Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1990

Vol. 401 No. 1

EC Summit: Statements.

A statement by the Taoiseach regarding the EC Summit in Dublin——

I would like to look at the reality behind the European Summit. This Government have turned——

Deputy Garland this is most disorderly. I am surprised at the Deputy.

I am as entitled as anyone else in this House——

The Deputy must desist forthwith and resume his seat. If the Deputy is determined to be disorderly and does not resume his seat forthwith I must ask him to leave the House.

I will not leave the House.

I must then ask that the Deputy be named.

I will leave the House.

Deputy Garland withdrew from the Chamber.

The European Council met in Dublin Castle on 25-26 June. I presided over the meeting with the assistance of my colleague, Deputy Gerard Collins, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. A copy of the Presidency conclusions and related documents have been circulated to Deputies for ease of reference, and placed in the Library in the usual way.

The Council took place against the background of major international change over the last nine months in Central and Eastern Europe, the USSR and in South Africa, which has reinforced the Community's determination to strengthen its role as a force for stability in the world.

Our meeting was very successful. We dealt with a major and substantial agenda and took important and far-reaching decisons:

We agreed to a date for the Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union on 13 December.

We decided to convene a parallel Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union to begin on 14 December.

We reviewed and welcomed recent progress on completion of the Internal Market and set priorities for the coming period.

We adopted a major Declaration on the Environment.

We considered two major reports on the drugs menace and decided on the preparation of a European plan.

We asked the Commission to urgently prepare proposals to assist in the restructuring of the Soviet economy.

We welcomed the changes taking place in south Africa, but maintained a unified approach on sanctions, until there is further clear evidence of profound and irreversible change.

We adopted declarations on nuclear non-proliferation, the CSCE, and the Middle East, and other international issues.

There were three main areas of discussion. First, this Dublin European Council represented an important advance in the construction of a new Europe. The process of transforming the relations between the member states into a full political and economic union took on a new reality and urgency. The Council confirmed the strategy, first outlined at Dublin 1 in April, of bringing to completion by the end of 1992 the three basic elements — the full implementation of the Single Market, economic and monetary union and political union. Having reviewed the preparations made, we fixed the date, 13 December 1990, for the Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union and decided to convene an intergovernmental conference on 14 December 1990 on political union.

Secondly, keenly aware of the fact that the Community we are building must be for the benefit and well being of its citiznes, we dealt with aspects of concern to them. The Council adopted a comprehensive Declaration on the Environment, laid down guidelines for action on the problem of drugs and organised crime and condemned racism and xenophobia.

The third main area of discussion was the increasingly important area of external relations, particularly the current political and economic situation in the Soviet Union, the political changes in South Africa, the Middle East and the CSCE. Our declarations on these represent important political statements by the Community and reflect the Community's growing influence in international affairs.

Our ambitions for 1992 now extend far beyond the arrival of the Single Internal Market. The goal of economic and monetary union has been confirmed and the preparations for it advanced. The agreement to call an intergovernmental conference on political union adds the final element of a triple agenda to be completed by the end of 1992, an agenda which will require major political determination and effort to complete. During our Presidency we have played a significant role in developing the concept of political union and the calling of an Intergovernmental Conference to shape it.

The special meeting in Dublin on 28 April placed Political Union on the forefront of the European agenda. At that meeting the European Council confirmed its commitment to political union. We identified three important objectives for possible treaty changes in pursuit of our commitment of creating a political union invested with the necessary means of action — strengthening its democratic legitimacy; enabling the Community and its institutions to respond efficiently and effectively to the demands of the new situation, and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international action. As a follow up the Council requested the Foreign Ministers to undertake a detailed examination and analysis on the basis of ideas and proposals put forward by member states to be submitted to the June summit.

At an informal meeting at Parknasilla on 19-20 May the Foreign Ministers considered the issues involved and continuing their work in the weeks that followed produced their report which was considered as planned by last week's European Council. A copy is annexed to the Presidency Conclusions. Its main thrust is that the further dynamic development of the Community has become an imperative, not only in the interest of the member states but as a crucial element in establishing a reliable framework for peace and security in Europe.

The aim of political union is to strengthen the capacity of the Community to act in areas of common interest by providing strong and democratic institutions. The paper also makes it clear that the union remains open to membership by other European states who accept its final goals, while developing closer relations with other countries.

The set of issues that will be addressed by the Intergovernmental Conference include the question of whether a further transfer of competence to the Community is needed; the concept of European citizenship; the institutional balance; the definition of subsidiarity; improved democratic accountability, including possible future involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process; the extension of majority voting, and improving the decision making capacity in the area of foreign policy, and the definition of the security dimension or the aspects of security that will be covered by the union. This list gives some idea of the ground that will have to be covered. Our specific Irish priorities and concerns have of course been taken into account in the preparatory work carried through under our Presidency. During this period our interests have been best served by advancing the Community's agenda in a way that incorporates the concerns, concepts and proposals of all the member states including ourselves.

The intergovernmental conference convened under Article 236 of the treaty will adopt their own agenda. They will conclude their work so that there can be ratification by member states of the results of both IGCs on EMU and political union by the time of the entry into force of the Single Market.

To anyone who might be tempted to underestimate the importance of these major decisions by the European Council I would like to cite the comments of President Mitterrand as reported in Le Monde on 28 June. He said, and I quote: “The decision fixing the date for convoking the two intergovernmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and on political Union went through as easily as posting a letter. I wanted to rub my eyes.”

The first stage of economic and monetary union came into effect on 1 July 1990. The European Council, noting this with satisfaction, underlined the importance of using this stage for ensuring convergence in the economic performance of member states for advancing cohesion and to further the use of the ECU.

The preparations for an intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union was a priority item on our Presidency agenda. The initial concentration was on the decisions to enable Stage I of EMU to start in July. Agreement was reached on the procedures to govern multilateral surveillance of member states' economies in Stage I, and a preliminary surveillance discussion took place at the June ECOFIN Council on a trial basis.

The European Council noted the satisfactory functioning and recent development of the EMS, which, inter alia, refers to the entry of the lira into the narrow band. One of the very positive developments that has taken place has been the recent UK proposals for a parallel currency approach to monetary union. Britain's ERM membership would contribute to greater stability and reduce uncertainties in trading relationships between Britain and Ireland and could have a positive effect in terms of commercial development generally.

The intergovernmental conference will be concered with Stages II and III of EMU, and the task of the Irish Presidency was to ensure that the necessary preparatory work was carried forward. A Commission paper setting out the costs and benefits of EMU and proposals for the final shape of EMU was made available in March and was discussed at the informal ECOFIN in Ashford Castle, which also had before it reports from the monetary committee and from the Committee of Central Bank Governors. The discussions at Ashford Castle indicated a considerable degree of agreement on the design of future economic and monetary union, particularly on the future central banking structure and on procedures to ensure budgetary discipline.

The ECOFIN Council in June built on their earlier progress by addressing the issues of the phasing of Stages II and III, and the operational and institutional conditions which must be fulfilled before advancing beyond Stage I and the likely regional distribution of the costs and benefits of EMU. Ireland and other less prosperous member states have at all times stressed the importance of continuing and intensifying economic and social cohesion in the Community after 1993, and this is reflected in the conclusions of the European Council.

The preparations for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference on EMU were reviewed by the European Council, which noted that all the relevant issues are being fully and thoroughly clarified with the constructive contribution of all member states and that common ground is emerging in a number of fields. In the light of this, the European Council decided that the intergovernmental conference should conclude their work rapidly with the objective of ratification by member states before the end of 1992. The purpose of the conference will be to agree the final stages of economic and monetary union in the perspective of the completion of the Internal Market and in the context of economic and social cohesion. The objective of EMU has thus been significantly advanced in the course of the Irish Presidency, with progress behing made towards defining some of its principal features.

The completion of the Single Market remains the bedrock of European integration. The creation of an economic area without internal frontiers ensuring the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital and underpinned by economic and social cohesion and other accompanying measures is an essential foundation of economic and monetary union and of political union.

The European Council welcomed the good progress that has been made towards completion of the Single Market during the Irish Presidency. Indeed, several heads of Government congratulated the Irish Presidency on this progress and noted that two-thirds of the measures had now been agreed. Despite the need to respond to the great political challenges that arose over the last six months, the day to day work of implementing the Single Market Programme was not neglected, but on the contrary was pursued with exceptional vigour. The 26 measures adopted and 11 common positions agreed under the Irish Presidency, amounting to 37, constitutes a record performance for any Presidency. In addition, progress has been made in advancing the discussion of many other important items with a view to their early adoption.

One of the most important functions of the European Council is to guide and stimulate the work of the Community. The European Council meeting in Dublin indicated the areas, where it wished to see further rapid progress being made; for example, extending the opening up of public procurement to services, the creation of a free market in the areas of investment services and non-life insurance and completion of the internal market in agriculture and foodstuffs. The Council reaffirmed the need for overall timely decisions in the fiscal area in order to complete the Internal Market by the end of 1992.

The extension of the opening up of public procurement in the important sectors of energy, transport, water and telecommunications is one of the measures fundamental to the achievement of the Single Market, and will be of particular interest to Irish small and medium-sized companies, seeking opportunities abroad.

In the consumer area a directive was agreed on package travel which will provide protection for customers. Major progress was achieved towards the liberalisation of motor and life assurance, which extends services to consumers, while strengthening their protection. In particular, niches will be opened up in the wider Community market of interest to the life insurance industry here.

Progress was made on the harmonisation of technical standards. There was a first reading of the European Company Statute first introduced 20 years ago, and common positions agreed on accounts directives for small and medium-sized companies and partnerships.

In the area of research, the major achievement of the Irish Presidency was the adoption of the five year Third Framework Programme, which involved delicate negotiations between the Council and the Parliament. Discussions has commenced on nearly all of the 15 specific action proposals. Irish scientists and researchers, whether in industry or third level institutions, draw substantial benefit from EC research programmes. In 1989 approvals to a value of £24 million were given to Irish projects.

In the telecommunications area we advanced the standardisation of networks and liberalisation of services. In the energy area directives on electricity transit, which will help avoid over-capacity, on price transparency to avoid hidden subsidisation, and a new energy efficiency programme THERMIE were adopted. There was a full debate on energy and the environment, including nuclear safety in all its aspects, in the Energy Council.

The creation of a Single Market in European air transport took a major step forward when the Council adopted the second phase of the liberalisation of air transport, which will open up additional air routes to Irish carriers and create greater competition on fares. Ireland has been to the forefront in the Community in arguing for greater liberalisation, and with it one of the important original aims of our Presidency has been achieved.

A major breakthrough has been the agreement, in principle, on providing a proper legal basis for a programme for the development of transport infrastructure in the Community which has been under discussion since 1976. The upgrading of the Dublin-Belfast railway line and the North Wales road to Holyhead could be among the projects eligible for support under this programme.

The European Council stressed the importance of sustained progress in all areas of transport. Special concerns were raised in a memorandum by the Dutch Prime Minister, particularly in the road transport sector, on which we have asked for a report from the Transport Ministers for the next European Council. The Council also asked for agreed guidelines before the end of the year on the development and interconnection of trans-European networks, for example in energy, transport and telecommunications.

Progress has been made in discussions on tax harmonisation, but decisions in this area are difficult, given the sensitive economic and budgetary issues involved for all countries, including Ireland. Three long standing company tax directives were agreed which will facilitate the operation of companies across national borders. Useful progress has been made in preparing some of the groundwork for resolution of the outstanding issues in VAT harmonisation before the agreed deadline of the end of 1991.

In May the Council adopted a decision on the revised financial perspective in the context of the agreement on budget discipline, setting out increased ceilings to the end of 1992, to accommodate financial assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, amounting to well over 2 billion ECUs, as well as additional measures for co-operation with Mediterranean, Latin American and ASEAN countries. The revised perspective also confirms the doubling of the Structural Funds.

