When I commenced, I failed to mention that I wished to share my time with Deputy Nuala Fennell, and I wish to do so if that is in order.
Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Aonú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1992: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992: Second Stage (Resumed).
Tharig an Taoiseach an tairiscint seo a leanas inniu:
"Go léifear an Bille don Dara Uair."
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach today:
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Atógadh an díospóireacht ar leasú Uimh. 2:
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
To delete "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day two weeks provided that in the meantime the Government has initiated a Government Bill or the Dáil has approved at Second Stage a Private Members Bill, to amend the Constitution providing that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution shall not be invoked to prohibit or interfere with the exercise of the right to travel to or from the State for the purpose of receiving services lawfully available in other jurisdictions or to obtain, within the State, counselling and information relating to such services subject to such restriction as may be provided by law."
—(Deputy J. O'Keeffe.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
A massive vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty is vitally important for this country. Let there be no doubt about that. The benefits are far-reaching and if we have the ability to reap the benefits we will progress as a nation. A vote in favour of Maastricht is a vote for economic union for the benefit of the country and has nothing to do with a moral decision. While I accept the legitimacy of the points being raised by various groups they should not could the issue facing the people on 18 June.
A "yes" vote means that we will be integrated into a single market of 300 million people. When the Channel Tunnel comes into operation we will be the only island nation on this Continent. We will have golden opportunities in the food production sector. After the malaise that has affected the food processing industry over the past number of years has been sorted out we will get back to producing quality food for which there is an unlimited market. Despite all the doom and gloom about food mountains, there will always be a market for quality products and we can produce the best in the world.
Tourism offers us unlimited opportunities. Tourism means that people visiting our country have the opportunity to move out into the country instead of being concentrated in large hotels in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway. We need to develop tourism in the north-east and north-west more so than in any other area of the country because of the number of farmers who have to survive on small holdings. Agri-tourism has a great deal to offer but this cannot be developed if the infrastructure is not in place — in layman's language if we have not good county roads on which people can travel to the lakes and rivers and other scenic areas. We make no apologies to anybody for seeking to develop our infrastructure. The Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, spoke about cohesion and about the development of light rail transport in Dublin. We are entitled to benefit from cohesion and to the transfer of resources from central government to rural areas. While I make the case for my own area, it also applies to Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal and parts of Kerry and Cork. It is only fair and reasonable that there be a transfer of resources. If that is done I have no doubt that we can reap the benefits, and tourism will be a big factor in our economy in the years to come.
It is now generally believed that sun holidays are not good for health and that because of our mild climate we have more to offer. People will come if the infrastructure is in place and the accommodation is available. I hope that my contribution has not gone unheard. There is no point in my making relevant points if the Ministers who now have the opportunity to do something do nothing. If there is a change of Government in the months ahead they may then not have that opportunity as they will be replaced by people who have the ability to do the job.
The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn spoke prior to the last Government speaker but when I read through her speech I was disappointed to learn that she did not refer at all to the Protocol, which is affecting the consciousness and attitudes of women. I have great regard for Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn because I know she has an insight into the feelings, fears and aspirations of Irish women. We would have welcomed the opportunity to hear her views.
I support this Bill and endorse the amendment in the name of my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe. I deeply regret that this debate on the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the broader discussion on the Referendum of 18 June is so clouded by the bitterness and division over the Protocol and the question of abortion rights for Irish women. We have to take full responsibility for this and no blame can be attached to the Community or any of its institutions for the dilemma in which we find ourselves.
Like most Members I am deeply committed to Europe for many reasons. I do not see our membership of the Community in terms of greater funding alone, bigger grants and an unending source of finance, the gravy train as it has been called. Financial assistance is important to underdeveloped countries; we are a poorer country in comparison with other countries in the EC and we need the transfer of resources. We can see the benefits of EC grants: our roads have been upgraded, indeed the character of rural Ireland has been changed by a more efficient infrastructure. EC funding has focused on training, employment, education, health facilities, our environment, our work practices and above all on legislation on equality and fair treatment at work. However, I regret that the predominant thinking is that the EC is a gravy train and that we will get money from it. We have to think of what we can offer Europe and how we can integrate better into the Community.
All of this would count for nothing if the predominant point of EC membership, the creation of peace in Europe for the past 50 years, was not such a fundamental outcome of the Community. During this period there has been a classic demonstration of how nations can and do co-operate on issues fundamental to everyday life. If countries can work towards social and economic goals they are unlikely to develop aggressive or destructive relationships. This was part of the inspiration behind the original Treaty of Rome. The farsighted vision of the architects of the European Community should be saluted today. In voting "yes" to the Maastricht Treaty we are giving a vote of confidence to this continuing peace and the ability to work together while identifying differences at national level. How much wiser it is to use our resources and our energies collectively to improve the lot of men and women both within the Twelve and outside than to destroy each other and create wastelands through war and strife. Indeed the prosperity and the harmony among people through European unity is in stark contrast to the destruction, killing and waste over 20 years in Northern Ireland. The profound regret is that the spirit of Europe and the unity and co-operation we have seen in operation there fails to be understood by the aggressive and destructive groups on both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland. It is regrettable that they do not see that unity and co-operation and an understanding of each other's points of view — which is part of the principle of Europe — could help to solve the difficulties experienced in the different communities in Northern Ireland.
The expansion of the single market and our greater integration with people of other groups will, I hope, isolate the terrorists in time and encourage the communities that shelter them to give up ghetto-living and relate to the broader island of Ireland and to the Continent of Europe.
I support European unity for many of the economic reasons the Taoiseach stated in his speech. I welcome investment to clear up our pollution problems, to continue to contribute to training in jobs, to create more jobs and to secure those we have. I welcome investment in road building, particularly in my constituency which has many of the country's blackspots. While I agree with much of what the Taoiseach has said my apprehension about the implications for women of voting for the Treaty makes me less enthusiastic. He and the Government have displayed a degree of arrogance and insincerity in regard to the feelings of women from the start of this debate. There is real and understandable anger and frustration among women and women's organisations at the approach being taken by the Government.
In the first instance, the insertion of the Protocol, without any reference to this House or indeed to the Cabinet — as we have now been led to believe — no debate or consultation with any of the groups representing women's issues, such as the Council for the Status of Women, indicates a most cynical approach by the Government. This Protocol, in effect, closes off access of the European Courts in cases such as the right to information relating to Article 40.3.3º. Without a by-your-leave, the men at the centre of the negotiations, Deputy Haughey and Deputy Collins in one stroke eliminated a basic right of women in the misplaced notion that it would secure the referendum. I question whether they ever thought they would have to come back and answer for what they did in this country.
We may have a new Government, a new Taoiseach and a new Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I do not see them doing any better collectively. They do not inspire confidence in relation to the vote or the campaign. That is why the referendum vote is and will continue to be linked to abortion. Women want to know, and with absolute surety and clarity, what will happen after 18 June and what action will be taken. We have had the spectacle of one injunction taken by the State on a 14 year old girl preventing her from travelling to Britain to have an abortion, which was her agreed choice and that of her parents. We now have the suggestion that there may be other cases, all of which were predicted in 1983. It has taken some time to come about but it is now a reality. Women in this country are living under a cloud of uncertainty and dread. I should emphasise it is the likelihood of such injunctions and the almost inevitability that they can happen, as much as the reality of their happening, which creates such a demoralising climate and makes a statement about women's lack of full status as persons and Irish citizens.
Whenever the issue of the Protocol comes up the Taoiseach constantly presumes we are seeking — those of us who want to have some action — to have the matter resolved so as to influence our EC partners or what happens in Europe. We are not: we are saying, please make a clear statement of intent for ourselves, for the electorate here but specifically for women who are anxious and uncertain, so that women can freely and happily vote "yes" on 18 June to that which we all aspire to which will be good in the long run for women and men. As it is now, more women will be proud of being European than of being Irish. Being Irish and female is to have to make excuses, it is to have to rationalise, to explain why one is not to be trusted to make decisions that are right for oneself. It is akin to being treated like a criminal or an immature child. The Government can and must change this if they are to eliminate the risk of defeat by women on 18 June. I hope they will do it because it is the right thing to do for half the citizens of this country and perhaps eventually that message will get through.
