must be good Europeans. It is probably a state of mind. The European elections will be held on 15 June and I sincerely hope that people of all political persuasions will become involved, come out to vote and express their opinion. If they do not, it may well be that Europe will continue to look benignly upon us but they will not take us as seriously as we should be taken. We cannot become as important as we should be within the Community unless our people actively pursue their democratic rights by participating in the election.

There is much that one cannot cover in the course of a 20-minute contribution. The term of office of the Parliament to be elected in June will probably be the most important since the Treaty of accession. The success of the Parliament and of the current Commission and the dealings of the Council of Ministers will be of such importance as to leave an indelible mark on the Community. It will be referred to by historians in the future as the time of the most important development in the Community. I hope the nation will appreciate the importance of being fully committed Europeans. I believe the Government will continue to participate to the fullest extent within the Community.

Miss Kennedy

I welcome this opportunity, the first in almost two years, to debate developments in the European Communities. It is a strange comment on the priorities of the Government, however, that we could devote three sitting days to a debate on the Government's National Development Plan last week but only two hours tonight to considering eight reports on developments in the EC covering the period from July 1984 to January 1988. This is a noteworthy comment on this House because it is happening at a time when, as the Minister of State has mentioned, 300 or so directives and regulations are being implemented almost daily in the run up to 1992. When we consider in contrast all the domestic hype and window dressing about the so-called National Development Plan, it is not surprising that there are increasing reports emerging from Brussels about its credibility and its value as an integral part of the strategy for 1992.

The first report on the Order Paper which we are discussing, the 24th is almost five years old. The last report, the 31st, is 16 months out of date already. Only two of these reports — the 30th and 31st — cover the period of office of this Government. They cover the period January to December 1987. A point worth noting from these reports is that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Pádraig Flynn, attended only one meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers in this period. That was on 21 May 1987. His Minister of State, Deputy Ger Connolly, attended the first Environment Council under this Government, on 19 and 20 March 1987. But for the remainder of the year Ireland was represented at European Council and informal meetings of Ministers by the Assistant Secretary to the Department of the Environment or the Deputy Permanent Representative, Mr. Denis O'Leary. I have no doubt that these officials represented Ireland well but the lack of attendance by the Minister for the Environment at such meetings makes this Government's claim that it is interested in environmental matters ring rather hollow.

I note from the last report we are debating — the 31st — that, in this period, the European Council of Environment Ministers debated and accepted a Directive on the approximation of the laws of member states concerning the lead content of petrol and measures to be taken against air pollution from engine emissions.

At another meeting when the responsible Minister was not present, the Environment Council reached agreement on a regulation concerning export from and import into the Community of certain dangerous chemicals. This regulation introduced notification procedures in relation to the export of certain chemicals whose use within the Community was banned or strictly limited because of their effects on human health and the environment.More importantly, from Ireland's point of view, the Council held an exchange of views on the environmental problems created by dumping and incineration of waste at sea.

There was no Irish Minister at this meeting, however, to make a case against the dumping of waste in the Irish Sea. I hope that this point is taken into account when Fianna Fáil candidates are clamouring to express their concern about the environment, about the Irish Sea being the most polluted sea in the world, during the forthcoming European elections. I also hope that the Minister's attendance record improved during the last year, for which we do not have reports.

Mr. Durkan

He was out inspecting potholes.

Miss Kennedy

Leaving aside the contents of these reports, which are out of date and superseded by the events leading up to 1992, I would like to draw the House's attention to a problem that the Progressive Democrats foresaw and warned against at the time of the Single European Act referendum. It was our view, based on the legal advice that first identified the constitutional difficulties that arose in the Crotty case, that the wording eventually put to the people regarding the ratification of the Single European Act was too limited. In view of the narrow nature of that wording, the Progressive Democrats believe that the Government must hold another referendum to permit Ireland to ratify two important Patent Conventions on the same day as the European elections on 15 June. The Taoiseach expressed the view earlier today in the House that any constitutional difficulties could be circumvented, but I would remind the House that that was the precise Government thinking which eventually necessitated a constitutional amendment to ratify the Single European Act almost two years ago.

The European Patent Convention 1973, which Ireland has not ratified, and the Community Patent Convention, which Ireland has signed but not ratified, are matters not within the scope of "necessitated obligations" of our membership of the European Community and, accordingly, are not protected by the 1972 EEC amendment to the Constitution.We believe that failure to ratify these Conventions, which has often been raised on the Order of Business in the Dáil over the last year, by 1 August could have serious implications for at least one large employer in the chemical industry and will threaten employment in that industry.