This year a widely welcomed agreement on agricultural prices was achieved before the end of April, which included measures in favour of small farmers and rural development, potentially serious differences over a well publicised animal disease problem were resolved, and a conflict which could have been very damaging to the Single Market was avoided. Last week a major package of veterinary proposals was agreed, which are essential to the achievement of the Internal Market. The proposals included the establishment of a veterinary fund to provide assistance in the eradication of animal diseases, which could be of great significance for Ireland.

The first formal Culture Council for 12 months was held during the Irish Presidency. It had a useful discussion on the protection of national treasures in the context of the Single Market. The Commission is to study Ireland's proposal for the establishment of a Community supported residence for artists, and report back.

The social dimension in all its aspects is an essential component of the Single Market and of European Union, and we have made a worthwhile contribution to its development during the Presidency and laid a good foundation for further progress. The Irish Presidency has given significant impetus to work on the implementation of the Social Charter. The European Council welcomed the timetable which we have established with the succeeding Italian and Luxembourg Presidencies and with the Commission for dealing with the specific proposals contained in the action programme in application of the Charter. The first proposals under the action programme have been presented, and discussion on them has started. The General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Matthias Hinterscheid, speaking last week at the European Foundation in Loughlinstown, acknowledged that Ireland had been more interested than other EC countries in ensuring that the confederations's social demands were respected and that the relationship between the Government and the trade unions in Ireland was not likely to be encountered elsewhere.

The European Council welcomed the measures adopted by the Council of Social Affairs to assist the long-term unemployed, including more integrated approaches to blackspot areas, greater emphasis on the role of employers and an action programme on vocational training. A number of directives on health and safety have been adopted, for instance, on VDUs and the manual handling of heavy loads. The EC's role in promoting positive health, in relation to tobacco advertising, cancer, alcohol and drug abuse and AIDS was also agreed.

The Irish Presidency considered it was essential to bring the whole issue of social protection to the forefront of EC Council business during the run-up to 1992, to ensure that levels of protection are maintained, that divergences are not increased, and that mobility between member states is not impeded. EC Social Security Ministers reached agreement on the need for the convergence of social protection policies as part of the goal of social cohesion, having regard to different levels of economic development and financial capacity.

The Commission is to report before the end of the year on the progress towards achieving the Internal Market within the timetable set down and in December the European Council will undertake a general examination of progress. The importance of transposing Community decision at national level was emphasised. Ireland ranks high, after the UK, Denmark, Germany and France in terms of implementing Internal Market decisions.

The European Council heard a report from Chancellor Kohl on the progress towards German unification, with German monetary union due to commence at the beginning of July. The Chancellor emphasised the German Government's absolute commitment to maintaining anti-inflationary discipline. He emphasised strongly the European significance of German unity.

The Council welcomed the conclusion of the inter-German State Treaty, which will hasten the integration of the GDR into the Community. Transitional arrangements are to be submitted by the Commission in September, and the Council of Ministers have been asked to reach early agreement in accordance with the principles laid down at the Dublin I Council in April. The Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic, Herr de Maiziere and his Foreign Minister Meckel attended the formal luncheon in Dublin Castle offered by the President of Ireland, and spoke briefly to us about unification from the viewpoint of the people of the GDR.

This year has seen a major acceleration of the process towards German unity, which even at the Strasbourg European Council last December appeared to be some considerable distance away. The outcome of the Special European Council on 28 April ensured the success of the concept of German unity taking place under the Community roof.

I saw our role in the Irish Presidency to welcome and assist in every way possible this historic development, not by seeking any intrusion in the fundamental internal decisions of the two states in Germany, but by facilitating the smooth integration in stages of the territory of the GDR into the Community, and providing the opportunity for concerns or fears of possible instability to be allayed. The European Council in April expressed confidence that German unification will be a positive factor in the development of Europe as a whole and of the Community in particular. Maintaining and even accelerating the momentum of the Community's own integration has played a significant part in this positive outlook. The Finance Ministers have also been kept fully informed of developments by the German Minister at each meeting of ECOFIN. Economic and financial stability has been fully maintained. Other Ministers have also been kept informed by their German colleagues.

German unification will constitute de facto a significant enlargement of the Community, the broad principles of which have now been settled. It is also a major development in the history of postwar Europe, a break with a sterile past. The key role played by the Community has been widely seen as confirming the fundamental importance of the Community's role in Europe's future and the increasing significance and influence of the Community ideal in our affairs. The German Foreign Minister has given full and regular reports to his colleagues in the Twelve on the wider implications for Europe of the German unification process, as dealt with in the CSCE, for instance.

The People's Europe is a concept, as the European Council emphasises, that draws attention to the crucial importance of promoting the rights, freedoms and welfare of the individual citizen and which seeks to bring home in a direct and practical way the benefit of the Community to all its citizens.

Concern about our environment is now universal. It is accepted that steps must be taken to ensure that we stop depleting the finite resources of our planet. The earth's atmosphere is seriously threatened, and the condition of water resources is causing serious concern. I planned from the very beginning to focus attention on the environment and to initiate action in this vital area. I designated the Irish Presidency a Green Presidency. My primary objective was to have the June European Council adopt a major Declaration on the Environment. This has been done and it is the first time that the heads of Government have addressed the full range of environmental issues. I saw it as vital that environmental action should receive political support from the highest Community body.

We are taking action at three levels. First, we are declaring the right of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, including the quality of air, rivers, lakes and coastlines, the quality of food and drinking water, protection against noise, and against soil contamination and erosion, preservation of species, habitats and the natural heritage, and the amenity of residential areas.

Secondly, we identify the action that needs to be taken at Community level, and the Declaration maps out the direction of future Community environment policy and targets areas where improvements need to be made. The Declaration identifies new ways of approaching and funding Community environment policy and calls for the more effective enforcement of environmental legislation. I would draw attention to the emphasis on the protection of seas and coastal regions to the west and south of the Community from the threat of pollution caused by the transport of oil and hazardous substances, which would include nuclear waste.

Thirdly, at global level, as the Community develops greater cohesion and its importance in world affairs grows, it is in a position to exercise considerable influence and leadership in global environmental policy. The Declaration, therefore, sets out Community policy and priorities in areas such as the ozone layer, the use of energy, tackling the greenhouse problem, and development assistance. During my meetings with President Bush earlier this year we agreed on the need for joint action to protect the environment. Co-operation between the US and the EC on global warming, depletion of the ozone layer and the protection of endangered species will be followed up later at the appropriate levels.

There was particularly strong emphasis and discussion at the Summit on the need for urgent action to halt the destruction of the tropical rain forests, before it is too late, including co-operation with Brazil and consultation with other industrialised countries. Priority consideration is to be given to the relationship between debt repayment and forest conservation, codes of conduct for timber importing countries, and resources to aid forest management on a sustainable basis.

I am confident that this Declaration will give added impetus within the Community to work on the environment and will serve as a benchmark for environmental policy over the coming years.

While the Declaration on the Environment was a major focus of the European Council, the other achievements of the "Green" Presidency have been substantial. There has been an acceleration of activity and new environmental instruments have been adopted.

The regulation establishing the European Environment Agency, which will provide the Community and its member states as well as the wider Europe with reliable and objective information on the state of the environment, was adopted at the March Council. In addition, an important Directive on Freedom of Access to Environmental Information, agreed in March and formally adopted at the June Council, will greatly increase the availability of information to the public and will lead to the publication of regular state of the environment reports. Other important environment measures agreed included two directives on the use of biotechnology, the establishment of a modern Community waste strategy with a new emphasis on recycling and selfsufficiency in waste disposal, the extension of an EC environmental information programme, the ban on the use of batteries with a high mercury content, and provision for their separate disposal, and a measure to control very strictly discharges into water-courses of four dangerous substances.

One of the most appalling revelations to emerge following the collapse of the totalitarian socialist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe was the disastrous state of the environment in the countries concerned. Their governments had presided over the wanton devastation of the environment on an unbelievable scale. There are today a large number of nuclear power stations in Eastern Europe in a dangerous state, dead rivers, and noxious air pollution in heavily industrialised regions. During the Irish Presidency the Community has been coming to grips with these problems, which are a cause of grave public concern right across Europe. A Presidency initiative was taken to bring together in Dublin the Environment Ministers from Eastern and Western Europe for the first time in midJune. They agreed that the new European Environment Agency would be a pan-European agency open to all. It has also been agreed that Community firms should be subject to a code of conduct, so that they are not tempted to exploit lower environmental standards in Eastern Europe. The European Council endorsed the agreement on the steps to be taken to improve the environment in Europe as a whole and in Central and Eastern Europe in particular, and the role that Community aid through co-operation agreements and the EBRD will play in this.

The Irish Presidency also ensured that the Community played a leading role in important international negotiations on the environment. For example, a strong unified Community position was achieved in preparation for the negotiations in London last week on the revision and amendment of the Montreal Protocol on the Depletion of the Ozone Layer; this ensured that the agreement reached in London was more ambitious than it might otherwise have been.

We have been particularly concerned througout our Presidency to ensure the greatest attention to nuclear safety. This subject is also dealt with under the European Council Declaration on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. The Twelve have proposed that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the principal international body in this field, convene a technical conference in 1991 to review the situation in the field of nuclear safety as well as to formulate recommendations on further measures for improving safety.

At home the Government announced a major £1 billion ten year programme to tackle major environmental issues. To sum up, the Green Presidency has been a worthwhile and successful initiative and we have played a formative role in setting the environmental agenda for Europe over the coming years.

The areas of immigration, police co-operation (TREVI) and legal co-operation are of major significance in view of the Single Market, the dismantling of borders and the free movement of persons. It is essential to ensure that a Europe without internal frontiers is protected against terrorism, crime and drug trafficking.

The convention determining the State responsible for applications for asylum in one of the member states was finalised and signed on behalf of 11 member states, a major achievement welcomed by the European Council. This convention is intended to prevent multiple demands for asylum or, on the other hand, the undignified transfer of persons seeking asylum from one country to the next without any state having responsibility. The convention provides the member states with an orderly and humane method of dealing with those who apply for the protection of the Geneva Convention. Reports are to be made to the next meeting of the European Council on national positions on migration and on national policies on asylum, which are major issues for some of our partners. The European Council adopted a Declaration on anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia against the background of recent outrages. We have recently passed legislation here against racial incitement.

I would also like to mention the agreement reached by Justice Ministers on an important proposal of the Irish Presidency, aimed at facilitating the enforcement of maintenance payments for deserted spouses throughout the Community, as the non-incidence of non-payment as the result of increased movements of persons within the Community following 1992 is likely to grow. It is expected that the draft convention will be adopted and signed before the end of the year. This represents a good example of practical co-operation for the benefit of the less fortunate in the Community.

The European Council noted with satisfaction that there was agreement on three draft directives on rights of residence for students, retired people and other persons who are not economically active, which is all part of the people's Europe. EC Social Security Ministers have asked the Commission to bring forward proposals whereby unemployed persons, wishing to move to a country with which they have close personal ties may retain their rights to unemployment payments.

The threat which the pernicious trade in drugs poses to the people of Europe has concerned the Heads of State and Government for some time. As we state in our conclusions: "drug addiction and traffic in drugs are sources of great damage to individuals and society as well as to states and constitute a major menace" to Europe and to the rest of the world. It was pointed out during our discussions that there are one million drug dependents in the EC, with 4,000 deaths last year compared to 1,800 in 1980. Throughout the world the value of illicit drug sales is estimated to exceed that of petroleum products. The international drugs problem is one that today has reached alarming proportions. No country is safe from it, and no country can afford to be complacent about it. The drugs area is a lucrative one for organised crime, which today operates on an international scale. In some areas of the world it is capable of posing a serious threat to governments struggling to build up democracy.

The Council had a thorough debate on this based on reports from the high level drugs' co-ordinators group, and from the TREVI group, and endorsed the conclusions and recommendations in the two reports. It asked for priority action on money laundering, on co-operation with Colombia to help it transfer to substitute crops, and on trade in chemical precursors used in refining drugs.