My clear message to the Government tonight is: do not try to move back from the Supreme Court judgement earlier this year; do not try to turn the clock back to before 1983; do not try to resolve the right to information issue by some sort of Dutch auction to satisfy the narrowminded and conservative lobby who would like to see the right to information severely restricted. No one has the right to say what I or any other woman can read in the area of health. Why should my reading material be censored? It is ludicrous that women's magazines such as Cosmopolitan and other magazines coming into the country have had pages taken out to ensure that I and every other woman who will buy them will be prevented from finding an address, and that is outrageous and deserves to be defied. I appeal to the Taoiseach and the Government to listen to what women are saying and not to feel threatened by it and to bring forward their statement of intent before 18 June.
The Taoiseach and other speakers have already underlined the importance of this debate and of the decision which the Irish electorate will face on June 18 next concerning the ratification of the Treaty on European Union agreed at Maastricht. It is not an exaggeration to say that the outcome of the referendum will determine the whole future of this country — whether it will continue to play a full role in the European Community and through the Community in world affairs, whether it will seize the opportunities and face the challenges that will become available from the developments provided for in the Treaty and whether it will follow the only course that offers real hope for the improved welfare of the Irish people.
I want to concentrate on the economic aspects particularly as they affect employment and to refer also to the social provisions of the Treaty on European Union. For me, as Minister for Labour, a most encouraging and positive feature of the Treaty has been the recognition for the first time in Community law that the promotion of employment should be the main social objective of the Community. That provision is all the more pleasing as it was proposed and pressed for by Ireland in the course of the negotiations leading to Maastricht. In more practical terms, we can be confident that it will lead to even more positive Community action to help promote employment and that employment considerations will be taken fully into account in the formulation of other Community policies across a whole range of areas. Reinforced by a strong positive mandate from the people on June 18, the Irish Government will ensure that this new and specific commitment to employment promotion by the Community will be fully honoured.
The EC Commission study entitled "The Economics of 1992" has estimated that the creation of the Single Market could increase Community GNP by up to 7 per cent, could create 5 million nett jobs and make the price level approximately 5 per cent lower than it would otherwise be. A more recent Commission study gave a very positive evaluation of the likely economic impact of Economic and Monetary Union. In particular, it suggested that when account was taken of the dynamic effect of a number of factors, European Monetary Union could more than double the beneficial influence of the Single Market on output.
The substantial gains to the Community that are expected to flow from the Single Market and European Monetary Union are, of course, of great significance for this country. As we are all aware, the Irish economy is extremely open, with exports of goods and services amounting to about two-thirds of our national output last year. This proportion is exceeded in the Community only by Belgium and Luxembourg. It is, therefore, in our interest to have an external environment which is conducive to economic growth based on price stability. Just such an environment will be created by Economic and Monetary Union. It is against such a background and supported by the Community's commitment to economic and social cohesion that policy in Ireland can be used to the maximum effect to generate growth and, of course, to generate employment.
Economic and Monetary Union will also benefit Irish business and individuals through the elimination of currency transactions costs in trade and tourism. In fact, the benefits will be proportionately higher for Ireland than for most other member states because the Irish pound is not a widely used means of international payment. Our competitors will, of course, have less costly access to the domestic market but, on the other hand, Irish exporters will have more opportunity to gain in bigger market shares in other member states.
A key element in the development of a dynamic Community in which the breakdown of internal barriers releases the full potential of the member states is the motion of economic convergence. Ireland is committed to the goal of European Monetary Union and is determined that it will satisfy the convergence criteria necessary for full participation at the appropriate time. The narrowing of differentials, accompanied by the expected lower inflation in European Monetary Union, should have a particularly beneficial impact on Ireland's public finances and on domestic investment. The commitments obtained on economic and social cohesion, particularly in relation to the Structural Funds, will be of considerable further benefit.
Unemployment is the most serious problem facing this country. This Government have placed unemployment at the top of the agenda and have geared all of their economic and social policies accordingly. Since 1987, the Irish economy has performed remarkably well particularly so in the face of global recession which has proved the deepest since the thirties. GNP growth averaged 4.5 per cent a year over the last two years while, in 1991, our trade surplus showed a year-on-year increase of £300 million as a result of Irish industry increasing their share of overseas markets. Since 1987, private sector employment increased by 70,000. That is in stark contrast to the mid-eighties when we lost 80,000 jobs in manufacturing industry as a result of the policies being pursued by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition. It is clear, however, that growth of this order is not enough to accommodate the numbers out of work and those entering the labour market for the first time.
The House will remember that 36,000 net new jobs were created in the year to end-April 1990. This increase occurred on the back of the highest GNP growth in 22 years. It is apparent, however, that if any inroads are to be made into the problem of joblessness through the creation of real, self-sustaining jobs, what is required is a number of years of unprecedented economic growth.
Failure to ratify the Treaty means that Ireland will not be participating to the full, it will condemn us to the economic margins of the Community and, because of the probable diminution of the Structural Funds in real terms as well as the loss of the competitive advantage to be gained by convergence, it will mean that the economic growth needed to solve our unemployment problem will probably never happen.
The effects of the Treaty of Rome with regard to freedom of movement have already been felt in Ireland. Emigrants are now far more likely to go to continental Europe than in the past. The mutual recognition of qualifications is likely to accentuate this trend over the next few years. The Irish economy has much to gain from this mobility.
The Culliton report noted that "the perception of many managers that there is not a skill shortage may itself be part of the skills problem facing Irish industry ... The real skills gap is one which exists between skill levels in firms in Ireland and that of the best practice firms in competitor countries". A contribution to bridging this skills gap can be made by those who while working abroad, become aware of new processes and techniques. On their return, they have the ability to introduce and apply them to improve the competitiveness of individual firms and, by extension, the economy as a whole.
FÁS have taken a number of initiatives in this area. A recent major initiative is the proposal to locate FÁS employees in employment offices of appropriate EC member states following official discussions. Such persons will also help out in relation to accommodation and acclimatization generally. I would emphasize the voluntary nature of this initiative — there is no question of forcing unemployed persons to take up such employment.
In view of the serious unemployment position and the opportunities offered by membership of the Community we would be failing the young people of this country if we did not bring job opportunities to their attention and assist them in every way possible when working abroad.
A well trained workforce is a key element to the competitiveness of industry and business generally. While firms themselves must ensure that their workers' skills are regularly upgraded and updated to meet the changing needs of the firm, workers must be assisted and encouraged to develop their overall skills to enable them progress and contribute to the development of the economy.
Training is also the key to getting the long term unemployed and disadvantaged a foothold in the labour market. They must be provided with training opportunities which will give them a qualification recognised both on the domestic and Euro labour markets. The Government will continue to accept responsibility for the training of those out of work to the extent that funds are available.
It gave me great encouragement to participate in the informal Social Affairs Council in Portugal when my ministerial colleagues from the other member states agreed unanimously that increased funding should be made available for vocational training.
Of late there has been increasing recognition — or, more appropriately a re-emphasising — of the primary role of employers in training. This development is influenced by the belief that employers are in the best position to know what skills are required in their businesses. They are also in the best position to provide such skills. In many prosperous companies, there is an increasing recognition that investment in training gives the enterprise a competitive edge.
The markets in which our enterprises are operating and the processes we are using to produce our goods and services are changing continuously. This involves continuous major restructuring in the firm. Such restructuring can only take place in the context of a well trained and well motivated workforce. As I already said, employers are in the best position to produce such a workforce. Such training needs to cover not only the operatives but also supervisors, technicians, technologists and managers themselves. What is involved is a new way of thinking on the part of the managers of our firms.
Our training arrangements in the sixties and seventies tended to be based upon British practice. As we have widended our European horizons, other national models appear, including that of Germany and Switzerland. The German apprenticeship system covers around 370 trades as against about 30 designated trades in Ireland. This system is characterised by employer funding and the chambers of commerce administering the system. Certification of skills is also a major element of the system. This is another good reason there should be a "yes" vote for Maastricht.