This issue, which Deputy McDowell highlighted on the Order of Business today, is not an obscure point of property law, as the Taoiseach seemed to suggest. It is of huge significance for Ireland in terms of employment and investment. Under the existing Irish law, patents have a normal maximum life of 16 years. Under the European Patent Convention, that life-span would be extended to 20 years. As long as Ireland retains a 16 year patent, investment and development, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, would be jeopardised. The IDA, the CII and the leaders of industry have demanded ratification of these conventions.

For example, Smith Kline and French (Ireland) Ltd., is producing a drug called Tagamet used as treatment for ulcer patients. Its market position depends on the patent for a particular chemical ingredient. Without full ratification of the conventions, that patent will expire on 1 August this year thereby placing at risk a considerable number of jobs. That company alone has an investment of £100 million in Ireland.

What is needed immediately to preserve the legal situation in the short-term is legislation to extend patent lives to 20 years and a Bill to hold a referendum to ratify the conventions. If a referendum, which we are advised is necessary, were held on 15 June, it would avoid the cost of a separate referendum. On the other hand, if the European Patent Convention is not ratified or, if ratified, is found subsequently to be invalid constitutionally, the damage done to jobs in investment in Ireland could be enormous.

We canvassed, at the time of the referendum on the Single European Act, for a broader type amendment to the Constitution which would have covered future conventions necessitated by our membership of the EC. The Government ignored our advice at the time but the Taoiseach did undertake an examination of Article 29(4)(3) of the Constitution to see if a further referendum were required. It is now time that the Government reported back to the House on this matter.

A second matter not explored by these reports, because they are out of date, is the question of other European States applying for admission to the EC in the future. The reports mention the accession of Spain and Portugal but the future enlargement of the Community is a vital matter affecting Ireland's interests in a number of ways.

First, the Community may have reached a size at which its geographical and internal dimensions are such that when taken together they place an unreasonable strain on the treaties. There is a vast number of competing claims such as between various economic sectors and member states, as well as budgetary and social matters, that must be balanced and harmonised if the Community is to remain a viable and prospering entity for Ireland. This has meant that we have had to become used to obtaining a smaller share of the resources available to us as a member of a group of Twelve as opposed to nine.

Not surprisingly, therefore, we should give careful consideration to all future applications for membership of the EC.

The second factor which must be borne in mind is that the issue of Austrian membership of the EC is likely to arise next year at a time when Ireland occupies the Presidency of the Council. I was surprised that the Taoiseach did not refer to the prospect of Austrian membership — a country of neutral status — in his recent meeting with the Soviet President, Mr. Gorbachev, in his report to the House last week.

I have tabled a question to the Taoiseach for tomorrow asking him if he raised the question of Austrian membership with President Gorbachev during his recent visit and if he can report whether the Soviet Union will continue to oppose any such application. This is, after all, a matter over which the Taoiseach could have a major influence in 1990.

There are other matters which we should be urging on the Government in the run-up to 1992. We are already, for example, in default of the Draft Products Liability Directive since last July. This would impose a strict liability regime in favour of consumers against the manufacturers of defective and harmful products.

We should also amend the Trade Marks Act, 1963 to allow for service trademarks for the financial services sector. At the moment, many companies in the financial services sector are disadvantaged because they do not have adequate protection for their logo or trademark. This is a serious consideration for companies coming into the financial services sector in Dublin. It would require only a slight change in the definitions section of the Trade Marks Act to legislate in this area. There is another matter I would like to refer to. It appears that many Departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture, have developed a practice of implementing EC directives by way of circular and not statutory instrument. This is not only unlawful, because of a decision of the European Court in 1980 which required that directives should be implemented by legislation or secondary legislation, but is also an illustration of shabby administrative practice and poor management in the run-up to 1992.

This point was highlighted in the courts here last Friday. In the case of Green v. the Minister for Agriculture, it was found that the method of implementing the headage payment scheme was found to be unconstitutional. What plans, if any, do the Government have to rectify the implementation of the EC directive in this regard?

Finally, I want to raise an important issue of institutional reform which will be a major plank in the Progressive Democrats' policy for the European elections in June.

In the spirit of change in Irish politics initiated by the Progressive Democrats, we are advocating that Members of the European Parliament should be permitted to attend and contribute to Dáil debates and ask parliamentary questions on European affairs. There is a strong case for this change in its own right to allow MEPs to address and appear in the Dáil. This "right of audience" would allow them to do that. They would not have the power to vote.

This institutional reform would not require an amendment to the Constitution; merely all-party agreement to a change in the Standing Orders of the Dáil. It would remove MEPs from the vacuum in which they all say they find themselves once they are elected to Europe. They have no means of reporting back to their home parliaments.