Effective action in each member state, supported by joint security action is required. At Community level CELAD has been asked by the European Council to prepare a comprehensive European plan to combat drug abuse, covering health and social policy measures in the field of prevention, the suppression of drug trafficking and an active international European role. The TREVI group have been asked by the Council to speed up work on the creation of a common information system and the establishment of a European central drugs intelligence unit.

Since the Summit the CELAD, meeting with US and Canadian representatives, agreed to establish an informal consultative committee to look at the drug problem in a global sense and, in particular, to cover demand, production, international co-operation and any other relevant drug problem of the day. The committee will meet at least once a year and the Italians have been asked to hold the first meeting in their Presidency. In addition, at an operational level, it was decided to set up six regional groups to deal with specific problems in different regions.

The European Council had a substantial and lively discussion on the situation in the Soviet Union. We all have an interest in the success of the political and economic reform instituted by President Gorbachev.

As President Delors has said, we sent a clear signal of our willingness to assist the reconstruction of the Soviet economy, and the Community is playing a leading role in organising western aid. We have asked the Commission to consult the Government of the Soviet Union, and as necessary the international financial organisations, with a view to urgently preparing proposals to be made regarding on the one hand short-term credits and on the other longer term credits for structural reform. The Dutch Government proposal for a European energy network allowing fuller exploitation of Soviet energy resources will be studied by the Commission in this connection.

The European Council discussed the developing relationship in Europe between East and West and expressed deep satisfaction at the progress already made and in prospect towards overcoming the divisions of Europe. It looked forward to the restoration of the unity of this continent whose peoples share a common heritage.

We welcomed the progress in establishing pluralist democracies based on the rule of law, full respect for human rights and the market economy. We welcomed the holding of free elections in many of these countries, hoping that this would lead to a fuller realisation of democratic ideals, including unreserved support for the right of individual citizens to play a full part in the democratic process and for opposition parties to operate freely.

The democratic and mainly peaceful revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe placed an obligation on the Community to provide constructive support, assistance and encouragement to these countries. One of the main achievements of our Presidency was the establishment of a coherent and effective response to the rapidly changing situation in Eastern Europe.

The EC and G24 programme of economic aid in support of reform is well under way in the case of Poland and Hungary. Extensions beyond those two countries have been decided upon in principle. The revised financial perspective provides for assistance equivalent to nearly £1.8 billion pounds over three years.

Trade and co-operation agreements were signed during our Presidency with the GDR, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, and negotiations were concluded with Romania. No decision has yet been taken on signature of the latter agreement because of recent developments within that country. Thus, in our Presidency the network of "first generation" trade and co-operation agreements with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has been completed. The Commission has described this as completion of the first phase of the Community's "Ostpolitik". Proposals are to come forward for a new set of association agreements.

Amid all the changes in Eastern Europe the CSCE is playing a vital role as an overall framework for stability and reform, and as a link between all the peoples and Governments of Europe, the United States and Canada. Support and enhancement for the role of the CSCE has been an important objective of our Presidency. We look forward, therefore, to the Summit meeting which is proposed for 19 November this year and where the Twelve intend to play a leading role. We consider that the CSCE Summit should provide the political guidance necessary to strengthen stability in Europe. We also agree on institutional arrangements within the CSCE which would enable it to build a new set of relationships among the 35, based upon the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. We have in mind arrangements such as regular Summit meetings supported by a mechanism of meetings of Foreign Ministers as well as the holding of more frequent follow-up meetings.

The European Council made its first ever Declaration on Non-Proliferation, with the Fourth NPT Review Conference beginning this August in Geneva. The Dáil will recall that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, "the NPT", owes its origins to an Irish initiative at the UN in 1958-59 when the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, brought the issue to world attention. I was, therefore, particularly gratified to have steered this Declaration through the Council.

There was, as expected, a full discussion on recent developments in South Africa. The Council welcomed the many fundamental changes which have taken place in South Africa, since the European Council last discussed this in Strasbourg in December, including the lifting of the ban on the ANC, the release of Nelson Mandela and the partial lifting of the state of emergency. In the conclusions we pay tribute to both President De Klerk and Mr. Mandela for their roles in bringing these changes about. We believe that both deserve the full support and encouragement of the Twelve to continue in the process in which they are engaged.

We want to see substantive negotiations on ending apartheid get under way as soon as possible. The objective of such negotiations must be the establishment of a united, non-racial and democratic state in which all South Africans enjoy common and equal citizenship including a system based on one person one vote and where human rights are fully respected. Urgent action must be taken to help those who have suffered under the apartheid system to prepare themselves for future leadership. The European Council, therefore, confirmed the decision to increase the funds available to them under the Community's Special Programme of Assistance.

The Council also considered the Twelve's sanctions on South Africa and maintained a unified consensus that, while many positive changes have been affected, they do not as yet fully meet the criterion of "profound and irreversible change" which we set at Strasbourg. The Council affirmed its willingness to consider a gradual relaxation of existing Twelve restrictive measures, when there is further clear evidence that the process of change already initiated continues in the direction called for at Strasbourg. I note that our position has been widely welcomed in South Africa both by the ANC and the Government.

We also adopted an important declaration on the Middle East where the situation is untenable and holds the seeds of even greater conflict. The Prime Minister of Israel has addressed a letter to me as President of the European Council committing his Government to continuing the peace process. The European Council expressed the hope that this commitment will be followed up in a concrete way. We believe that the way forward is for a settlement to be negotiated in an international conference in which all parties, including Israel and the PLO, participate. The European Council has stressed the urgent need for Israel to begin a political dialogue with the Palestinians.

It was decided to appoint a Commission representative to the Occupied Territories responsible for our increasing programme of aid and for developing trade with the Palestinian economy.

We expressed sympathy to the Iranian Government and people at the terrible loss of life, injury and destruction caused by the earthquake.

As shown by the number of bilateral meetings I have had with their leaders, I have attached particular importance to relations with the EFTA countries and to expediting the negotiations, which have now commenced, on a European Economic Space. The objective is to complete them as soon as possible.

The European Council again expressed its satisfaction with the new political relationship established between the Community and the United States as a result of an Irish Presidency initiative, to improve the liaison between the two great power blocs. At my meeting with President Bush at the end of February, there was formal agreement to meet at the highest level every six months, and at Secretary of State-Foreign Minister level. Subsequently a very successful meeting between EC Foreign Ministers and Secretary of State Baker was held in Brussels on 3 May, and there was general agreement among participants that this represented a very important development for the future. President Bush has been gracious enough to commend our efforts in the following terms:

At this time of historic change in Europe — and around the globe — we regard the US-EC relationship as increasingly pivotal. The agreement which we reached during your visit to Washington in February for strengthened US-EC consultations reflects this and has already proven its worth. The United States is particularly gratified that Ireland, a traditional friend, played such a constructive role in promoting the new US-EC partnership during the past six months.

The European Council stressed the importance of a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round, which is vital both from the agricultural standpoint and from the point of view of the maintenance and extension of the multilateral trading system which is essential to the improvement of living standards throughout the world. EC solidarity on the basis of reasonable and agreed positions has been fully maintained.

The two European Councils in Dublin have increased the standing of the Community in the world. The European editor of Le Quotidien de Paris has summed it up best, when he wrote on 27 June that Dublin II will enter into history after Dublin I as the first exercise in joint foreign policy with decisions showing a common diplomatic will. What is without precedent, he wrote, is that the Twelve are now taking decisions, not on some remote foreign policy question, but on the most important issue of all for the future, the fate of the Soviet Union.

There has been intensive diplomatic activity throughout our Presidency. A meeting took place between the Community and the ASEAN countries in February to discuss such matters as aid, market access and environmental issues. In March there was a joint meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-Operation Council with a view to intensifying economic and technical co-operation as well as to exchange views on the political problems of the Middle East. This was followed in June by a meeting of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in Dublin attended by delegates from 21 Arab countries, designed to promote co-operation between the two regions. In April there was a meeting in Dublin with the countries of Central America to discuss the establishment of peace, democracy and greater prosperity in the region, a meeting which had important concrete results including a commitment by the Community to assist in the creation of a Central American Payments Union.

The scope of EPC and the responsibilities of the Presidency have expanded considerably, with the growing international role and influence of the Community. The close linkage between the Community and EPC, in relation to Eastern Europe, Latin America and many other regions and issues, has been particularly evident in this period, and underlines the desirability of integrating as closely as possible the international action of the Community and of the Twelve.

One of the features of these last six months has been the prominent role of the European Parliament. By maintaining an effective dialogue with Parliament and its committees throughout the Presidency and engaging in a continuing process of consultation, the Presidency ensured the benefit of excellent relations and co-operation with the Parliament during what has been a momentous period in the development of the Community and in European history.

I reported to Parliament on the outcome of the special meeting of the European Council; the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, attended the monthly plenary sessions of the Parliament to answer questions on behalf of the Presidency and to speak in debates on a wide range of Community and political co-operation topics. Irish Ministers have attended a total of 25 formal meetings with the Parliament's committees and maintained regular contacts with the committee chairman for the purpose of keeping Parliament fully briefed and maximising co-operation for the smooth passage of legislation. These contacts helped to remove blockages in a number of important cases. The Parliament has been consulted at an inter-institutional meeting in May on the preparation for economic and monetary union and political union, and the European Council had the opportunity to listen to the views of the President of the Parliament, Sr. Enrique Baron, on these and other subjects at the commencement of our meeting. I will be visiting Parliament again shortly to report on the outcome of the European Council.

The last six months have been a historic period in the construction of a new Europe. It has been a great privilege for this country to preside over the European Community at this time. We held two Summits concerned largely with the rapidly changing pace of events in Germany, Central and Eastern Europe and the USSR. To prepare for these Summits, I personally visited the Heads of State or Government of the other member states, and the Commission, and held detailed and wide ranging discussions on the issues and the agenda. These meetings contributed greatly to the proceedings and to the smooth running of the councils.

The meetings also gave me the opportunity to strengthen relations with other Community leaders. Indeed, there has also been an unprecedented level of political and diplomatic contact at all levels with Governments outside the Community. One of the lasting benefits of the Presidency will undoubtedly be a much greater international awareness of Ireland as a modern nation with a contribution to make in world affairs.

I believe that Anglo-Irish and North-South relations have also benefited from the Presidency and from the wider focus which it has given. In April, I had the opportunity, as President of the European Council, to talk to the Institute of Directors in Belfast on the very important subject of the implications of the Single Market for the economy in both parts of this island.

Ireland had concluded a highly successful Presidency, which was praised by other Heads of Government and by the President of the Commission. We have seen not only great progress in the Community's development, but also an effective response to the major challenges created by the democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe.

I would like to thank warmly the Minister for Foreign Affairs and all my ministerial colleagues for their tremendous work during the Presidency in charging councils, and in fulfilling innumerable other Presidency duties. At the beginning of the Presidency, Ministers were asked to set their objectives for the Presidency. Now, at the end of our six month period, each Minister has reported almost complete success in the attainment of these objectives. I would also like to pay special tribute to all the public servants involved in the work of the Presidency, whether as chairmen or delegates of working groups and committees or as organisers of the meetings and of all the back-up arrangements required, including the Army and the Garda, for their outstanding contribution, their hard work, and their magnificent devotion to duty. Our country is, indeed, fortunate to be so well served.

The Commission and its President Jacques Delors gave us their full co-operation from the first meeting we held in January, between the full Commission and the Irish Ministers. I am very happy that the European Council decided to extend President Delors' term of office for another two years in recognition of his outstanding vision, capacity and contribution to Europe. I want also to thank the Secretary General of the Council, Mr. Niels Ersboell and his staff in the Council Secretariat, for their invaluable assistance.