As Minister for Labour I am responsible for the European Social Fund. It provides massive financial support for training and employment programmes in this country. In the five year period to end-1993, over £1 billion, or almost 40 per cent, of all the Structural Funds resources approved for Ireland will have been received from the European Social Fund. When allied to matching Exchequer finances, almost £2 billion will be spent on those vocational training and education programmes which are co-financed by the European Community. Equally the increase in the annual level of European Social Fund transfers has been dramatic. In 1989 ESF receipts totalled £139 million — in 1991 £371 million was transferred to Ireland from the European Social Fund.
In formulating my contribution to the national development plan, which will inform the shape and content of the next Community Support Framework for Ireland, I will assess the effectiveness of the high levels of expenditure on training to date which I have outlined.
As the Minister with responsibility for the European Social Fund, I am determined to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from these payments. The achievement of that objective may require a better balance in the types of training now being assisted by the Structural Funds, with a greater emphasis on training for those sectors with the greatest potential for growth and the provision of jobs.
Its achievement certainly requires a far more positive approach on the part of employers in identifying and providing for their own training needs and in influencing the content and relevance of vocational training programmes provided by State agencies and institutions. If the enhancement of the job prospects of trainees dictates that the quality of that training which is co-financed by the European Social Fund and by the Irish Exchequer is a more fundamental criterion than throughout numbers, then that reality will be recognised and acted upon.
Our own apprenticeship system is being recast to move to a standard reached basis rather than the time served basis that existed up to now. The question remains of extending, like the Germans, the number of occupations covered by apprenticeship and this is being examined as a matter of urgency. I believe it can cover not only manufacturing industry but consideration should be given to including a range of sectors, including the voluntary sector and the services sector.
The arrangements for the future of the apprenticeship system will be supplemented by the new job training scheme. Both employers and trade unions fully support our efforts to develop an on-the-job training system financed by employer and the European Community. The scheme is a work based training programme provided by employers on their premises in co-operation with FÁS acting as the State agency ensuring quality. Trainees will follow a structured and supervised programme of training in a work base setting tailored to individual needs. The scheme extends to continuing the consensus approach which has been so successful in correcting our Exchequer difficulties.
There can be no doubt but that employment is the principal means of integrating people socially and economically into society. Work skills and training are a necessary precondition on the part of the job seeker for employment. We will be looking to the Commission in the negotiations on the Structural Funds to support our efforts in this area.
Our domestic arrangements for assisting the long term unemployed were considerably expanded last week with the announcement by the Taoiseach of a number of measures to be implemented in areas covered by the area based strategy to combat long term unemployment proposed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
It is important for Irish workers to appreciate that the Treaty on European Union contains a very powerful social dimension which will ensure that their interests continue to be advanced. The Treaty provisions and the consequential Community actions to help employment promotion are, of course, of primary interest to secure the creation of new jobs, the preservation of existing jobs and the promise of better prospects for those who are unemployed to get back into employment. In addition, the Treaty contains provisions which are clearly intended to continue the upward development in employment standards to which workers are entitled. There is already a public recognition that our membership of the European Community since 1973 has contributed positively to improved working conditions in various ways. A particular area in which great improvements have resulted has been in the area of equal opportunities for women. The Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty has a specific provision for further improvements in the equality sphere.
Reference to the Social Chapter of the Treaty leads me to comment on the question of the UK "opt-out" from the proposed revision of the social provisions of the Treaty. Ireland in common with ten other member states, other than the UK, would have wished that it had been possible to move forward as Twelve in this important area.
Our decision to subscribe to the Agreement between the Eleven fully accords with the general firm commitment to the promotion of social cohesion in the Community. The Government believe that the Agreement strikes a reasonable balance in the division of responsibilities between the Community and national and local decision making levels in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The priorities given to employment and social partnership are of particular significance for Ireland.
On the question of possible loss of competitiveness vis-à-vis the UK in particular, the position is that the provisions of the Agreement to which the Eleven are committed are likely to be used very sparingly and that the existing Treaty provisions relating to social policy will be the normal basis for Community actions. Indeed, the draft Directive on Organisation of Working Time, which of all the draft directives would have most implications for competitiveness, will probably be the subject of a common position, which will bind all Twelve, at the next Social Affairs Council meeting on 24 June.
There are also specific provisions in the new Agreement that social policy measures must have regard to the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy and to the conditions in each of the member states. Small and medium-sized enterprises are guaranteed special protection because the Agreement lays down that measures adopted under it by the Community must avoid imposing undue burdens on small and medium sized enterprises in a way that might inhibit their creation and development.
The principle of subsidiarity which is enshrined in the Treaty has particular relevance for measures in the social area. This principle means that desirable actions are taken at Community level only where they cannot be implemented as effectively at a lower level — national, regional and sectoral. Thus, much more flexibility is allowed to suit the laws, practices, traditions and circumstances of individual member states provided common objectives can be achieved.
It may be of special interest, however, to draw particular attention to the fact that among the matters proposed for decision by qualified majority voting at Community level are measures designed to promote employment equality between men and women and actions to help the integration of disadvantaged groups into the labour market.
These arrangements will ensure that women as well as categories of persons which experience particular difficulties in getting employment can be assisted by direct Community action. This special treatment will, of course, be available to those concerned in Ireland only if the Treaty itself is ratified on June 18 next.
A most significant and welcome trend in the Agreement on Social Policy attached to the Maastricht Treaty is the very greatly increased participation of the social partners in Community decision making. This development is entirely in line with the concept of social partnership which already operates so successfully in this country.
The Agreement provides for consultation of the social partners as a matter of right on the advisability and content of Commission social policy proposals. This is in line with a proposal put forward by Ireland at an early stage of negotiations. The Government are confident that this provision for direct involvement of the social partners will result in proposals for Community instruments and other actions which are more realistic and more relevant than some proposals which have been put forward in the past because the first hand experience and knowledge of the partners will be given full opportunity to influence the terms and provisions.
In social policy areas where the Community has competence under the Agreement, the possibility of implementing such collective agreements by a decision of the Council of Ministers at the request of the social partners is allowed for.
The Council will decide on such proposals in accordance with the decision making arrangements applicable to the issues concerned under Article 2 of the Agreement. This entire arrangement represents quite a radical new initiative which will require further consideration as regards the manner of its operation, not least by the social partners themselves as they will be faced with new challenges as well as new opportunities.
I am convinced a "yes" vote to the Treaty on European Union offers significant opportunities to increase employment, reduce our unemployment, reduce emigration and simultaneously increase our living standards. As a nation we are dependent for our standard of living and our employment on our exports and by extension on our competitiveness. European Monetary Union offers us the opportunity of becoming more competitive. In addition, Structural Funds offer us the means of overcoming our relative lack of development compared to our EC partners and the disadvantages arising from peripherality.
Under the existing Structural Funds we will have received in the five years to 1993, £1 billion of aid towards our training and employment scheme. The funds have allowed us to increase the skills level of our workforce and job seekers and help the long term unemployed and the early school leavers. The reality is that without these significant financial transfers the Irish Exchequer could not on its own have provided the quantity and quality of the training and education available to so many of our young people and those at work.
Clearly more needs to be done. A "yes" vote will secure the resources to enable our training and education systems to continue to work in the interest of the Irish labour force and our young people now at school. For our part, we will continue to improve the quality of our programmes through more effective linkage with economic and industrial development activities.
The name "Maastricht" was not very well known in this country a couple of years ago but no name is better known here at present. However, no name is more associated with confusion than Maastricht. Everybody recognises the necessity to ratify the Maastricht Treaty for all the very good reasons advanced by various people so far; it would be irresponsible for any substantial group to do otherwise. However, it is equally irresponsible of the Government to introduce a Bill to enable a referendum to be held at a time when there are other issues, totally unrelated to the Maastricht Treaty, entangled in the debate on the present dispute.
Because of the importance of the ratification of Maastricht, it is incumbent on the Government, even at this stage, to make a last ditch effort to extricate the other issues from the debate on Maastricht. If they do not, and in the unfortunate event of the Maastricht Treaty being defeated, then the public will visit their anger and vengeance on the people who failed to disentangle those issues.