The Progressive Democrats put a motion before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in late 1987 proposing that Standing Orders be amended to provide a right of audience to members of the European Parliament to permit them to raise parliamentary questions and contribute to debate on European matters in the Dáil; and proposing that such right be extended to members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland on matters of mutual interest, North and South. It was rejected by the bigger political parties at that time.

As Chief Whip of the Progressive Democrats, I have tabled the same motion for discussion at the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the run-up to the European elections.I am asking the other parties for their support for this initiative in the coming weeks.

I welcome the commitment of the Minister of State to have debates on development within the EC every six months in this House. It would be better in future if our elected MEPs also had an opportunity to give a European perspective to our deliberations.

Mr. J. Higgins

I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the series of six monthly reports that have been brought before the House this evening for a very short debate. Like other Members of the House I am disappointed that we have such an accumulation of reports and that they are to be taken in a debate of a mere two hours. The reports are sufficiently important to be debated on a six monthly basis as was originally intended. It is indicative of our approach to such matters that not alone have we allowed a number of reports to accumulate but we have paid scant attention to other very worth-while reports about our involvement in Europe. I refer to reports from the Joint Secondary Commission on European Legislation under the chairmanship this year of Deputy Gemma Hussey. This committee meet frequently but receive very little exposure in the national media. They have produced numerous reports and have done invaluable work on the directives as they affect us. Yet the Seanad is the only House that has managed to debate them, at least during my term in this Dáil. We should have all-party agreement to put in place the standard procedure whereby the six monthly reports from the EC would get a substantial amount of Dáil time and not be just an addendum to a long day's business so that Members of the House will have adequate opportunity to debate their merits.

The reports are invaluable in keeping us abreast of developments in the Community.The Minister of State rightly marked as being significant the 1985 accession of Spain and Portugal. I would like to pay a special tribute to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, for the manner in which he, as President of the EC, was involved and totally immersed in the negotiations leading to the accession of those two countries. He can take the lion's share of the credit for the enlargement of the Community and for bringing into the Community two very valuable components and creating a greater sense of unity and cohesion within the mainland of Europe.

I note too that the Minister mentioned the Single European Act. In this regard I pay a very special tribute to former Senator Jim Dooge for the manner in which he pioneered and chaired a committee that was mainly responsible for getting the Single European Act on the agenda. We recall with a certain amount of dismay now the manner in which it has been embraced by all sides of the House. On reflection we remember that the present Government, then in Opposition, threw up every single kind of obstacle in relation to the taking on board of the Single European Act. It was supposed to be a threat to our sovereignty; it posed all kinds of sinister threats to this country and yet when the matter came before the House it was accepted and today it is a coherent, integrated, valuable part of the Government's economic strategy.

The national plan was alluded to by the Minister. In terms of significance for this country, the recommendation that we take on board the revision of the Structural Fund, integrated programmes and the new developments within the European Community have been by far the most significant beacon on the horizon for this country. I am particularly disappointed, as are many of the people on the public thoroughfares, that the national plan which was going to be the rocket that would launch us into a greater European Community is not, in terms of input, content, or thrust, anything like the rocket we anticipated. It was to be the rocket that was going to give us a new momentum, and that was going to bring us a greater sense of economic equality with the other member states but what was going to be the massive rocket launch turned out to be a damp squib.

Mr. Durkan

A second stage rocket that did not ignite.

Mr. J. Higgins

If you ask anybody in the street what it means, very few of them see it as offering us the great possibility of economic dynamism that is needed to bring us into the mainstream of Europe, to raise our standard of living or to put in place a solid economic base that will ensure that the type of economic traumas that we are now going through will never be repeated in the future. Like other Members of the House I am very disappointed that it did not address the software that is needed to give the economy the necessary mechanisms to adjust, to adapt and to meet the challenges of the future. I am sorry it did not address the problem of a revision of our PAYE system, of our VAT system or indeed other areas of taxation in order to make it far easier for exporters to perform within the economy. I am also extremely disappointed, as other Members of the House and as people outside are, that in relation to giving us the necessary linguistic competence, this area has been virtually totally ignored within the ambit of the plan.

When we look at the general education system, with particular reference to languages, we notice that the vast majority of post-primary schools teach only one language — French — that the number of schools that teach a dual continental language is minimal indeed and that in terms of linguistic competence many teachers feel incapable of meeting the challenges of oral language teaching. When we look at the number of language laboratories, at the scarcity of audiovisual or audio-lingual facilities and at the general level of oral proficiency in continental languages when one comes off the leaving cert conveyor belt, in terms of integrating into the greater European Community, in terms of looking for jobs on the Continent and in terms of doing ourselves justice abroad, we are very much second rate as regards our linguistic ability.