We would wish our Presidency performance to be judged by the progress achieved, and in the final analysis by the influence that decisions made in the last six months will have in the future. We have not just presided in a formal sense over the Community, we have helped to shape and influence developments by concentrating on the priorities we feel to be important and identifying future goals that need to be accomplished. We have advanced perceptibly closer to a European Union which will adequately accommodate our interests and aspirations as well as those of all the people of Europe.

It was very satisfying to have the opportunity during the Presidency to work with the other Heads of State and Government in promoting the advancement of the European ideal. I am glad to state my view that the Community is fortunate in having, at this time, at the head of its affairs, a group of political leaders of great ability, with a firm commitment to the Community and a vision of its future. There is a sense of achievement, a constructive, progressive outlook and a spirit of co-operation. It augurs well for the future of Europe.

I have just listened to the Taoiseach's account of the Irish Presidency of the European Community for the first six months of 1990. I suppose it is understandable that his account was laced with large dollops of self praise. I will pass it over except to remind the Taoiseach that self praise is no praise.

This is our fourth Presidency and on each occasion when we have held the Presidency a different Government has been in power and a different Taoiseach has been leading the Government, except for a very brief period when there was a change in leadership in Fianna Fáil in 1979 when Deputy Haughey took over for the last month of the Presidency. Behind the four Governments and the four Taoisigh there is a vast army of what are now very experienced, dedicated, hard working and brilliant civil servants. As the Taoiseach said, they have made a great contribution to the success of this and other Presidencies. In the future it will be recognised that in comparison with public servants in other countries, the contribution of Irish civil servants has been enormous not just because of the manner in which they upheld the position of this country and the ability of this country to undertake huge tasks on the European mainland and carry them off with great credit, but for the contributions they have made because of their vision of the European Community and their building of that Community over that period.

It is a little ungracious of the Taoiseach not to have paid greater tribute to Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn whose contribution during the six months was beyond that of other Ministers who had far more public and prominent roles to play. My understanding is that her contribution was exceptional and should have been recognised here today by the Taoiseach. I recognise it now on his behalf.

The context in which we discuss developments in the European Community today is not only a great deal more complex than in previous years but it is a great deal more compelling. We are all aware that profound changes are taking place in Europe. The rapid pace of those changes demands a greater sense of urgency from our deliberations and decisions. It is this sense of urgency that is missing from the conclusions of the European Council, which is what we are debating here today.

The Council outlined and underlined some of the major challenges facing the Community but it did so in a general fashion. Because the agenda beforehand suggested a lengthy and substantial debate, the results are disappointing and reflect the fact that most of the member states are unclear as to what greater political union will mean. The major item on the agenda was political union and apparently neither the Commission nor the member states has an idea what that means. This is clear from the results of the Council as published in this document before us today. In our case there is a serious lack of clear priority and policies in this crucial area. This comprises two areas — European union and the kind of institutional changes that are necessary to facilitate this union.

The Taoiseach asked a number of questions which are important and deserve answers. The conclusions of the Council refer to the transformation of the Community from an entity mainly based on economic integration and political co-operation into a union of a political nature, including a common foreign and security policy. In 29 pages of script the Taoiseach did not make one reference to a security policy and to what the Government mean by it. This House is entitled to know what the Government's views on this matter are. At no stage has the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Taoiseach, who made a very lengthy speech today and has given many interviews during the past week since the Council concluded, referred to this matter which is referred to twice in the Presidency Conclusions. What is meant by "a common foreign and security policy" and what is the Government's understanding of the term "security" in this context? We do not know the answer to that question. What implications does it have for our foreign policy? The Government must have a clear idea of what this entails otherwise they would not, or should not, have agreed to the inclusion of this phrase.

It is not something which was drafted on the spot by some less important civil servant in a back room of Dublin Castle last week, rather it was passed from COREPER to the Council of Ministers and would have been debated at every stage. The precise wording of each draft, each of which contained this phrase, was passed by the Irish representative on the lower committees, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the European Council and by the Taoiseach at the Summit without any explanation been given to the people as to what exactly was involved.

Let me repeat a point that I have made a number of times before. The making of statements does not facilitate a real discussion on the complex and farreaching developments that will take place in the European Community in the coming months and years. One can well understand Deputy Garland's protest in this regard today. Following each European Council meeting statements are made in this House by representatives of each party. I accept that this format is agreed beforehand, and that is what is going to happen today, but it is not a debate in the true sense and someone like Deputy Garland, who does not represent a group in this House, should be allowed to have his say — this goes for the other Independents also — on a matter as important as this. Given the scale of the task ahead of us it is crucial that we are clear on the choices we have to make and that we are equally clear of the impact these choices will have on our political economic, and social lives. I strongly urge the Taoiseach and the Government to consider making some practical changes to enable the House to discuss and debate the issues and political priorities pertaining to our membership of the European Community.

As the member states of the European Community move closer together and more decisions are taken on a Europe-wide basis, it is absolutely vital that the Dáil remains a relevant and responsible body. It has been said that by the end of the decade, 80 per cent of the decisions in the transport, environmental and social areas will be taken in Brussels. We do not want to reach a point where this Parliament, who elect the Taoiseach who represents the Parliament when he goes to Europe — we represent the people — should not be sidelined in the discussion on the future of the Community.

The question that must be asked is what impact will this process have on the notion of domestic accountability and on the future role and development of national parliaments? For all its shortcomings our political system is based on a democratic electoral system and there is a direct link between the electors and those who are elected. The notion of accountability underpins the operation of our political system. There is also a clear system of checks and balances on our institutions and decision-makers regardless of how imperfectly they work. There was an example of this during the past week.

Indeed Deputy Garland's protest is another indication of this. We all recognise those checks and balances and people can see the link between us and the laws we pass. However, the position becomes less clear at European level.

I have to say, even though my original canard of self-praise is no praise has been thrown back in my face, that my party have been far more aware of the necessity to reorganise the business of this Parliament to ensure that it becomes much more relevant than it is at present, than any other party in this House and I can say this without fear of contradiction.

We must now ask how we can translate this direct relationship and accountability into the European context. There are a number of political innovations the Government could make in this regard instead, as I have said, of making statements following meetings of the European Council. Why not arrange a three or four hour debate prior to the Summit meeting to ensure that the Taoiseach has some idea of what the Dáil's view is on the agenda? If this were to be done there could be a debate instead of statements in the House lasting for three or four hours prior to the Summit meeting when the Taoiseach of the day would get a good idea of what the Dáil's view is on the proposals which have been made.

This mechanism would also ensure that the Irish priorities for the Summit were clear and coherent. Such clarity and accountability is essential to sustain public support for the European Community. Let me repeat that it is also vital that we ensure the continued relevance of Dáil Éireann. Let me say in this context that this is the only Parliament in Europe which does not have a foreign affairs committee. We need to address this issue. I do not want to make a political point but I have written to the Taoiseach twice within the past month and made a number of suggestions to him in this regard. I hope he responds positively to these suggestions.

It is also important that the European affairs committee or to give it its correct or more cumbersome title, the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, of which I am chairperson, is properly funded. As the Taiseach is probably aware, it is under-funded. That committee could facilitate an exchange of views with Ministers. Indeed, prior to European Council meetings Ministers could attend for a short period one of the four sub-committees of that committee.

This Parliament and the people do not know what takes place or what is discussed at a Council meeting. They are only told of the decisions arrived at. We should consider the suggestions that a Minister, prior to making his way to a Council meeting, attend the committee or a sub-committee of the committee for half an hour — as little as that — to outline the agenda for the meeting and get the views of the committee rather than telling them later what decisions were arrived at.

For instance this week the Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels when important decisions will be taken on the questions of the total allowable catch and the buying out of the boats of Irish fishermen. These issues have implications for our coastal areas, yet the decisions will be taken behind closed doors, admittedly in the presence of our Minister for the Marine. However, the views of this Parliament, as expressed through the European affairs committee, and the people will not be taken into account. Despite differences between the parties on this matter, it should be possible to come up with an Irish viewpoint through a European affairs committee rather than across the floor of the House.

I suggest that the European affairs committee should be properly funded and expanded. Ministers should also be required to attend the committee before leaving to attend meetings and to report back to them afterwards to ensure there is a constant flow of views, opinions and suggestions from parliamentarians to Ministers and that an Irish view is presented. At present views on European affairs tend to be expressed across the floor of the House in a party political way. It would be far better if the Government departed for a European Council meeting knowing they had the support of the House for the point of view they would express at the meeting.

The Taoiseach in referring to relations with the European Parliament had this to say:

One of the features of these last six months has been the prominent role of the European Parliament. By maintaining an effective dialogue with Parliament and its committees throughout the Presidency and engaging in a continuing process of consultation, the Presidency ensured the benefit of excellent relations and co-operation with the Parliament...

Irish Ministers have attended a total of 25 formal meetings with the Parliament's committees and maintained regular contacts with the committee chairmen for the purpose of keeping Parliament fully briefed and maximising co-operation...

The Taoiseach found it appropriate to appoint a journalist to beef up or to keep that liaison with the Parliament in place during the Irish Presidency. Yet, this Parliament to which we are all elected does not receive the same attention from the Government. Ministers do not come in here to keep us fully informed and briefed for the purpose of maximising co-operation. The Taoiseach does not come in here and tell us what will happen in Europe yet he can do it for the European Parliament, which though 18 of its members are elected by the people of this country, has no power. All of this Parliament is elected by the people of this country and we have power, yet the Government do not think it necessary to seek our co-operation or to keep us informed about what is going on. There is a democratic deficit there which needs to be redressed very quickly if we are to have more political union in the future.

If I could make a plea for the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities to the Taoiseach. It is virtually impossible to keep the work going because of the amount of funds available and the fact that some of the staff are out sick and the place is understaffed. That applies to all the committees of this House. If we want to have real democracy here and real reform we must fund these committees properly so that they have the research resources and the staffing that will allow them to do the work which this House decided they should do. It was this House that established many of these committees yet we starve them of funds so that they become ineffectual. This situation must change.

It is in the long-term interest of the Oireachtas, regardless of who is in Government, to have a well informed, business like and effective Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. As I have already underlined the pace of change as well as the complexity of these changes demand a response and a change in the way we think about and talk about the European Community. The European Community will be more relevant in all our lives in the future and not only the lives of this Parliament but it must be the voice and the means of communication between the electorate and the European Community. That sense of involvement by the Dáil and its committees in the affairs of Europe must be evident to the electorate. At present they do not see that but rather the Government dealing with the European Community and the Dáil being irrelevant. If that position is not changed the Community will lose and certainly democracy in this country will lose.

The range of issues dealt with in the conclusions of the Council need a structured consideration of the issues and policies on the European agenda at the moment. One of the most pressing areas for consideration is the question of political union. The Council conclusions report on the calling of an intergovernmental conference on political union. The conclusions further report that:

Foreign Ministers will prepare the Conference. Preparatory work will be based on the results of the deliberations of Foreign Ministers and on contributions from national governments and the Commission, and it will be conducted in such a way as to permit negotiations on a concrete basis to begin from the start of the Conference.

What will the Government's contribution be in this area? The reference to national governments clearly underlines a commitment and an expectation that all governments will be making a contribution. The Taoiseach must undertake to have the Irish conference proposal debated in the Dáil and Seanad before the intergovernmental conference in December. We must have an opportunity in this House to give our opinions on whatever paper the Government intend to put before the intergovernmental conference. If this was a debate, as it should be, I would be asking the Taoiseach in his winding up contribution to confirm that that would happen. I hope he is taking the point.

Likewise, what is called an assizes is taking place in Rome in November. The Italian Presidency will be bringing together representatives of the parliaments of the Twelve Community countries and the European Parliament to discuss the implications for both sides of European political developments. Before that happens I hope that we in the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities will have the opportunity of seeing the Government's proposals so that we can attend that assizes armed with the Government's point of view not with the Fianna Fáil, the Fine Gael, or Labour or any other point of view — the Irish point of view as enunciated by the Government, debated and agreed on consensus in this House. It would strengthen very much the Government's hands and it would allow those who will be attending that conference in Rome at the end of November to be confident that the views they are expressing are the views of the Irish people.