There can be no doubt about the importance of Maastricht for people in all levels of society, for the unemployed as well as the employed. Whatever hope and chance we have depends on becoming part of a greater integrated Europe and gaining some of the opportunities we should get from that greater economy and great continent.
There was a strident tone in the Taoiseach's speech today, a bit of the old soldier trick, calling on the people to remember what had been done. He referred to payments made to women under the equality legislation. He seemed to think as a result that women should thank him for being a decent and upright man and to support him because he had been so kind. His speech was patronising and dangerous, it would have been far better if he had looked carefully at all that has taken place — admittedly not planned by him or anybody else — which, unfortunately, brought this debate into conflict with other issues.
The freedom of information, the right to travel, etc., are issues which affect women, whether we like it or not; the Taoiseach and members of the Government may delude themselves into thinking that they are not issues but I assure them that on the day of the referendum they will find that they are. I warn the Government, even at this late stage, to try to disentangle the issues and not to allow Masstricht to become confused with another argument which has no bearing on it or on European integration, or on issues which need to be determined domestically by the people elected to this House. I fear the outcome if that does not happen. It will do no good for the Taoiseach or members of the Government to call on the Opposition parties to do their duty. The Opposition parties will do their duty, unlike the Fianna Fáil Party on many occasions when they were in Opposition.
It is important that the Government do their duty and ensure that people voting in the referendum have only one issue to decide, namely whether we want European integration and all that goes with it. If the Taoiseach and the Government can do that, they will do themselves and the country a great favour. Let us consider the alternatives. If by some mischance the whole thing goes wrong and the Maastricht Treaty is not ratified, how will our European partners regard us? Will they consider that we are constructive Europeans who want to be part of Europe? Will they think we want to share this new brotherhood, the ideal of the greater Europe and the Single Market, the Europe envisaged by Schuman, Monnet, Adenauer and others? Will they regard us as supportive members of that group in the event of our failure to ratify the treaty?
Conflicting views have been expressed by the Taoiseach and others during the past few weeks as to what might happen in the event of failure to ratify the Treaty. They have trotted out various unfortunate possibilities. That should spur them on to ensure that all other issues are removed from the arena beforehand. I again appeal to the Government to take on board the sentiments expressed in the Fine Gael amendment. If not, they alone will have to bear the brunt of responsibility for anything that may go wrong afterwards. There would be no sense in claiming that they need a general election or in postponing a general election and hoping that people would forget about the problem. There will be no sense in having a series of referenda afterwards if this referendum does not yield the proper result. Those other referenda would then be irrelevant and would be carried out by a different Government.
The Minister for Labour referred to the proposal to locate a number of FÁS trainees abroad. That is not exactly what we intended would happen in the greater Europe. It was intended to bring the jobs to the people as opposed to bringing the people to the jobs. The Minister went on at some length to point out the benefits of sending people to jobs in Germany, France, Holland and elsewhere. That might be a good thing as a last resort but it does involve emigration, the export of our young people. It is an indication of the object failure of the economic policies pursued by this administration that after almost three years in office they are suggesting that our people should go abroad to be trained for jobs abroad. It is a sad reflection on the performance of the Government. They should consider whether we are getting the full benefits from an integrated Europe and whether it might be better to encourage people to invest here so that we would not have to export our people, young or middle aged, to seek job opportunities.
Most other European countries have a very low rate of unemployment, including some of the EFTA countries. Austria, which is seeking membership of the EC, has an unemployment level of 5 per cent, as compared with 21 per cent here and growing fast. It must be recognised that we have failed to bring the jobs to the people, yet the jobs are there. We are in the European economic area and it should be possible to encourage the providers of jobs to come to where the people are.
Other issues will arise after 1996 relating to European defence and security. I do not want to advance beyond the Maastricht Treaty. A number of people have genuine fears about neutrality at some stage in the future but that matter does not arise now. I have always felt that if we are part of a community which is economically, monetarily and politically united we cannot opt out of a security policy. It is not in our interests to opt out of a defence and security policy at some stage in the future. If we have an input at the decision-making level we have a better chance of influencing those decisions than by opting out, stepping aside and staying neutral. The Community will grow larger and will include a number of smaller countries, some with a history of neutrality. The more of those countries which are involved in influencing and taking decisions the better it is from our point of view.
Economic and monetary union will be of much greater benefit to our exporters than we can imagine. A person travelling through the Twelve member states and deciding to exchange money at each airport would have very little left out of a £100 at the end of his travels, perhaps only £10 or £12. One can readily recognise the difficulties this presents for business people. The elimination of these difficulties must be welcomed.
It is vitally important that the Government recognise the need to ensure the smooth ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. If they do not, the consequences will fall on them. There will be no sense in pointing the finger at this side and suggesting that the Opposition parties did not do their work or were unfair or raised various issues. The issues are there and the onus is on the Government to resolve them and decide which should be taken first. The outcome of the referendum will depend on that. It is the epitome of irresponsibility for the Government to suggest that they can go forward on 18 June in the knowledge that there are two other issues, totally unrelated to economic matters, still unresolved. The Government should have the wit to resolve them — they certainly have the responsibility.
The Taoiseach referred earlier to the need for all the other responsible parties in the House to come on side. We do not have to come on side; we have been on side all of the time. We fully support the concept of European union, the Maastricht Treaty and all that goes with it. I wonder, though, whether the Taoiseach and his Ministers could say that they are fully united, that they have no problems in that regard and that they approach the impending ratification of the Maastricht Treaty without any worries or fears. I doubt that the Government themselves are 100 per cent behind the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Fianna Fáil may have had a spectacular parliamentary party meeting recently that seemed to indicate unanimity on certain issues, but I wonder just how much of that was for the benefit of the consumer. What bearing might changes or the eruption of new events between now and 18 June have on the smooth exterior displayed by those on the other side of the House? I am sure that the two Ministers sitting across the Chamber at present fully understand what I am saying. I hope that none of those things happen but if they do the Government will have the responsibility of resolving any ensuring problems. The only way to resolve issues that might come up is to clear the decks beforehand and allow the Maastricht Treaty to be debated on its own merits. Then and then only can the people of Ireland fully evaluate the benefits accruing to them from support for the Maastricht agreement, discuss dispassionately all of the issues involved in the agreement and as a result give their opinion freely and in the knowledge that they are not entrapping themselves on any issue.
The Government have a duty to consider the amendment proposed by Fine Gael and to examine whether it might not be in their own interest, if for no other reason, to allow the debate on the Maastricht Treaty to be dealt with separate from the debate now taking place, which involves several issues.
If we ratify the Maastricht Treaty —and I hope we do — that will be taken in Europe as a signal of Irish willingness to participate fully in the greater Europe. It should be recognised in Europe as an indication of the support we have always displayed for greater European union and it should be recognised by us as a willingness to become completely involved in what will eventually become the United States of Europe. It should also be a means whereby we in Ireland recognise that not only can we expect to get benefits in direct payments, appeasements and subsidies from Europe but that we can also expect the Government to take on board the clear indication that we should have a right to equal opportunity within the European sphere; equal rights to jobs, equal rights to housing and equal rights to a good quality of life. Equal opportunity should apply as much in this country as in any other better and more advanced part of Europe. If we do not work towards the achievement of that end, then there is not much sense in being part of a European union. If we do not now recognise that all does not begin and end with subsidies, set-asides, handouts and easements, then our membership of Europe will be of only minimal benefit to us. We will never perform our full role unless we recognise the need to become Europeans in the full sense by getting the equal opportunity that is our right.
The Treaty of European Union is historic in its own right and is particularly historic from the point of view of education, in that for the first time education is being given a central role in a document of such seriousness. For that reason, the Treaty is critical to the entire future of the education system.
The decision to be made on 18 June is very serious. It is important that in the remaining weeks both sides of the argument take part in a debate that is open and honest. The decision to be made is about the European Community. It is about committing ourselves not only to the financial, economic and structural surrounds but also to an ideal and to a direction for the Irish people. Therefore, all of the argument and counter-argument about funding and structures should not be taken lightly. The upcoming decision is about more than money; it is about the way we want to live in the decades and generations to come. It is a critical decision for this country.