At a time when literally thousands of graduates with BAs and BComms are walking the streets of London, Brisbane and Boston, we should seriously think of involving them to a greater extent in the European Community. They should be sent abroad into teaching environments. There should be teacher exchanges and other programmes on the Continent in order to give them the linguistic confidence to be able to master the language. We should bring them back here and ensure that we devote ourselves to the better management and more proficient use of continental languages.

I look at the Continent of Europe as providing us with an ideal opportunity of absorbing the greater workforce that we are not able to accommodate within this country who unfortunately in many cases have to go west rather than east. If we could achieve the necessary linguistic competence and if we could give our people the necessary skills in terms of German, French, Spanish and Italian, these people would be able to look with a greater degree of confidence to job opportunities in Germany. We know that the Germans in particular welcome Irish apprentices, graduates and labourers and that these people integrate very well and adapt to the German way of life. After all, Germany is the motor of the European Community.

The national plan also has been most remiss in terms of addressing the job situation. When one considers that there are 243,000 people out of work at present, that it is predicted that 40,000 people will emigrate this year and that over 20,000 people will do the leaving certificate in June with little real chance of a long term employment opportunity in this country, the modest target of between 29,000 and 35,000 jobs per annum is extremely inadequate in relation to addressing the unemployment problem in this country. In this regard I do not care what anybody says in relation to the main components of the economy, whether in terms of a growth rate of 3 per cent, of keeping inflation down at 3 per cent, of having a surplus this year again on our balance of trade or in relation to the overall economic situation in the country, while we might put in place the nuts and bolts of the economy there is no buzz out there. Nothing is happening and the national plan, which is very much contained within the reports by way of recommendation, does little to give us the necessary thrust and momentum to put ourselves into a combative and competitive position for the nineties and the 21st century.

Again, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words on the various reports. I believe, as I have said before, that we should unanimously agree across the board that we will never allow a situation to arise again in which four years' reports will be taken in one fell swoop at the end of a long and tiring day's business.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I would like first of all to thank the three Deputies who took part in the debate and to express my concern also at the very limited participation in the debate this evening. That we had two hours to debate this matter and we are going to finish almost an hour earlier shows that lack of interest by some people in the debate, particularly by two political parties one of whose deputy leader and the other of whose leader are standing as candidates for the European elections. This shows scant regard for what all of us here tonight feel is a very important debate. I would agree with all three Deputies in relation to the delays in the publication and the debating of these reports. It is an improvement that the report for the first half of 1988 has now gone to the printers and work has already started on the report for the second half of 1988.

Deputy Durkan is quite correct when he says that the next five years will be the most exciting development period within the European Community. Of course we would all agree that the Community has a long way to go. There is tremendous interest now in the Community from outside the member states, whether you are talking about EFTA, the US, Japan or indeed the COMECON countries. That is because of the single European market and the fact that, to many of them, it represents a type of fortress Europe. Those of us who have been involved in promotions in any of these countries have been at pains to point out that we are not talking about building a fortress Europe. We welcome the great interest there is in what is seen as a huge economic bloc of more than 320 million people which has the kind of clout that is necessary when dealing with economies such as the US and Japan.

Deputy Durkan suggested that the finances of the EC have been put into order and described that as a good thing. As the person who represented Ireland on the budget Council since 1987 it is a great relief to me that the finances have been put into order because we have left behind us Council meetings that went on until 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. without a break. The achievement in regard to the finances is a tribute to the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors. He ensured that he got agreement from all member states to get the finances of the Community on a proper footing.

Deputy Durkan is correct in saying that agricultural production has been curbed, that we have a new milk and beef regime which we do not like. Ireland has made the point of all meetings of the Agricultural Council that as a small country we have not contributed as much to the surpluses as have other member states. We have the natural attribute, referred to by Deputy Durkan, of a clean environment.I agree that we have to protect it and ensure that it stays clean. We should market produce from here on that basis. Some companies have done that successfully. If they can do that abroad and beat the best of competition in Europe into second place than all our companies can do the same if they put their minds to it. In the run up to 1992 it is important, as all political parties have been suggesting, that companies are put on that footing because otherwise, they will not have a chance of survival.

Deputy Durkan referred to the relocation of industry from central Europe here. He was correct in saying that we should use the Structural Funds but, in particular, the Regional and Social Funds to encourage some of those industries to establish factories here on the periphery of the Community. One of our biggest problems, particularly in the west where Deputy Higgins and I come from, has been our infrastructure. It was very difficult for the IDA to attract industries to that region. It is important that the Regional Fund be used to bolster the infrastructure, and create new infrastructure where that is possible. When a group as large as the CIGNA Corporation decide to locate in a small town in the west of Ireland we realise the tremendous advantages we have from the point of view of modern tele-communications.We should build on that advantage and encourage such industries to locate here.