In the interests of a real discussion it would be preferable if the Government undertook to publish a White Paper so that the many interested groups — outside this House as well as in it — and the public whose future will be affected, would have the opportunity to state their views. While it may not be the ideal it is something the Government should consider.

The move towards a more politically united Europe and the completion of the Internal Market will mean new challenges and perspectives in European politics. It is very important that people understand the choices and decisions that are on offer. If people are not clear about the choices facing them and the impact of these choices, the support for and the interest in the European Community could soon turn to disillusionment and cynicism.

In the Summit Conclusions under the heading of "Unity and the coherence of the Community's international action" the question of the security dimension of European foreign policy is raised. I want to ask the Taoiseach and his Government what do they understand by the "security dimension"? Once again it is crucial that we are clear on what the implications of this undertaking is with regard to our foreign and domestic policies. We cannot be pawned off with vague generalisations about changed political relationships. Does our undertaking to contribute to a common foreign and security policy mean an end to neutrality? We should be clear about the ramifications of a major change in this regard.

Any changes which take place should be debated and agreed in this House and not out on the streets. It is a matter for this House to decide any changes in that regard and not for the Government to try to slip them in. It is referred to twice in the Summit Conclusions, yet the Taoiseach did not make any reference to it in his contribution today. That is regrettable and it is the wrong way to go about it. If changes are contemplated and if the Government have something in mind in this regard, I am willing to debate them and my views in that regard are pretty well known but the Government's views are not known and what the Government mean by this is not known. That should be put on the record of this House.

Our contribution to the process of greater European unity will require a critical reassessment of our policy towards the European Community. This reassessment must take place in as wide a forum as possible and in a mature and constructive manner. The issue at stake may be our political and economic survival. Unless we face into European union with the support of the majority of our people, the challenges ahead may prove too daunting for them and for us.

One of the issues which was not discussed was the enlargement of the Community at the European Council. The enlargement is already taking place because the two Germanys are being united, that is something I welcome. The status of the other applicants, such as Austria, must be clarified. What is the position of Austria? Is their application still on the table? Will it be dealt with in an expeditious manner? The inclusion of Austria in the European Community is becoming more important as days go by. We must see that Austria becomes a member of the Community as quickly as possible without disturbing the balance inside the Community.

It appears that the Summit did not discuss the question of aid to Central European countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I know the Taoiseach referred in his speech — it is implicit in what he said — to the bank being set up and to the need for democracy in those countries. Without financial and economic aid these countries could slip back to dictatorships. Their transition to free market democracies will be difficult and painful for their citizens and they must be helped. It is in the interest of the Community to have democratic states on their eastern border rather than having dictatorships there. At this stage it might be useful if the European Community were to discuss a firm and possible timetable for the application for membership of the European Community by Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, in particular, as an encouragement to continue on the road to democracy and a free market.

The urgency of the position in the Soviet Union was recognised and the Council have agreed to some plan of action in that regard. It is equally urgent and important that a similar plan be drawn up — politically, economically and financially — to help Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

In the Taoiseach's contribution today and in the conclusions of the Summit it was reported that over 60 per cent of the directives and proposals for the completion of the Internal Market by 1992 have been adopted by the Council. The more difficult decisions still remain. Transposing them into national laws probably will take longer than 12 months. There remains very little over a year in which to have the balance of the 35 or 40 directives — not yet adopted — adopted and translated into national law by 1992. It is my fear that, with so many other distractions, the momentum towards the completion of the Internal Market will be lost. It is already clear that there is no chance that a unified tax system will be in place by 1992. I wonder how many other deadlines will not be met.

What about the impact on our fiscal policy and economic planning? In 1992 we cannot turn round and claim that we did not expect the changes that will come about. We have known about this process for many years and should have been planning to accommodate the requisite changes. The process of economic integration is supposed to underpin the process of political union. It is important that those processes complement each other.

The Council's conclusion with regard to the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — the GATT round — was also disappointing and did not underline the necessity to conclude this round by the already agreed December deadline. This round of GATT talks are considered to be the most important in the history of world trade agreements. Reports from the talks suggest that the United States and the European Community have come to an impasse on the question of the Community's agricultural export subsidies operating through the CAP.

The Irish economy is highly vulnerable in this regard as our agricultural community are highly dependent on the transfer of resources through the CAP. The Community maintains the right to modify the CAP by way of negotiation between the member states. That is the correct way to proceed. But the Community must also take account of the interests of the business and industrial sectors. It is vital to all sectors that the Uruguay Round of talks be concluded on time. Indeed so much concern is being expressed about the implications of a failure to complete the GATT talks, that the so-called "committee of eminent people" will attend a meeting in Texas next week of the seven most industrialised nations. They want to lobby the support of those countries to ensure that the GATT negotiations are concluded by December. In that regard I am sorry to note that the Community has not a much clearer view of the urgency, necessity and importance of concluding that round of talks. Four of the seven are European Community Members, one of whom, Italy, holds the European Presidency for the next six months.

The declaration on the environment communicated no new decisions and announced no concrete action. In spite of the Taoiseach's promise that the Irish Presidency would be a Green one, in fact the declaration is no more than that — a declaration of future intentions. The Summit conclusions set out guidelines for future action and I quote:

It requested the Commission to use the objectives and the principles contained in the declaration as the basis of the Community's Fifth Action Programme for the Environment and to present in 1991 a draft of this programme.

Clearly there is no sense of urgency there. It says that the draft programme is to be presented to the Commission in 1991. Surely the time has passed for aspirational statements on the environment. No decision was taken on the location of the proposed European Environmental Protection Agency. Until that has been decided and somebody made responsible concern for the environment will be confined merely to rhetoric, statements and aspirations. Environmental issues are urgent and crucial. There must be a recognition of the need for collective action in this regard. The kind of declaration included in the conclusions of the most recent Summit is shortsighted, promoting the kind of cynicism that suggests that Europe is all about communiqués and talks, not about action.

The declaration on South Africa is not sufficiently strong on the issue of sanctions. The European Council in December last said that "profound and irreversible" changes are required in South Africa. This week they spoke of "gradual relaxation of this pressure when there is clear evidence that the process of change already initiated continues in the direction called for at Strasbourg". This suggests disquieting evidence of a faltering resolve on the part of the Council. The Taoiseach was present in this House on Monday last and heard Mr. Nelson Mandela make the point that sanctions had contributed to the impetus for reform and change in South Africa. He will also have heard Mr. Mandela make the point that talks about change do not constitute change. He said the pressure must be maintained to ensure the complete dismantling of the apartheid system in South Africa.

I should like to revert now to the question of institutional changes and areas of increased co-operation. First, let me make it clear that the future success of the European Community will be dependent on the effectiveness of its institutional framework. Suggestions of co-operation in area such as the fight against drugs, police and judicial processes are very much dependent on what the summit conclusions call democratic legitimacy. While on that subject I might refer to page 19 of the summit conclusions, a paragraph headed "Terrorism." It is somewhat disconcerting that, at a time when the Presidency had been held by Ireland for the past six months, the paragraph on terrorism should contain less than four lines. It read as follows:

Following the most recent bombing outrage in London, the European Council renewed its categorical condemnation of all forms of terrorism and expressed its deep sympathy for the victims and their families.

It seems extraordinary that a country that has suffered more from terrorism — which held the Presidency for the past six months — could issue a statement like that given what is done by the greatest polluters, in the real sense of the word, in the taking of lives in Europe, and who purport to act in our name in this regard.

It is also somewhat odd that this statement emanate from a Government who have refused to change the laws in relation to extradition. Despite the fact that one wing of that Government, the Progressive Democrats, clearly want to have a change in the laws in relation to extradition their demands were resisted by the then President of the European Council. That is very odd. While on the subject it is also extremely odd that the Progressive Democrats, who say they want change in the extradition laws — which in the view of my party would have the effect of saving lives — do not care to use their muscle within Government; nor do they care to use their muscle within Government in relation to divorce while 70,000 families are affected. Of course they do use their muscle when there is a danger of their losing publicity on RTE over the Broadcasting Bill. There is certainly a credibility deficit there.

With regard to the suggestions of co-operation in areas such as the fight against drugs, police and judicial processes — so dependent on what the Summit Conclusions call democratic legitimacy — a number of issues need to be clarified. First, what does greater co-operation in police and judicial matters entail? Exactly what do the Government understand in this regard? Are we talking about new extradition arrangements? What is our view on the speculation about a European police force fashioned on an FBI-type structure? These are issues about which we must be very clear. The Government must come forward and tell us why they agree to such words being included in a document because they must have understood what they had in mind when they allowed them be inserted. We have had no indication from the Taoiseach of precisely what they mean. Those are very important issues both constitutionally and otherwise in this country.

On the central question of the European institutions a number of very important philosophical and practical considerations arise. The advent of a more politically unified Europe will mean an expanded role for all its institutions. We might well ask: what form will this expanded role take? How will the balance of power be maintained? How will the central notion of democratic accountability be maintained? The conclusions of the Summit talk about the role of the institutions in a general way. There is recognition that an expanded role for the institutions requires a strengthening of democratic control. The Taoiseach did list in the course of his remarks today a number of questions that must be addressed in this regard. Virtually all the things I have thought of were included in that list and must be addressed again in this House.

If the central locus of power and decision making is to be the European Council, this could have a detrimental effect on national parliaments, particularly in our case as the role of the Oireachtas is seriously under-developed, as I have been maintaining for the past half hour. Indeed, the role of the Opposition could be undermined and effectively excluded from influencing policy. The European Council meets in secret; we are merely informed of results. We must facilitate a more structured input on the part of the Opposition by way of a Dáil debate, or through the committee system to which I have referred. We must remember that the national parliament constitutes the direct link with citizens, which link must be maintained. The role of the European Parliament will also be expanded. It is suggested that a direct link between the European and national parliaments be established. How do our Government envisage this happening? We will be discussing this at the European Affairs Committee in Rome at the end of the year. We want to know what the Government's view on this is because we will be discussing this in the European Affairs Committee in Rome at the end of the year.

What is the Government's view about the French proposal for a bi-cameral European Parliament? Would a second chamber increase democratic accountability, and what expanded powers will the Parliament be given? These questions lie at the heart of our deliberations on our contribution to the European Community.

What of the European Commission? The conclusions talk of an increase in the number of members and a strengthening of its executive role. What exactly does this mean? Will an enlarged Commission become unwieldly and inefficient? What about democratic accountability with regard to the Commission? The Commission is essentially a bureaucracy and must be subject to regular scrutiny and control.

The conclusions also underline the need for the application of the principle of subsidiarity. This means delegating power and responsibility to a level where it is most relevant and effective. The whole question of local and regional authority is a crucial one in the context of the Community. Our own local and regional structures are seriously under-developed. This Government's notion of decentralisation is to transfer civil servants down the country to implement decisions that are taken centrally. That is not what decentralisation should be.

We must re-examine our local structures with a view to giving real decision making power locally. This will help offset the increased centralisation of decision making within the European Community and help to maintain a sense of involvement and control.

These key relationships are only the beginning of the considerations and choices facing the member states of the European Community at present. But they are by far the most important and crucial. We must get the institutional balance right. On it will depend the effectiveness and the very survival of the European Community.

The task facing us as elected representatives is to ensure that our priorities and policies are clear and coherent. Our task is also to ensure that all our people know just what is involved in European Union. The impact of European Union and the ramifications at every level of our political, economic and social lives must be spelt out.

These are challenging times. Our future lies in Europe and I believe that it offers the best hope for our people of a peaceful, just and prosperous future.

At the outset of this debate, and on the conclusion of the Irish Presidency, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, in particular, together with the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other Government Departments who have been involved in the Presidency for the last six months, for the efficient manner in which the Presidency has been conducted on behalf of the country. We are indebted, in particular, to the public servants who serve this country. It was a huge undertaking for a very small country with limited resources and I certainly believe we have done extremely well in relation to the manner in which we have conducted our Presidency.