The decision taken on 18 June is as I have outlined. It is not about the other issues that have dominated the debate up until now. The decision concerns the economic future of the European Community and the commitment to an ideal of uniting Europe as we progress.
In the few moments available to me I should like to address two issues in particular, economic and social cohesion and new or strengthened areas of Community action. Those issues are dealt with in a comprehensive way in Chapters V and VI of the White Paper on the Treaty on European Union. I intend to examine them specifically from the educational point of view.
As the White Paper points out, cohesion is the term used to describe the objective of progressive reduction in economic and social disparities between the more and less affluent regions of the Community — an objective which lies at the heart of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. That Treaty established the European Social Fund. Since then, two other Structural Funds — the European Regional Development Fund and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section — have been established. Together, the Structural Funds constitute the chief Community financial instrument for the promotion of social and economic cohesion.
Following the coming into force of the Single European Act in January 1989 the Commission proposed a major reform of the Structural Funds and a doubling of the resources available to them by the end of 1993. The current agreement between Ireland and the Commission governing the use of the Funds, the Community Support Framework (CSF), remains in force until the end of 1993.
The income to the Department of Education in respect of training measures included in the CSF is as follows: £107 million in 1990; £107 million in 1991; an estimated £114 million for 1992; and £121 million for 1993.
There is no doubt that the Social Fund has been a major influence in the rapid expansion of our third level system over the past three years. It has also been a significant factor in the development of vocationally oriented courses at post-compulsory and post-leaving certificate levels.
We are also receiving in excess of £92 million over the period of the CSF for the development of the third level educational infrastructure from the European Regional Development Fund. The new regional technical college in Tallaght is one of the projects included in this programme. Other projects in the vocational education committee sector, as examples only, include: Bishop Street College, which has a new college building at phase I; the College of Catering, which is undergoing major extension; and 28 smaller projects at ten regional technical colleges. Projects in the university sector include major extentions to Dublin City University, St. Patrick's College at Maynooth, UCC and UCG. In addition, more than £15 million is being spent over the four-year period 1990 to 1993 on replacing obsolete equipment or providing new equipment in the third level institutions.
Immediately after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in February, the Commission published their proposals for the development of Community policies from 1993 to 1996. The aim of the policies is twofold: first, to create the conditions for economic convergence needed to make the transition to the final stage of Economic and Monetary Union in January 1997 and second to make Community economies and businesses more competitive. Again the Structural Funds will have a vital role to play. They will be based on the same principles, namely, concentration on regions whose development is lagging behind, a programme based approach, partnership between the member states and the Commission and additionality. But while the principles remain unchanged, improvements will naturally be sought in the effectiveness with which they have been applied up to now. In particular greater flexibility will be introduced into the management of the funds in order to enable them to be more responsive to emerging needs.
As far as the size of the post-1993 funds is concerned, the Commission proposes an increase of two-thirds in the overall allocation for the least prosperous regions. The Treaty also makes provision for the establishment of a new Cohesion Fund, access to which will be limited to Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. Taking the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund together, the Commission are proposing a doubling of the allocation to Objective 1 regions in the 1993-97 period.
We welcome the main thrust of the Commission's proposals which we see as a satisfactory basis for the negotiations on a five-year framework. At this point, we will be arguing for a doubling of allocations to Objective 1 regions from the Structural Funds alone. We will also seek to persuade the Commission that it should agree to a higher rate of intervention than 65 per cent on the Social Fund. We will argue that the necessity to provide 35 per cent of expenditure by way of matching funds will make it very difficult for us to meet the criteria laid down for transition to the final stage of Economic and Monetary Union after 1997. This is clear recognition of this problem in the Commission's proposals where it says:
Steps should be taken to help countries concerned to achieve tighter discipline and greater efficiency in budgetary policy and thus work for more convergence and cohesion. The rate of assistance could be adjusted accordingly.
It is widely acknowledged that Ireland was very successful in securing a substantial share of the Structural Funds available under the current CSF. We will be seeking to at least maintain and, if possible, increase our share in the next round. We will use arguments such as the high rate of unemployment and our peripheral position in the Community to strengthen our claim for a greater share of the funds.
I will deal in some detail later with the inclusion of a new Article on education in the Maastricht Treaty. I refer to it here because it stengthens our arguments for Social Fund support for activities which were hitherto regarded an ineligible by the Commission. One example that immediately comes to mind is undergraduate programmes in the higher education authority institutions. We will be putting it to the Commission that there are many reasons Ireland's position is essentially different from that of other member states in this regard.
To give some indication of the magnitude of the task facing us, I would like to draw attention to the fact that enrolment in full-time higher education courses in Ireland increased from 21,000 in 1965 to 75,000 in the current year, or an increase of 350 per cent over a quarter of a century.
The establishment of the National Institute of Higher Education and the regional technical colleges contributed greatly to this development. Another point we must bear in mind is that Social Fund assistance has accelerated the rate of increase in enrolments, especially following the major reform of the Structural Funds in 1989. As Deputies are well aware we have given an undertaking in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to provide an additional 8,800 places by the middle of the decade. That will bring the number of places to 90,000 or about 45 per cent of the relevant age cohort.
It may be revelant to point out that we have a higher proportion, 17 per cent of our population in the 15-24 age bracket than any of the ten Community partners for whom we have comparative statistics.
Participation rates were a recurring theme in the interventions of my colleagues at the recent informal education council in Madeira. It was noteworthy that my German and Dutch colleagues were talking about rates of 30 per cent — that is, registration rates at third level. This level of participation in affluent western European countries certainly put the size of the task facing us into perspective. It is a point which we will bring forcefully to the Commission's attention in the discussion on the new funds.
Another relevant consideration is the fact that some of our young people enter third level education before they reach the age of 18 and they leave with a university or other third level qualification before they are 21. That is to say that they reach the labour market with a high level of skill on average four years earlier than their counterparts on mainland Europe. In spite of their youth their performance is recognised as being equal if not better than the highest international standards. I think that on the basis of these facts alone the Commission will look favourably at extending to undergraduate courses in universities the kind of support which has been available up to now for certificate and diploma courses in the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges and the RTCs.
That is not to say that we will be unmindful of the needs of those young people who do not seek or do not obtain a third level place. As the House is aware, the National Council for Vocational Awards has recently been put in place to provide a coherent framework for the assessment and certification of vocationally oriented courses taught at post-compulsory and post-leaving certificate levels. The growth of post-leaving certificate courses in recent years has been as remarkable in its way, as the expansion that has taken place at third level. These courses are an enduring monument to the creativity of the professional staff throughout the second level sector and, in particular, the vocational education committee sector. They have been developed in response to locally identified training needs and they have achieved a substantial measure of credibility with local employers. This whole development could not have taken place without the support of the Social Fund. It is now the task of the NCVA to develop a national framework for these courses and to structure them in such a way that the qualifications to which they lead can achieve national and international recognition.
Accordingly, I see three main points of emphasis in our approach to the Commission in the negotiations on the next round: first, the rapid rate of expansion of courses under the current CSF has outstripped the level of available ESF support. This was an inevitable outcome of our decision to draw down ESF aid in four more or less equal instalments from 1990 to 1993. The fact remains that a significant proportion of our current eligible training activity is fully funded by the Exchequer. This is an obvious case for an upward adjustment of ESF aid under the next agreement; second, the continuing expansion of our population in the 15-25 years age range and the consistent growth in demand for post-second level education and training makes our position unique among our Community partners. Deputies are well aware of our commitment under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to provide 8,800 additional third level places over the first few years of the programme; and, third the proven capacity of the education system, as independently assessed under the current CSF, to respond effectively to the training needs of Ireland's young population. We will be stressing that in our negotiations.
The education system of member states is the responsibility of national or sub-national authorities. There is no essential change in that position in the new Treaty. In fact, Article 3 (b) of the Treaty lays down that
in areas which do not fall within its executive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action be better achieved by the Community.
I quote this Article to reassure the Dáil that there will be no direct intervention by the Commission in the internal administation of individual education systems.
For the purpose of this debate it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the scope and purpose of the Structural Funds which I have just described and the scope and purpose of the new education Article in the Treaty. I do this because there is a danger that the basic difference between them does not clearly emerge in the text of the Treaty.