The Social Fund should be used for training purposes, to help university graduates, those who have graduated from the RTCs, VECs or apprentices from FÁS embark on further training courses so that they can take up the positions that will be available to them when industries relocate from central Europe.

All Members, and I am as guilty as anybody else, refer to the importance of continental languages for our young people but as politicians we should be taking some positive steps to improve our language ability. The House has been very successful in recent years in promoting the use of the Irish language. Many changes have taken place in the House among Members and the staff, in regard to the use of Irish and a great effort is being made by people on all sides to use whatever bit of Irish they have and improve on it. I suggest to the Ceann Comhairle, as the person responsible for the House and as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that he should consider holding classes in continental languages, particularly French and German, for Members. I am sure many Members are genuinely interested in improving their knowledge of a continental language. The business community in some parts of the country have given a lead in regard to that. For example, the Chamber of Commerce in Galway started a language class at the beginning of the year, for one hour in the morning before business people went to work, to foster a knowledge of German. It has proved so successful that an advanced course in German is being offered. Courses in French are also being offered. We should encourage such development throughout the country. We can succeed if we put our minds to it.

Reference was made to the need for us to be good Europeans. Some of us are accused of being too good as Europeans. However, it is important that we should emphasise at every opportunity that Ireland is fully committed to the European Community. That occurred in the referendum on whether we should join the Community and at the time of the referendum on the Single European Act. I share, with Deputies Kennedy and Durkan, concern about the European elections in June. All politicians agree that there is a certain amount of apathy among the general public in regard to the European elections. We must attack that in the coming weeks. The European Parliament up to now was seen as an institution that was far removed from the country and with very little influence on what was happening at home. We are all aware that the parliament has increased powers and is more involved in decision making within the Community. The role of the next parliament in steering through the policies brought forward by the Commission and the Council of Ministers, will be exceptionally important.

I take the point made by Deputy Kennedy in relation to members of the European Parliament being permitted to contribute to debates in the House. All our political parties are committed to ensuring that as far as possible we should not have a dual mandate and because of that we should consider how we can involve our MEPs in debates in the House. Fianna Fáil MEPs have been pushing that view with me in the last two years. They see themselves as being isolated from what is happening on the political front at home and they would like to have a forum where they could contribute to a debate. They have put forward a suggestion that the Seanad might be an appropriate forum. We should give consideration to this and representatives of all political parties should try to find a way, with the co-operation of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges, of solving this difficulty.

Deputy Kennedy referred to the Minister for the Environment but as he is well able to defend himself I have no intention of defending him this evening.

Miss Kennedy

I do not think the Minister can.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I should like to tell Deputy Kennedy that I will bring her remarks in relation to his attendance at meetings of the Council of Ministers to his attention. I have no doubt that he will be delighted to respond to those comments.

We are aware of the difficulties that the European Patents Convention creates for us. The appropriate legislation is with the draftsman and the Whips office is putting pressure on to get it into the House as quickly as possible.

Deputy Kennedy referred to the position of states outside the European Community applying for membership. I attended an EFTA meeting in Austria some months ago and I discovered that there was a great interest in the European Community, particularly in regard to 1992 and what that will mean. I have no doubt that very shortly there will be a formal application from Austria to join the Community.

The business community in Sweden are most anxious about and are engaged in a fairly vigorous debate in relation to their country's position after 1992. I think there is a realisation within the EFTA States in particular that very little fruitful consideration can be given any application from another State until after 1992. It is felt that all of the attention and deliberations of the Community up to 1992 will concentrate on the creation of a single market and all that goes with that. The Austrians in particular are very appreciative of that fact.

I understand that the product liability legislation is with the draftsman and is at an advanced stage of preparation. It is hoped to introduce that legislation perhaps before the summer recess.

Deputy Jim Higgins talked at length about the National Development Plan 1989-1993 on which we had a three day debate last week, so I referred to it very briefly only in the course of my remarks.

The European Community is going into high gear for the future. We shall see many developments take place very quickly with the process vis-á-vis the internal market being speeded up considerably. The next five years, particularly the next European Parliament, will be one of the most, if not the most, important Parliament since the European Parliament was established. Therefore, I would go along with what Deputies were saying, in encouraging our people to come out as they did when the referenda on occassion and on the Single European Act were held, and re-establish that great commitment of Irish people to the European Community.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 April 1989.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 1989