Overall, this has been a good Presidency which has coped with a very heavy agenda in a manner which has brought credit to the country. The early hype was totally unnecessary and it was overdone, whether by over-enthusiasm or not I do not know and, I believe, it took away from the basic soundness of the work being done.

In relation to contributing to these statements here today, I feel one would be in a far happier position to contribute if the Government were prepared to answer, in a detailed manner, the questions submitted by my colleague, Deputy Quinn, for answer on Thursday, 3 July, in relation to the formal decisions which were made during the Irish Presidency. Unfortunately, the reply was to the effect that the Government will be compiling soon a detailed account of progress made in the different Councils during the Irish Presidency and that this will be circulated to all Deputies for their information. That is the response from the Taoiseach, who at least answered the question, whereas the other Ministers refused to answer the question, which I find hard to understand because I would assume that the files are on the ministerial desks and certainly within the Departments, and in the context of the last meeting having taken place in Dublin a detailed statement in reply should have been available by yesterday. That detailed reply would, one would hope, certainly have been informative to the Opposition Deputies in this House so that we would have an opportunity of making a considered contribution to the debate here this afternoon.

The recent European Council meeting was less headline making than the earlier one, but some progress was made. However, it is once again necessary to stress that the real issues and the real decisions are not those made at the Summit but those which must be faced up to at the level of the individual Councils and, more particularly, in the two Intergovernmental Conferences over the months ahead. We should not be misled into thinking that the Summit has resulted in economic and monetary union, in political union or in environmental policies which will have any real effect — processes have been started and declarations made and the real, detailed work is now to be done.

It is fundamental, therefore, that this debate should not be seen as Dáil Éireann's last word on the major themes of the Dublin Castle meeting. It is essential that the House should take steps to equip itself to address the very important political and economic issues which are now on the Community agenda. This cannot be done by the mere formal exchange of party leaders' statements on occasions like this. We must have an efficient and properly staffed committee of the Oireachtas to deal with the entire range of Community policy matters and with the broader aspects of foreign policy. I am not sure at this stage whether the obstruction of that desire comes from the Taoiseach and the Government or from the longstanding distaste of Iveagh House for such an instrusion by the elected representatives of the people into their areas of influence. We should face up to that at this stage and we should equip ourselves better in this House by way of a Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, particularly given the wide political changes that are taking place on the European map at present.

As The Irish Times said on Monday, “the Government should have the confidence to take their Oireachtas and the public more fully into account in the formulation and debate on foreign policy issues which now touch on all domestic affairs. The Oireachtas urgently needs a committee on foreign affairs and the resources to examine the flow of Community legislation in far greater detail than theretofore”. And, the need is not merely to consider legislation but more basically to evolve a national strategy towards the emerging European of the nineties and beyond. We need to be able to develop an informed and comprehensive consensus on the future of the Community and on Ireland's place in that Community and to move from general passivity to a more dynamic and positive role in a changing continent.

Turning to the European Council itself, the most important decision taken was that to convene the IGC on Political Union. It is now quite clear that the concept of political union which informs the decision of the European Council is a pragmatic one with the goal of strengthening the Community's capacity "to act in the areas of their common interests." That is as it should be — there is no sense in pursuing utopias of federalism but every reason for working to make the Community more cohesive, more balanced and more democratic. The IGC must seek to achieve those aims while ensuring that there remains within both the structures and policies of the EC a proper recognition of the fundamental interests of all member states and of all regions.

Indeed, the principle of subsidiarity which is now invoked on all sides must be very carefully and seriously considered by the IGC especially in respect of the decision-making processes related to economic and monetary union and economic and social cohesion. The regions and the local communities which make up the Community must have their proper voice and the farce which passed for consultation here in relation to the Regional Fund must never be permitted again.

It is now essential that the Government prepare and fully debate in this House an Irish input into the intergovernmental discussions. We must have a clear position as a nation on the agenda items of the Intergovernmental Conference which are of critical importance to us. The Government failed, prior to the Dublin Summit, to outline an Irish position. This is a fundamental weakness in the performance of the Taoiseach and the Government in relation to the Irish Presidency. Among the items which should be listed and outlined in an Irish input to the intergovernmental discussions, I would submit, should be the expanding role of the European Parliament, decision making in the Council, more majority voting or otherwise, involvement of the national parliaments, definitions of the areas to be covered by foreign policy and definition of the security dimension.

The last of those points is of special significance for this country. We must accept that the pace of change in Europe demands that security concerns will be considered within the Community's institutions, and that the EC will play a political role in the evolution of the new European security framework. The creation of a Europe free of nuclear weapons and rid of the confrontation of power blocs is the great task facing all of us in the period ahead and the EC will have a part to play in building the new relationships of peace and co-operation. Indeed, I welcome the statement of the European Council that the Community will remain open to membership by other European states who accept its goals and in particular I look forward to early accession by Austria.

What we must now work for is the establishment of a new peace and security order in Europe based on mutual trust and co-operation. That is the true meaning of common security and it is a goal which must be worked for through the framework of the CSCE above all. In that framework all the nations of Europe can find a way of making their special contribution to the building of peace and to the phasing out of the military alliances which have threatened us and our children for too long. There can be no place in the future Europe for alliances armed to the teeth with nuclear weaponry espousing ghoulish doctrines of mutual assured destruction and first strike. This must be replaced by arrangements in which what is mutually assured is development and all prospects of aggression by one European nation against another, are precluded. That will take more than pious statements and will involve much detailed work on institutions and on policies. It will call for commitment and for a willingness to be open and receptive to the ideas and concerns of all nations. And it will demand a new and total commitment to the role of the United Nations at the world level in the ending of conflict and the building of lasting peace.

Through the CSCE we can all contribute to the achievement of a lasting peace. Through the EC we can help to build a Europe of economic and social progress which is the best guarantee of peace and stability. But we should set our faces against any attempt to graft on to the Community any military role. For those countries which continue to see some need for military co-operation — that is their business and not ours — there are available and established fora. There is no need to retrace history to the early fifties and to the failed European defence Community concept.

Neutral Ireland must play its full part in the common security of Europe, and of the world, by its political commitment and by its continued willingness to participate in peacekeeping and other activities geared to reduce tensions and to faciliate reconciliation between peoples and nations. There can be no benefit to this country from entering anyone's armed camp and there can be no benefit to the Community from seeking to become one. A truly open EC cannot have military entanglements.

The other Intergovernmental Conference dealing with EMU, will have important implications for every citizen of the Community. The positive outcomes which many commentators anticipate from the movement towards EMU are, like those forecast for the internal market project itself, dependent upon recognition in practical terms of the potential downside. Here I can recall the words of the oft-quoted Mr. Cecchini who stated in his report that "if the rewards are not shared fairly the EC home market will rest on a brittle skein of regional and social tensions... the extent to which the 1992 programme can attract economic and social cohesion around it will be the key to its chances of success". That is even more so the case in respect of EMU and I support fully the strong stand being taken in the European Parliament by the Socialist group to ensure that the entire EMU process is designed to give priority to the attainment of cohesion and true balance between regions and sectors.

On this subject also I am calling on the Government to produce, and to debate here, a full Irish position paper on the key issues and especially those related to regional balance. The excellent work done by NESC in this regard provides us all with the basic material and with the correct orientation. The NESC report concluded that a prime requirement for Ireland at this stage of European development is "a clear national strategy for European integration which will provide a guide to external negotiations and domestic decision-making". Such a strategy must be enunciated by this House and it is not a matter for secrecy or for so-called diplomacy.

The European Council also agreed on a major statement of principles on the environment. This is to be welcomed as is the decision to commence work on a fifth action programme for the environment. It is impossible to disagree with the conclusion that "a more enlightened and more systematic approach to environmental management is urgently required."

What is now needed is clear evidence that this sense of urgency is reflected in the practical implementation of the declaration. We must resolutely refuse to fall into the temptation to believe that the endorsement of a ringing declaration is in itself a solution to the great world ecological issues. We must press for immediate action by the Commission on the range of subjects covered by the declaration, and we must underline the significance of the declaration's emphasis on a guarantee of the rights of the citizen to a clean and healthy environment.

The environmental area is one area in which, in the last six months, some hard decisions could have been made but unfortunately have not been made. The question of the location of the European Environmental Agency should have been tackled before the end of our Presidency. The fact that the legislation regarding our own environmental agency will not be before the House before the end of this session is unfortunate in the context of the declarations and aims of the Taoiseach in relation to a Green Presidency. As was stated in the House on Monday last, the promise of change is no substitute for the reality of change. Unfortunately we are not going to see change on those two issues, which should have been easy enough to achieve in the context of the Irish Presidency.

The decision of the European Council to maintain sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa is to be welcomed and the clear stance of the Government on this point is to be commended. We have heard the firm message of Nelson Mandela on this critical point of principle and practice and we must respond. The pressures on the incoming Italian Presidency to move away from this position must be resisted and we should all commit ourselves to the continuance of a strong Irish stance on sanctions. We all equally welcome the major moves towards a settlement in South Africa and look forward to the prospect of a democratic and prosperous South Africa in which all races and groups can participate fully in building a future together.

The Declaration on the Middle East is important in stressing the necessity of continuing the peace process and the restoration of basic human rights in the occupied territories. The support for an enhanced role for the UN in the search for a lasting peace is to be welcomed. This is a tragic and unacceptable situation and anything that can be done to achieve movement demands our support just as we must condemn provocative and unhelpful actions such as the settlement policy of the Israeli Government which fuel tensions and render dialogue more difficult.

Likewise, the Declarations on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and on Drugs and Organised Crime are worthwhile exercises in building Community policies which are relevant to the needs of the moment. The sheer scale of the Declaration of the European Council reflects the extraordinary times through which we are living. It is very important that we try on an occasion such as this to get back to the basic principles which should inform all of our policies on Europe and on the wider world.

I would assert that we must work at all times for a Community: which can meet the aspirations of its peoples to economic prosperity, job opportunities, regional balance and social justice; which is democratic with full accountability of all its institutions and with proper consultation and involvement of legitimate interests; which contributes to the solution of the great world issues of peace, disarmament, détente and development; and which balances the effects of the liberal market with policies devoted to economic and social convergence and cohesion.

At a time when the pace of events is such as to place all of the institutions of the Community under great strain, it is the role of the European Council to provide an over-view and to reflect on the long-term implications of policies and of evolving situations just as much as to act as a mixture of super-executive and court of appeal. The two Dublin summits have turned the Community in the direction of very fundamental decisions which will affect the lives of all its peoples. We must take care that the full implications of each and every one of these decisions are being considered — and not least the implications of economic plans on individuals, sectors and groups and of all policies on the world environment.

I wish to reiterate my conviction that we need to equip this parliament to deal with the in-depth questions which arise for this nation in its relationships within the Community. The Presidency has given Community matters a higher profile and we should not permit this opportunity of creating a new approach to be lost.

I urge the Taoiseach, as Deputy Barry has done, to give immediate consideration to establishing and properly funding a committee on foreign affairs. It would be of enormous assistance to the Government in the development of foreign policy and in the development of a better understanding throughout the political parties in this House and throughout the country of the many complex issues which are facing us in the context of our participation in the European Community. What is at stake is far too important for everyone in the country for us to continue in the absence of such a committee, and I urge that it be set up as a complement to the work that has taken place in the last six months.

Proinsias de Rossa

I, like other speakers, including the Taoiseach, should like to pay tribute to the public servants who provided the back-up to the Irish Presidency. It is clearly not an easy job in a country the size of ours and with a public service which has been depleted in numbers over several years to cope with the enormously increased workload they faced. We should acknowledge and appreciate the effort they have put into it. It is not stretching the truth to say the public service we have is second to none, certainly in the European Community. It is clear that the Taoiseach and his Ministers also put very great effort into the Presidency. I have no doubt that they all worked very long hours. I know the Taoiseach did so. It is not easy to travel around so many states, meeting heads of Government and discussing major topics, while at the same time pursuing business in this House. We should acknowledge the effort put into the Presidency by the Taoiseach and the Government.