I wish to emphasise, therefore, that the Structural Funds are included in the Treaty under the title of Economic and Social Cohesion. Aid from the funds is made available to a particular member state on foot of an agreement between its national authorities and the Commission in respect of programmes developed and delivered by the member state and jointly monitored by it and the Commission. That is to say that, while the funds are governed by the Council regulations, their operational focus is essentially bilateral.
The focus of the new education Article on the other hand is essentially Community wide. It is included under the title of Social Policy, Education, Vocational Training and Youth and its purpose is to provide an explicit legal basis for Community wide action in the field of education. Such action has been undertaken in the past, for example, ERASMUS, LINGUA, COMETT using Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome as the legal basis.
The inclusion of a specific Article on education, however, strengthens the hand of the Commission in its desire to play a more active role in the promotion of joint action in the field of education throughout the Community. The areas of action which have been identified as suitable for Community treatment are developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the member states; encouraging mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; promoting co-operation between educational establishments; developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the member states; encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors and encouraging the development of distance education.
As the House will have seen in the White Paper — page 76 — Ireland tabled a proposal for a Treaty Article on education policy at an early stage of the negotiations. The teaching and dissemination of the languages of the member states is a matter of special concern to us and has been identified as such in the Green Paper recently published. We are strong supporters of the relevant Community action programme — LINGUA — in that regard. Moreover, distance education was a major theme of our Presidency and we were successful in getting the Council to agree that the Commission should prepare relevant proposals. This initiative will be brought a step further through a set of proposals to be submitted to the forthcoming Education Council on 1 June under the Portuguese Presidency. The effect of the new education Article will be an expansion of activities in the specified areas and the likelihood of increased funding now that education figures in the Treaty in its own right.
The insertion of an Article in the Treaty on education was a priority for Ireland. We are very pleased it has been included with such prominence. I believe that we have a lot to gain from more intensive interaction with other national systems within the Community at a time when we are embarking on a major reform of our system. I took advantage of the recent informal Education Council in Madeira to learn more about educational reforms being undertaken in other member states, particularly in Denmark, where they have recently embarked on a major structural reform of their system. Moreover, the enthusiasm shown by Irish teachers and students for participation in Community programmes such as ERASMUS, COMETT and LINGUA bespeaks a genuine interest in acquiring educational experience in another member state. It was obvious to me during the informal Council that this positive attitude by Ireland towards Community action in the field of education is warmly welcomed by the Commission.
As the House is aware, I have also embarked upon a major reform of the Irish education system. The fundamental objective of this reform is to equip the education system to meet the major challenges facing our people as we face into the 21st century. I trust it will create a new framework for development and for the most effective use of resources as they become available, from national and European sources.
To sum up then the Maastricht Treaty carries rich promise for the development of educational services in Ireland through the prospect of substantially increased aid from the Structural Funds. We are giving careful thought to a coherent negotiating strategy which will address the issue of securing as close as possible to a doubling of the Structural Funds and as close as possible to a doubling of the existing level of appropriations to Ireland as an Objective 1 region. We are well aware of the counter-arguments likely to be made by the larger member states, on the one hand, against what they would regard as excessive allocations to the Structural Funds and of the other Objective 1 countries on the other, who will be arguing their case for an increased share of whatever amount is finally agreed on for these funds.
We support strongly the thrust of the new education Article of which we were one of the originators. It presents no threat to the autonomy or integrity of our national system while, at the same time, providing a welcome opportunity to participate in educational developments which have a clear Community dimension.
As I said at the outset, this is an historic Treaty, particularly historic for education in that central to the Treaty is a section on education and the Community's commitment to developing the educational systems across Europe in the future. I cannot overstress that that is a major breakthrough for education. It is historic in that, in previous discussions and decisions at European level while some account was taken of education, there was no clear, central Treaty-based role for education. If for no other reason than the future of Irish education we should give very serious consideration to a substantial "yes" vote for the referendum on 18 June.
I said at the outset also and I want to finish on this note, it will be a serious decision to be taken on 18 June; it is about Europe, about the economy of Europe, about the structure of Europe. In a way we must stand back from it because it is about much more than all that: it is about whether we commit ourselves to working with our 11 partners to build a European Community that will be able to take on whatever the 21st century brings; will be a vote of confidence in the direction in which we want to go. Therefore, while it is about detail, about very tangible funding, very important day-to-day structures, more than that, it is about committing ourselves to the ideal of a united Europe, one in which Ireland can play its full role, one in which a small nation like ours can play an exciting role out of all proportion to its size and strength. For that reason I urge the public to give this Treaty its full support.
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá i nGaeilge agus ní bheidh mé ach nóiméad mar tuigim nach bhfuil ach beagán Gaeilge den Pháipéar Bán agus den choimriú ar fáil.
I assume that my constituents who are Irish language speakers — by right, their first language — may expect between now and 18 June a version of this rather flimsy, misleading document entitled The Maastricht Treaty: A Short Guide and the White Paper. In fact, it is symptomatic of our whole approach that we would be amending a Constitution in which the primary language is the Irish language without explaining it in that language. I want to use my time as carefully as possible. There are a few points I wanted to make. This is one of the very rare opportunities we are afforded of clarifying a number of matters. I spent yesterday and today attending a meeting of the European Affairs Committees in Lisbon, represented at which meeting were European Affairs Committees of all of the member states. I took detailed notes which the people on the Government side can confirm with their representatives.
Let me make one point immediately. I listened with great care to what the Minister for Education said and, before him, the Minister for Labour. It was made absolutely clear in the German contribution to that meeting I attended that Maastricht and Delors II are separate projects. This can be confirmed by the simple fact that, at the end of the meeting as I left with Deputy Barry and others, no agreement had been reached because of the German refusal to have any reference in the summary of the meeting in Lisbon to Delors or to additional spending. Indeed, it was a very pessimistic two days. One could summarise the German position by saying simply: not a Deutschemark more. What I find very unreal is that, when we talk here about this Treaty on European Union and a referendum to implement is provisions, we would have a consistent, systematic presentation of commission proposals as though they were Treaty protected or had been decided. Let us bring a little reality into this debate. When will we hear from a Minister the proportion of the Community budget necessary to implement what the Ministers for Education, Labour and others spoke about?
We should remember that the Delors II package, which proposes to raise the Community budget from 1.2 per cent to 1.37 per cent, is in difficulty. At the Congress of European Trade Unions in Berlin some time ago the lowest figure to implement the social provisions of Maastricht was put at 3 per cent. Other papers which were circulated had figures as high as 8 per cent. The representative of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Bundestag and Bundesrat, and speakers from all parties, the Free Democrats, the SPD and Chancellor Khol's party, were at pains at the Lisbon meeting to say they would not be asking for additional taxes to fund an increase of the level suggested by Delors. They were supported in this attitude by the people who will hold the next Presidency, the British. It is very unfair that the Irish public are being misled by this confusion of Commission proposals and Treaty text. They are not being treated with honesty.
The second point I wish to make is very important. In international law one may not tear up one's previous Treaty commitments and substitute them with new commitments: one may take on additional commitments. It was said at the launching of the White Paper, in a flair of publicity, that we would be leaving Europe as if the founding treaties no longer applied. Let it go out from here that the founding Treaties stay in place and that the Single European Act is still in place. This blackmail of suggesting that existing benefits will be lost and future benefits will be imperilled is just what I have described it, an unwelcome blackmail as a substitute for reasoned presentation on the Treaty.
Third, I want to contrast the way in which our partners in Europe are treating this debate with the way we are treating it. In the Danish White Paper a section was given over to arguments against ratification. This was welcomed in Denmark and at the meeting in Lisbon from which I have just come. Yet, this was not considered in the Irish case. The Belgian Parliament have had five reports on five different aspects of the proposed treaty. When will we have an opportunity — in the limited time available this evening I will deal with one or two aspects — to discuss, for example, the implications of common currency? When will members of the Cabinet tell us about the changes which will apply as we meet the convergence criteria? When will the Minister for Finance come in and say: "I propose, because of the obligations of convergence, to make the following proposals"?
Recently Ireland submitted convergence proposals of a technical kind to Europe. Would it not be more honest to say to the people, "here are the implications". I applaud those newspapers which attempted to publish a guide to Maastricht in terms of the requirements on us, for example, the 60 per cent goal for the ratio of Government debt to gross domestic product; an inflation rate of not more than 1.5 per cent above the average of the three lowest inflation rates of member states; a 3 per cent maximum for the ratio of Government deficit to gross domestic product at market prices; an interest rate which is no more than 2 per cent above the average of the three lowest inflation rates and no devaluation for two years within the narrow band of the EMS. They are the five convergence goals.
I wish to raise a question which I want answered. If the Government are to meet these five goals it seems they will be heading into a budgetary strategy which will be deflationary at European level and at home. I put the question to the Portuguese Finance Minister yesterday and he spoke of low inflation growth. It was perfectly clear about what he was speaking: he was speaking about measures which could not ever reflate. It is important on the five convergence criteria to think of the moment in Europe's economic history when these are produced: they are produced on the tail of Thatcherism in Europe and at a time when there are no Keynesians advising governments.
The net effect of the five convergence criteria is that the Government will be required to defend their currency and interest rates but precluded from intervening by way of public spending and investment to impact on unemployment. Yet if this is the situation, if the five convergence criteria put a certain discipline on us, we will then be told that these will be balanced by cohesion. Cohesion is mentioned in the text of the Treaty. I wish to refer to the German argument on cohesion. I might say as an aside that people are at this stage accepting that that component of the so-called increased funding is gone. The reason we are having the referendum on 18 June before the end of the Portuguese Presidency is that unless a last minute effort is made by people like the Taoiseach and others there will be no agreement on the Delors II package in the Portuguese Presidency and it will be difficult to get agreement on the Delors II package in the British Presidency. This Alice in Wonderland description of expenditure in the past and in the future by the Ministers Deputies Cowen and Brennan is misleading the public. If the public are to be invited to accept the Treaty on European Union the Government should talk about the Treaty. They are the only Government in Europe attempting to say that the Treaty and the Delors package are inextricably bound. There is a view in Greece which comes close to the Irish Government's position and there is a view in Portugal which is sympathetic but does not take the same line. The other member countries are saying explicitly that the Delors II package is for political negotiation. It is dishonest to suggest that the Delors II package is a fact and that it can be used to balance out convergence.
Towards the end of their rather predictable economic diatribes members of the Cabinet throw in a few European flourishes — Mr. Mitterand used to talk about how he will finish this century and start the new one, well known rhetorical flourishes. We should be clear about the text of the Treaty. If the text of the Treaty was so important for the Minister for Education, Deputy Brennan, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, and the people who speak on agriculture, was it not a little silly to trot off and slip in a Protocol to satisfy the demands of a fundamentalist minority here? If it was so important why was it necessary to slip the little Protocol in and put so much at stake? The Government want it every way in the argument.
The Danes have two or three Protocols — they were worried about second homes being bought in Denmark — and it is arguable whether what they are suggesting could ever be implemented legally. That is what their Protocol dealt with. The Netherlands have a Protocol which deals with something practical while Ireland slipped in Article 40.3.3º. I have heard Deputies say that all 340 million people of the European Community, represented by their Governments, are so anxious about our situation and hang-ups that they have made a solemn declaration to honour anything we might dream up to give content to Article 40.3.3º. I want to make this point very clear when speaking about our common European home, the text of this Treaty and European citizens. I have spent all my life in politics trying to make the case for equality between women and men. What I am asked to do, if the Government do not change their minds within the next week or ten days, is to accept that the economic benefits will be so important that women will say: "The Treaty will have effect from 1 January and by November the sub-committee of which the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and others are members will have made up their minds, and women will be all right". Fianna Fáil canvassers will knock at doors and tell the man about the economic benefits of the Treaty but if the woman answers the door they will tell her she will be all right by Christmas. What a pathetic and insulting approach to this referendum which is being rammed through so as to avoid the flak of the Delors II package collapsing and, therefore, the flimsy half truths of the White Paper falling apart.
I have mentioned the convergence criteria, and perhaps I am wrong about their deflationary impact in Europe. The debate on the Single European Act was very interesting. The Federation of Employers in Europe argued that we needed the benefits of an integrated single market first and that residually there would be social expenditure. The European trade unions argued that they were inextricably linked, that they were co-terminus. The sub-committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities debated that matter and came down in favour of the co-terminus nature of the social dimension and the benefits of an integrated market. The difficulty about that is that unemployment has risen in every European country. People might ask what are the consequences of the convergence criteria for unemployment in a country with 20 per cent of its available workforce unemployed. They may ask how do these convergence criteria lead to investment. The answer will be that they will create a climate from which will come investment and from investment jobs will be created. The people will then say that they heard that before in regard to the Single European Act as well as on other occasions.
In relation to monetary proposals envisaged in the Treaty are they specific and precise? When it comes to the economic side the proposals are very vague in relation to the social impact. There is no attempt to deal with the running together of the monetary and the economic sides. As regards politicial union the Taoiseach has said, when asked the direct question about changes in 1996, that he would favour a referendum. The text says that what will happen in relation to new Treaties and the process of ratification will be the result of the constitutional or legislative action of members. I would ask the Taoiseach which is the case. He should answer the people in relation to Title 5 and the balance of J1 and J4. Will there be legislation or a constitutional referendum? He should put in print now that a referendum will be held.
Equally in relation to this extraordinary Bill before us, Part II, paragraph 5º states: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted... acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof". That also applied to the Single European Act, but this Bill adds: "or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State". What bodies are they? Is it the European Central Bank or the Western European Union? Are the Government happy, for example, with the surveillance procedure? Will people know that it is the Central Bank and not the Minister for Finance who will nominate people onto the European Central Bank? One man put it to me three weeks ago in Brussels that this was all about getting a seat on the Council of the Bundesbank. We had good news from them about their deferred drop in interest rates, but of course that was part of the propaganda from Dublin Castle that interest rates were to be lower. Where is the democratic accountability of the European Central Bank to Parliaments such as this? If the Minister for Finance will not be accountable in certain matters let us hear it now.
The nonsense about the increase in Structural Funds is very misleading. There is the view in France that it wants increased Structural Funds made available to the maverick countries so as to be able to invest and to deal with the impact on its immigration policy. Germany has proposals not only for East Germany but beyond its borders. Why do we not tell the truth about these matters?
We are unique in Europe in that we have had hardly any debate on Maastricht. In contrast with Belgium with its five papers on five different aspects, we had statements. The White Paper could not be printed because of the absurd position about the Protocol, and when it emerged it was very flimsy. The substantial White Paper suggests that the Delors II package is reality. In all ministerial statements after the launch of the White Paper there is a mixture of intimidation, that we will no longer be bound by international Treaties that we have signed, or blackmail, that we have to vote for the Maastricht Treaty.
I have respect for Treaties and my vote will always be influenced by what, on balance, I have to do politically. I agree with speakers on this side about one point. This Treaty contains a Protocol that refers to Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution. There is no guarantee to Irish women, in the event of a "Yes" vote, as to the precise content of the constitutional amendment or the amending legislation that will come from the Government. In that sense, therefore, in a matter as important as this, the Government, by abusing the reality of the Delors II package, are asking us, for alleged economic benefits, to accept a lesser form of citizenship in terms of legal rights for women for at least a period until the matter is put right. If that is the case why not publish legislation giving the precise text of what the Government propose to do? Are womens' rights to be made a political football from the time of the referendum until the end of the year? That answer will affect the way I vote on a number of matters in relation to Maastricht.
I see in the convergence criteria more of an obstruction in relation to public money interventions on unemployment than anything facilitating it. I see on the economic side an absense of specification in relation to transfers, particularly from the gains of an economy towards the social programme. I see in the Protocol a complete mess, slipped in by stealth. The Government's attitude to Maastricht is that we will get £6 billion, but they leave aside the £6 billion while they slip in a Protocol without debate in this House.