In many respects I am disappointed at the political outcome of the Presidency, in terms of both the objectives set out by the Presidency itself last January and the opportunities which were presented by the developments which occurred throughout Europe during our term. For instance, this was to have been a Green Presidency, but there is little evidence of any concerted effort by the Government on the issue.

Much of the Government's action in this area was in response to existing EC regulations. The problem of smog control is, if the House will excuse the phrase, a clear example. Despite a pressing problem in Dublin and Cork cities where EC smog limits were breached consistently during the late eighties, the Government moved only earlier this year to tackle the problem. This was presented as an example of the Government's commitment to the Green Presidency when in fact it was simply fulfilling EC regulations and responding to EC and public pressure that steps should be taken.

No concrete action on the environment was decided, just a list of matters to be referred to the Commission. No new role has been suggested for the European Parliament, despite the parliament's leading role in this area. In view of the Committee's criticism of member states for failing to implement environmental Directives, I am disturbed that existing Directives are to be reviewed "to resolve the persistent difficulties in implementation". This may result in dilution of the Directives.

The only significant achievement of the Green Presidency is the Directive on a European Environmental Agency. Even this is defective because the Council of Ministers, of which Deputy Flynn was President, refused to accept suggestions from the European Parliament that the agency should have an inspection role or that member states should be required to supply information to it. It will as a result have very little power to carry out an inspection of Sellafield, for instance, possibly the greatest environment threat to Ireland.

Indeed on the overall danger to the environment from the nuclear area, and in particular from Sellafield and the transport of nuclear waste in the Irish Sea, the Government seem to have failed totally to use the Presidency to highlight the longstanding demand for closure of Sellafield. Indeed during the term of the Presidency, the likelihood of continued long-term operation of Sellafield received a boost with new deals involving nuclear waste from West Germany and Spain being agreed. What type of protest did the Irish Government make on these developments and how did they utilise the position of the Presidency to the press for moves towards the ultimate aim of closing Sellafield? If anything the Government appear to have relaxed their position on the issue of Sellafield during their term in the Presidency.

At the June session of the European Parliament I suggested that urgent action needs to be taken on the movement of ships carrying nuclear waste through the Irish Sea. These ships carry the equivalent of the amount of radiation released in the Chernobyl accident. I proposed, given that closure of Sellafield will not be achieved overnight, that at the very least there is a need to confine these ships to stipulated sea lanes to lessen the danger of an accident involving passenger or fishery vessels in the Irish Sea. The Government, it appears made no progress on this issue.

On the issue of Sellafield I would suggest that there is a role for the Irish Government in examining how such installations can be transformed or new industries established which would absorb the existing workforce. Over 10,000 people are employed at Sellafield. While it is essential for us to call for the closure of Sellafield, we also have a responsibility to see if we can engage in research, possibly related to research in other parts of Europe, as to how such installations, particularly those which are arms related, can be transformed into peaceful industries. There is a fairly strong movement in Europe for such developments. Ireland could do well to use the expertise it has in research and development and science to assist in this area. It is a topic which will be debated while the Taoiseach is at the European Parliament next week. The Parliament will discuss the whole question of arms and the transformation of arms industries and the Taoiseach may have an interest in listening.

I was also extremely disappointed that the draft directive on preservation of natural and semi-natural habitats was not adopted during the Presidency. This was among the directives which were outlined for priority at the start of the Presidency.

While I accept that some of the delay was due to delays in the Commission providing required annexes, the draft Directive itself is now over two years old. What efforts did the Government make to speed up the process of having the Directive adopted or to increase the proposed funding allocation for implementation of its provisions? The present figure is only 2 per cent of the amount which environmental groups in Europe say is needed. This is indeed a good example of how the Irish Presidency acted in almost a caretaker role, failing seriously to address many issues of importance, and shepherding the discussion on to the incoming Italian Presidency.

It is deplorable that such slow progress is being made on implementating an action programme on the Community's Social Charter. Indeed in a letter dated 14 June which I received from the Minister for Labour, Deputy Bertie Ahern, outlining the achievements of the Presidency in the social affairs area, the action programme is referred to almost as an afterthought. We have so far little more than a timetable to examine instead of actual implementation for the provisions.

The Social Charter started as a citizens' charter but is now confined to workers' rights only. In many cases it is simply a set of aspirations rather than binding regulations. Having been presented with a greatly weakened Social Charter, there is now a very real danger that the Internal Market, already in the process of implementation, will be introduced without any adequate or equal implementation of the Social Charter, despite the clear statement in the Presidency's conclusions that the Internal Market and monetary union would be carried out in the context of a social dimension. Declarations of that kind are welcome but we need to see actual progress being made. The fact that a number of European journalists walked out of a Press conference last month where the Minister for Labour was either unable or unwilling to deal with this issue shows the extent of the failure to make progress on this matter and the further problem of the rights of migrant workers. The charter needs strengthening and expansion from being a workers' charter to one for all of Europe's citizens. It seems to be the intention that the charter remain little more than a piece of paper allowed to gather dust while the restructuring of the internal market proceeds. If this happends it will further erode the conditions and income of the most vulnerable in our society.

I am thinking in particular of the 1,000 part-time workers in Ireland. The figure runs to millions in the European Community in total. Beyond the workforce, the problems facing women outside the workforce, of young people and school leavers, of the disabled and of people in retirement must be addressed, as must the problems of the young homeless, who run to tens of thousands right across Europe, including Ireland. It is all very well to discuss ideas for a brave new Europe and the ins and outs of political union but when the Irish Presidency had an opportunity to do something positive for these people in Ireland and throughout the community, it clearly failed and failed miserably.

Let us contrast this with the progress reported on the implementation of the Internal Market in the Presidency conclusions, and I quote:

The European Council welcomed the good progress ... and noted that two-thirds of the measures had now been agreed."

These include changes in company tax measures, liberalisation of air transport, changes in public procurement policy in the previously excluded sectors of water, energy, transport and telecommunications and, of course, rapid moves towards economic and monetary union. Again, the social dimension is referred to almost as an afterthought, with the welcoming of a timetable for presentation and examination of the Social Charter Action Programme — and there is no word of two-thirds of that being implemented at this stage. I wonder whether one-third will be implemented by 1992.

It was only adopted in Strasbourg.

I appreciate that, but I am saying there was an opportunity for progress to be made but in my view progress was not made. I am not saying that it was possible for the Irish Presidency to have implemented the action programme — that would be total nonsense — but I have said on a number of occasions that I believe in many respects the Presidency carries forward the programme it is presented with by and large and must do the best with it and initiate what it can. However, I believe there were areas where progress could have been made.

There are still questions that remain very much unanswered despite the rapid implementation of the Single Market. How control and accountability of the new European Central Bank will be worked out is unclear. Questions such as the effect of European Monetary Union and how peripheral areas like Ireland will be affected by ever closer integration must be answered. The West German Government have already expressed their concern that a European central bank will not fight inflation as strongly as the Bundesbank and they will be seeking guarantees to protect their interest. We must ask what pressure is being exerted by the Irish Government to ensure that the effects of ever closer integration will be adequately taken into account in European Monetary Union plans?

Given the lack of moves towards economic, monetary and political union there is a need for the Government to clarify their position on the matter and to provide this House and the Irish public generally with a full insight and discussion on the issue. Facilities for this are simply not available at present. Even the format of this discussion, which has been referred to by other Deputies who have spoken, illustrate the inadequacy of how the issues are being dealt with by this Parliament.

Allowing the parties simply to make statements on an event which will have a fundamental bearing on our future economic, social and political development and status, with no obligation on the Taoiseach to respond to the points or questions raised, is a travesty of the normal democratic process, particularly when major changes are in the pipeline.

I believe it is virtually necessary, as I stated in the Dáil last week, that the Government produce a position paper on the question of economic, monetary and political union. Equally, I recommend the setting up of a special committee to look at the question between now and the resumption of the Dáil in the autumn. In my view, the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation do not have adequate terms of reference to deal with the major issues involved and, if they are to deal with them, their terms of reference would need to be changed and they would need additional resources in order to pursue the work that is required to be done on the matter. Indeed, we should also require that the committee produce reports: whether they come from the committee, as I have proposed, or from a revamped joint committee does not matter, but the reports should be debated on the floor of the House so that there can be wider public debate on these issues. It is important that sufficient resources will be allocated to ensure that the committee can carry out their work. As I have already said, their reports should be made available to the Dáil and to the general public so as to ensure that an informed debate can take place on the implications of European Union and on the different options open to us in striving to ensure that economic and social conditions can be maintained and improved.

When we discussed issues relating to the Presidency on 14 June last, I made the point that we should not look on European Union simply in terms of the existing Twelve member states of the Community. Indeed, I was glad to see in the conclusions of the Presidency that it was made clear that it was not the views of those who participated in the Council that it should be confined. We already have an application for membership from Austria, which appears to have been put on indefinite hold. I notice that the question of Austrian membership is not addressed in the Presidency conclusions, much less the interest in EC membership expressed by other countries, such as Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, and the countries of Eastern Europe. We cannot seriously hope to address the question of political union without referring to the other countries in Europe. The fears expressed in the past about the emergence of a "fortress Europe" policy in regard to relations with developing countries, now appears to be equally applicable to the countries in Europe outside the European Community.

Let me return to Austria's application for membership of the Community. That country submitted their application well over a year ago, having debated and decided on the issue in detail in their own parliament. It would appear to fulfil all the normal requirements for membership and, indeed, would act as a net contributor to EC coffers.

The problem would appear to be that Austria is an avowedly neutral country and wishes to join the Community with its neutrality intact. That does not appear to fit in with the plans. Indeed, many of those countries which seem likely to become EC members in the foreseeable future such as Sweden, Malta, Cyprus and countries like Hungary and Czechos-lovakia would be able to add a strong non-militarist emphasis to the Community. I am amazed that the Irish Presidency did not see fit to emphasise our own neutrality and, second, did not seek to promote the extension of a non-militarist policy for the Community in general in place of the existing and clearly out-dated NATO mentality among the other member states. This is particularly the case with regard to the assimilation of the German Democratic Republic into the Community. Had the Irish Presidency nothing to say on the debate on the military status of a united Germany, other than following an approach which appears to be dictated more by decisions at NATO Council meetings than the real needs in the nineties?

The question remains still to be answered whether the Taoiseach believes a united Germany should be part of NATO, should be neutral, be demilitarised or non-aligned? Would he favour a unified Germany remaining outside NATO and being designated a nuclear free zone as a step towards creating a nuclear free Europe?

I have a simple view that this is a matter for Germany.

It is fine to adopt that position and pretend it has no impact on the rest of Europe, but clearly it has. There are at least six states, including the two Germanys, trying to sort out the role a unified Germany would have in the security of Europe. Surely as a member state of the European Community and a part of the CSCE process and a neutral country we have an interest and a view on what precise form a unified Germany should take and whether it should be a base for nuclear weapons.

Would the Deputy not agree that it is a matter for a sovereign state to decide for itself?

Yes, of course, but surely a sovereign state will be conscious of the views expressed by their partners in the European Community. We cannot just opt out, we have to express a view.

We do not ask them to decide on our neutrality.

No. We do not ask them to decide and they have not asked us to decide on a united Germany, but that does not prevent them from offering a view, as they have done on numerous occasions, about our neutrality and what it should be. It is not a one way street by any means.

It certainly is not as simple as the Taoiseach is making it out to be here.

We cannot have a Committee Stage debate on Deputy De Rossa's statement.

The Taoiseach was the first to intervene.

It is a useful exchange of views.

Apparently that is not always a criterion in respect of Standing Orders, as we have learned to our regret during the past week.

We know that well.

I appreciate that.

We will apply Standing Orders.