I would raise an important question in regard to this £6 billion. I want the media to explain to people that there is no reference to £6 billion in the Maastricht Treaty. There is reference to enlargement of funds and there is an acceptance of the principle of cohesion. There are different components to Delors II and the package could go either way. The Taoiseach, and the Government, have taken the figure £3 billion, multiplied it by two to give us £6 billion and then said the debate was about the £6 billion. We are the only people substituting a debate on the Treaty for a debate on the Delors II package.
On political union, there are questions that must be answered immediately. For example, which bodies are referred to in the Bill before us? The Taoiseach should commit himself to what will happen in 1996 and whether this change will be brought about by a constitutional referendum or by amending legislation.
First, I agree in principle with the point Deputy M. Higgins made with regard to the Delors II package. There is no decision guaranteeing the improvement in the Structural and Cohesion Funds. That great European Socialist — President Delors — whom I thought Deputy M. Higgins would support, has put forward proposals which he believes will lead to equality after the acceptance of the Treaty. It is understandable that members of the German delegation in Lisbon had reservations about the financial implications of the Delors package for their country because of the demands on them arising out of unification. The matter will have to be negotiated. I do not think anybody said at the launch of the White Paper anything other than that President Delors would aim to double the Structural and Cohesion Funds but that this proposal will have to be negotiated and agreed. It is possible that agreement will be reached during the remainder of the year but more than likely from January 1993.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court decision has cast a shadow over the debate on the Maastricht Treaty. However, serious-minded politicians, and other Community leaders have endeavoured to broaden the debate to deal with the real implications of European union for this country. We attempted to amend the Protocol and when we did not succeed the other member states pointed to the fact that the difficulties arose out of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. They rightly pointed out that this Irish problem should be resolved by referendum, legislation or a combination of both.
It is unfortunate that the issue is likely to hit the headlines again when another case on the right to travel goes before our courts. The Oireachtas must take responsibility for not clarifying the intent of Article 40.3.3º in 1983. As a result it has been left to the Supreme Court to interpret it and that interpretation has now created complex difficulties.
It is misleading to think that if we rush in to resolve one aspect of the problem prior to the referendum on 18 June we will resolve the problem in the public mind. It is universally accepted that people have the right to travel freely but the right to information gives rise to another debate. Nobody disagrees with the need to clarify the issue but the substantive one is whether the difficulty should be resolved by referendum or amending legislation. The sub-committee of the Cabinet are dealing with this matter and I trust they will do so speedily and bring forward a suggested formula. Members and the general public should be made aware of their recommendations as soon as the Taoiseach. I hope we will resolve this difficulty. In the meantime it falls to all Members to bring the debate forward on the other major issues, which are of long term importance to this country.
Deputy Michael Higgins backed down from saying whether he is in favour of the Treaty but his leader said he would actively campaign for a "yes" vote. Recently I heard Deputy Michael Higgins being asked three or four times about his position on the Treaty and what he would recommend to the people of Galway west, but it was impossible to know his position. A certain element are trying to have a two-way bet — perhaps they may stop attacking the Government on the Maastricht Treaty and say what changes they would like to negotiate which have not been negotiated up to now. They should stay away from the other complex issue which is vitally important but will have to be resolved later irrespective of any decision we may take with Denmark.
Of course, we will remain a member of the European Community after 1 January 1993, but if we do not vote in favour of the Treaty, is it too much to expect that the other nine, ten, or 11 member states, who put so much time and effort into the Maastricht Treaty, will not meet and discuss how to put a Maastricht II package together, taking on board all that is good in economic union and the progress on social issues, environmental protection etc? It would be much easier for the Germans to accept a Delors Mark III package from 1 January 1993 if they did not have to live up to the commitments implicit in what was agreed at Maastricht. If we are outside discussions on European union, we will end up, irrespective of who claims otherwise, in the second division of the European Community. When the Council of Ministers meet to discuss and implement the new formula that will emerge in 1993, the member states that did not vote for the Treaty will find themselves left out.
At this juncture I wish to make a brief comment on the media coverage of the campaign to date. Let me point out to the national broadcasting organisation that it appears to me from watching television or listening to various discussions on radio that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and the Progressive Democrats are calling for a "yes" vote but that the Democratic Left do not want to go into a corner; yet they say there is a lot of good in Maastricht. They will probably end up getting a great deal of coverage because they are opposed to the other parties. They will balance the necessity to agree with proposals as to what should be changed in the Treaty, thus having an each way bet on the issue.
So far the national broadcasting body, both television and radio, have brought forward people who, so far as I know, represent nobody other than themselves who have taken on various titles and are being given air time to articulate views that are opposed to the mainstream opinion of the Irish electorate. Approximately 80 per cent of the electorate, reflected in the democratically elected politicians in this House, have expressed a particular viewpoint on Maastricht. Why have RTE current affairs personnel not set up an intelligent structure to ensure that the issues, facts and views of 80 per cent of the electorate and expressed in this House are reflected on this Treaty. I hope they will take the various headings—industry, agriculture, labour, health and the environment — and have discussion programmes dealing specifically with the issues rather than personally held views.
To take this issue out of the political domain I suggest that senior civil servants who have spent many years working in Brussels and in senior positions in Departments be given the opportunity to explain, in a presentation to the Irish people, what they believe has been achieved by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. These would be detailed explanatory information sessions and the officials would answer queries on the points raised by Deputy Higgins about the implications of the Treaty on taxation, our capacity to inter-link into the European common currency, the constraints on the economy, the down side and so on and they would clarify what is implicit in a "yes" vote. If this issue is debated realistically there will be an overwhelming "yes" vote on 18 June.
This has been a confused debate so far. I would like to comment on some of the headings covered to-date — education, health, training and the Department of Labour. These areas make major demands on Exchequer funds which are not being adequately met. Recently I was listening to the Minister for Health and his predecessors who have a very real commitment to the £100 million Tallaght hospital which is to cater for a catchment of 300,000 people. At present the facilities at St. James' Hospital are stretched. That once-off major project which will stand for 50, 75 or 100 years is a capital demand on the Exchequer. Only within European framework can we achieve a substantial increase in the funds proposed and a recognition in the Treaty that those headings can attract financial support from Europe. All those once-off major investments in services and facilities are implicit in the intent of Maastricht. That is what we have to achieve. Every Deputy should be prepared to look at the pluses and the minuses of accepting or rejecting the Maastricht Treaty.
What does it mean to my constituents? I represent a vast urban area where there have been serious difficulties. A special task force has been set up to study the north Clondalkin area. I understand a report is about to be provided by the Secretary of the Department of Justice. I wonder what he will report under the various headings? Under education, will he highlight the need for about £10 million and the £16 million approval for capital investment under the heading of health. I have referred already to the Tallaght regional hospital. Under the heading of the environment in the late seventies and early eighties Dublin Corporation built 6,000 houses, a desirable step forward to resolve the inner city housing crisis; but £4 million to £5 million is needed for the completion of various community projects. All those major capital investments, which are needed to complete what was started some years ago, are bound into the potential or otherwise of our success in Europe.
I am convinced we will have a competitive negotiating session following acceptance of the European Union Treaty. The German financial position could have deteriorated by then, and there may be resistance from the United Kingdom, but that is all part of the art of negotiation and what has been achieved so far. That was the art of negotiation in the national plan pre-1993 and is how we succeeded in getting £3 billion to improve our infrastructure.
I view the potential from acceptance of the Treaty as positive and it will have advantages in industry, particularly in agriculture and food. I hope our free access to a population of 300 million can at last see the food processing sector put on the fast track of quality development. I also hope the marketing efforts of the various State agencies can be supported by processors who are going in for brand products and quality. This is the only way in which we can progress and create long term employment.
Regarding the international mobile industry and competition — a good example is Apple Computers who today are rethinking some of their groups policies — what possibilities would be open to us if we were outside the main stream of the trading bloc? Surely this is an opportunity to counterbalance the strength of the financial and trading abilities of the United States on one side and Japan and the Pacific Basin on the other. The Berlin Wall and various other barriers prevented eastern European countries from trading in their hinterland. This is an exciting and challenging time for this country. I call on RTE to provide a balanced debate so that the people are fully aware of the major economic, cultural, environmental and social benefits that will arise from a resounding "yes" vote on 18 June.
Deputy Flanagan rose.
Debate adjourned.