It is a sad reflection on the input and achievement of the Irish Presidency that a clear exposition on our views on this issue was not made. However, the failure to specify a policy was not due to ineptitude on the part of the Government but rather to what appears to have been a substantial surrender of their commitment to neutrality. Last week's Summit should have been used by the Taoiseach to promote the dissolution of the NATO and Warsaw Pact military alliances and that progress towards a non-militaristic Europe be placed firmly on the agenda of the CSCE Summit proposed for 19 November next.

I want to refer to a report entitled International Meeting — What Security Concepts for Greater Europe? I recently received. The conference was held on 23-25 February 1990 under the auspices of the International Committee for European Security and Co-operation, a non-governmental organisation which monitors what goes on at CSCE for the public and attempts to have an input into what goes on under the Helsinki Act. This report makes interesting reading and refers to the CSCE and Europe's security system. It outlines a number of points which were made at a workshop of that committee at the conference. It refers to such issues at the creation of a permanent CSCE secretariat, the creation of a European Security Council in the CSCE framework or a mediation machinery for disputes among CSCE member states, the filling of the economic basket in which there have been only very limited CSCE activities so far and the consideration of the formation of an all-European military force in the CSCE framework. It also deals with the basic concepts for the future of Europe and the need to over-come the threat perceptions, to prevent the restoring of old enemy images, to work for a definition of common values, to establish a “contract between the generations” by devoting greatest attention to long-term problems, to the future of our planet, to make human values the basis for evolving the economic aspects of the new Europe security and co-operation system and of integrating European security and co-operation into a peaceful world structure.

The rapporteur at that conference concluded his presentation by saying:

I want to point out the essential elements in the Final Act of Helsinki which allows the CSCE to play such an important role now:

—an all-embracing view of security, outlining principles in international relations between the European States;

—in the field of military security: confidence-building and disarmament;

—the elements for what has now been summed up under the term "human dimension of the CSCE";

—the principles for co-operation in many areas — from economy, technology and industry to environment, education, information and culture;

—the all-embracing membership, with 33 European States, the USA and Canada, all having equal voice;

—and very important for a meeting like this one: the Final Act formulated already the need to inform the public of this great plan, to ask for their support. Now it turns out that public opinion is becoming even more important. There is a need to call on public opinion, on non-governmental organizations of many kinds, to take a share, alongside governments in the implementation of the great CSCE scheme for a safer and better life on the European continent, for friendly relations and intensive cooperation of all its peoples, and their cooperation with a peaceful and progressing world...

It is important to read that into the record because on a number of occasions the Taoiseach has indicated that he favours the use of the CSCE as the framework within which a new European security system can be evolved. That conference made a clear call for involving the public in developing that new approach. However, the public cannot be involved if they are not aware of the ideas being expressed. They cannot know of these ideas if there is no debate going on here and no clear views are being expressed in relation to issues such as the unfication and military status of Germany. The public need to be involved because obviously they will be more effected by what is going on than we will be as individuals in this House.

I again urge the Taoiseach to produce a position paper on the various points raised and to give serious consideration to the setting up of an Oireachtas committee to look at what we are doing, what we are involved in, our approach to the CSCE and to the intergovernmental conference which will take place in December. What will be our approach, for instance, at the assizes which will be held in Rome in October?

There is a need for a public debate on these issues. The Irish Council for the European Movement in Ireland recently held a conference and addressed the issues to which I have referred. On 14 June I referred to some of the contributions to that conference. There is a genuine and definite interest among the public on the issues involved and this House will be in dereliction of its duty if it does not address them.

The Government have dodged these issues and we are confronted in the Presidency Conclusions with vague references to this Summit making a decisive contribution to disarmament. What does this mean? It means whatever one wants it to mean, and it could easily allow the continuation of a NATO military alliance simply to preserve the interests of the generals and the military industrial complex and it will no doubt be defined by the 11 member states of the European Community who are also in NATO as simply maintaining the organisation of NATO. It is not too late to save the day. Ireland should co-operate with other neutral and non-aligned states in Europe in promoting a policy throughout Europe where there would be no expectation or toleration of the use of military force between states. In addition, we should take the initiative in supporting measures geared to ridding Europe of the military bloc mentality by, for instance, establishing contact with the new Czechos-lovak Government concerning the recent proposals from their President, Vaclav Havel, for a single security system in Europe.

Furthermore, there is the question of democracy within the European Community. The short reference to the role of the European Parliament in the Presidency conclusions leaves many questions unanswered. Terms such as "increased involvement for the European Parliament" and "possibly involving forms of co-decision" are vague in the extreme. No progress appears to have been made in defining a future role for the Parliament since the Taoiseach referred to working-out "arrangements for democratic control, including an appropriate role for the European Parliament" in his address to the European Parliament last May.

The Taoiseach has not displayed a sense of commitment to expanding the role of the European Parliament during the terms of this Presidency other than the rather negative approach of arguing that it should only take on issues with which the national parliaments cannot deal. That is a rather negative and insular definition of the concept of subsidiarity. It is noteworthy that when that definition was offered to the European Parliament the only group in the Parliament who applauded it with any vigour and gave the Taoiseach a standing ovation were the European Right. That is an indication of how they understand subsidiarity and if they find the Taoiseach's definition of South Africa hard to understand, we should work hard to find out why that is the case because, what is satisfactory for Europe may not be satisfactory for the people of this country.

To all intents and purposes the Community already looks on and treats Ireland as simply a region in the wider EC but in future we should seek to work positively with other disadvantaged areas to seek support for approved and relevant policies for economic and social development.

The Commission and the Council of Ministers are already exercising many of the decision-making roles previously reserved for national parliaments and indeed the Irish Government are increasingly under pressure to implement policies, directives and regulations decided by these two EC institutions. It is in this area, at least initially, that we should be seeking a greater role for the European Parliament, that is, the transfer of some of the powers which have moved from national parliaments to the EC, the European Council and the Commission. The Parliament should have a greater role in the implementation of those decisions and their making rather than simply addressing them from the point of view of extracting further powers from national parliaments and giving them to the European Parliament.

The fears highlighted by the President of the European Parliament, Sr. Enrique Baron, in his address to the Summit last week should be borne in mind. He expressed particular concern over the tendency to short circuit Community institutions on important issues, such as the discussion between the four wartime allied powers and East and West Germany on German unification. The approach of Fianna Fáil MEPs in abstaining whenever the issue of increased powers for the Parliament is raised in Strasbourg does not indicate any great commitment to having this problem tackled on the part of the Taoiseach's party. Indeed it echoes what the Taoiseach said today, that he does not see us as having a role or a say or the right to have a view on German reunification.

This short circuiting is doubly evident in the case of the European Parliament which, despite being the democratically elected voice of the citizens of Europe, is still being denied a real role in deciding policy. The attitude of demoting the Parliament was again in evidence at the Dublin Summit when the President complained about his exclusion from the Summit lunch hosted by President Hillery. As President Baron said, it was a matter of elementary hospitality.

There is an urgent need to redefine the relationship between the Parliament and the other institutions of the Community but again the Irish Presidency has shown a dearth of ideas on how or even if this should occur. At present the Commission members are not elected, properly accountable or even of a guaranteed calibre. The Belgian Government, for example, have proposed a reorganisation of the Commission, one feature of which would include its members being selected by the European Parliament. At the very least — and as an interim measure — the Parliament should have the right to remove individual commissioners. At present they have the power to remove the Commission en bloc but it would make more sense if Parliament had the power to remove individual commissioners.

There will be an opportunity to discuss the future role of the Parliament, particularly vis-á-vis national parliaments of member states at the assizes due to be held in Italy in October. I mentioned that I wanted to make a specific point about this. Because of the importance of this meeting will the Taoiseach confirm that adequate resources and funding will be provided to ensure that the Oireachtas can send its full representation to those assizes? My understanding is that the interparliamentary committee of the Dáil and Seanad have no budget to cover the expenses of such a delegation. I also understand that, as proposed at present, the delegation would consist of eight Members from the Dáil and Seanad and, therefore, there is a need to address this question. The committee concerned, according to correspondence I have seen, have already been prevented from participating in delegations to other countries and the only resources they have left, as far as I understand it, are the allocations which were given for the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier.

It is important that the Taoiseach addresses the question of resources available to ensure that Members of this House and the Seanad can attend the assizes in Rome in October. The major issues regarding the role of the European Parliament, this Parliament, the powers of the Commission and those of the Council will arise as well as the question of political, economic and monetary union and the subjects of the intergovernmental conference on 13 December. It is important that we are represented.

It is also important from my point of view — and from that of my party — that each of the parties in this House is represented. If the delegation is confined to eight people — indeed it could be fewer — if the European Parliament so decide——

The European Parliament will not have the final say in that.

I am just making the point that two major reports will be discussed next week and we do not know how many people will participate in this. The question came up in Cork with regard to having 260 people from Europe and the national parliaments but that has now been reduced. Even if the number is maintained at eight, the possibility of The Workers' Party having a representative from the Oireachtas is slim. It is important that all parties are represented, at least one member from each party should be on that delegation and surplus places could be allocated on a proportionate basis. The meeting is too important to restrict Members attending.

On the question of foreign affairs, I am glad that it has been decided to maintain economic sanctions against South Africa. However, I am disturbed by reports that sanctions may be eased in the near future. The principle must be that only when there is profound and irreversible change in South Africa can there be an easing of sanctions. I remind the Taoiseach that Nelson Mandela, honoured in this House earlier this week, is still denied the right to vote in parliamentary elections in his own country or even to contest an election there. Until these and the other trappings of apartheid are removed, it is vital that sanctions are maintained.

On the issue of the Israeli Occupied Territories, I note the support given for the holding of an international peace conference with the involvement of the PLO in an effort to achieve an acceptable settlement. I also welcome the concern that newly arrived immigrants to Israel should not be settled at the expense of the rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

It is wholly unsatisfactory, however, that proposals made in the European Parliament Resolution on the Occupied Territories, adopted last month, appear to have been largely ignored. Proposals for an international commission to investigate the situation there and on the possibility of a report on human rights violations and sending a UN peace-keeping force into the region, have not been addressed. The issue of increased political and economic pressure on Israel to bring about progress towards a settlement has not been dealt with either.

There is a grave danger that if there is not a response to the consistent diplomatic and political initiatives from the PLO, the initiatives will move to those with guns in their hands. It is disturbing that while successful efforts have been made to solve major problems in other parts of the world, the situation in the Middle East appears to be deteriorating with even a danger of open warfare breaking out in the region. The fact that the Community continues to adopt a softly softly approach to the iron first security policy of the Israeli Government is, therefore, to be deplored.

Why has so little attention been devoted to the issue of development aid in the Presidency Conclusions? The huge debt problems facing developing countries and the chronic underdevelopment facing many African countries in particular need detailed attention. With the end of the cold war and the resultant opportunity to divert arms spending for social and economic development, there is an urgent need for the European Community to take a more assertive position on the issue.

Once again the issue of Cambodia seems to have been dodged. The continued failure to grant economic assistance to that country, still struggling to overcome the ravages of the Khmer Rouge tyranny, is a disgrace. The sudden cancellation of a meeting between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and a senior Cambodian delegation to this country in the last few days of the Irish Presidency is odd and has yet to be explained. Recently, however, the Irish Government signalled that they may finally be about to change their shameful position at the UN, which has allowed the Khmer Rouge to remain recognised in that body, despite having had no power or acceptability in Cambodia for the past decade.

What was the reason for the failure to meet the Cambodian delegation? It can only be as a result of the Government bowing to pressure from the United States, probably from China, and from those Community countries which feel it is still necessary to teach Cambodia and neighbouring Vietnam a lesson for daring to assert their independence in the seventies.

I appeal to the Irish Government now they have shed the responsibility of the EC Presidency, to take up more vigorously the issues I have referred to in the international area, the question of the Palestinians and the Cambodian issue in particular.

Top
Share