Deputy Ivan Yates was in possession and he has 18 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Aonú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1992: An Dara Céim (Atógaíl) Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992: Second Stage (Resumed)
Thairg an Taoiseach an tairiscint seo a leanas Dé Máirt, 5 Bealtaine 1992:
"Go léifear an Bille don Dara Uair."
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Tuesday, 5 May 1992:
"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 had initiated a Bill or the Dáil passed a 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.)
I propose to share some of my time with Deputy John Browne if the House agrees.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The issue of Maastricht and the future of Ireland in the European Union is an absolute core value for myself and for the Fine Gael Party. I see absolutely no alternative to a federal Europe for this country. I see it as absolutely vital to the economic and social interests of this country that we develop a new Europe. In my own area of responsibility, that of transport, it is particularly vital that we embrace Maastricht wholeheartedly.
We have about 90,000 jobs because we are a part of the European Community, in other words, mobile, international industrial development. One of the key disincentives of coming to Ireland is its peripheral location, its distance from the centre of the golden triangle of Europe, and the way that manifests itself most is in transport costs. It is well known that Irish transport costs are twice the European average. In some product sectors, particularly with low value goods, they can be up to four times higher. Unless the Cohesion Funds are made available, unless there is a substantial increase in the Structural Fund there is no way we can catch up with the type of infrastructure that is necessary to develop our airports, sea ports or roads to a satisfactory level.
Furthermore, there are public transport issues which have not been addressed heretofore and which need to be addressed in the context of Maastricht, namely, the question of a light rail system for Dublin, because we have one of the most congested motoring capitals in Europe and the problem is getting much worse. It has been acknowledged by environmental and transport experts that the solution is an electric tramway system of light rail which will cost a minimum of £400 million for the greater Dublin area. The Government should seek to implement a blueprint with the help of the Cohesion Fund, which is exclusively for transport and environmental projects. It is regrettable that not 1p of the £3 billion provided for 1989 to 1993 was or will be spent on intercity rail when all over Europe there is development of high speed rail. The biggest impediment to this country is that when the Eurorail system is in place there will be a three hour schedule for freight from any point on the Continent. This will mean an even greater disadvantage for us. Therefore, I call on the Government to follow up Dr. Tony Ryan's suggestion of the feasibility of an air bridge providing a daily, continuous air freight service, initially from Shannon to Luxembourg, to overcome the peripheral disadvantage, particularly for high value goods. It is absolutely vital for the transport of our goods, bearing in mind that we are more dependent on exports than Japan. When, as I said many times, one considers their production of radios, television sets and cars and their penetration throughout the world, one can see how important exports are to us.
The criteria needed for Ireland to meet the single European currency were mentioned. People put forward the scare tactic of hairshirt budgets. The fact is that 6 per cent of Gross National Product is now coming as a direct transfer of net resources from the Community to Ireland. If this was removed by our becoming a pavilion member rather than a full member of the European club, it would have an enormously negative effect on our budgetary situation. A single currency is vital to our economy; not only will it stimulate growth and help small businesses, the simple fact is that, if you had £100 and travelled to the 12 member states, without spending any money but merely by converting it you would be left with £26. That clearly illustrates the cost to exports, business and tourism of different currencies. The discipline that goes with a single currency and a single European Central Bank would be a positive force in the Irish economy.
If we endorse Maastricht wholeheartedly we will have a huge opportunity at the time of enlargement. Only today the British Prime Minister said that they consider the future not to be a federal Europe but an enlarged Europe involving the Nordic states of Sweden, Norway, Finland and possibly Switzerland. We must say no to that on the basis that we must have a clear federal budget made up of about 8 per cent of the budgets of individual member states. In the United States 12 per cent of the budgets of each state goes towards the central federal budget. In the European Community only 1.2 per cent of total national resources in each country goes towards the federal budget — in other words, the Community's budget is a pittance and needs to be increased so that there would be automatic transfers to the poorer countries. It should be a condition of enlargement that we should exercise that veto in relation to a federal budget. If we do not endorse Maastricht we will not be at the card game to play any cards.
I very much welcome the new proposals in the Maastricht Treaty in relation to education. This year over 22,000 pupils will avail of the benefits of the European Social Fund in relation to our education system. This should be extended to the vocational and technical pupil area.
In relation to Sellafield and other matters, unless there is a transboundary approach to pollution through strong European central authorities we will not be able to tackle the problems on the basis of single nation states. Therefore I visualise in a very positive way a future of a European state, a union of states, in which there will be European citizenship, which will commence under the process of Maastricht and which will flourish. It is incredible that the Government should have agreed to a Protocol which would not give Irish people automatic rights to travel. I want a situation whereby people can move, live and work in any part of the Community and have all the rights of citizenship. There is no alternative to Maastricht. We cannot become the 51st state of the United States. There is no Eastern bloc to join. This is the only option available to us.
Red herrings have been drawn over foreign and security policy. As I clearly understand it where there is joint action between now and 1996 it must involve unanimity — in other words, any member state can put up its hand when it comes to serious matters and say that it disagrees.
Our neutrality is redundant because of the end of the East-West Cold War, but we can easily accommodate, and be a positive force in, the new Europe. This is a truncated debate, but the issue of Maastricht goes way beyond party politics. We are a small, young, peripheral state with enormous potential and if we reject Maastricht we will become simply an isolationist, abandoned offshore island. That prospect is so bleak that we must vote "yes" on 18 June.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to express my gratitude to Deputy Yates for giving me time to speak on this issue. In doing so I also want to join in the appeal to the electorate, and in particular to my own constituents, to vote “yes” in the coming referendum because the alternative is too serious even to consider.
We joined a European Community from which we certainly gained immensely. If you consider the fact that we invest £1 and get back £6, it is obvious that from an economic point of view we cannot turn our back on it. We depend on Europe for our markets and exports; it is very difficult to see where we could export if we were in an outside trading group. I do not think that Europe is fascinated by Ireland or that if we voted to reject Maastricht, which I presume will not happen, the rest of the EC countries would beg us to remain as full members. What can they gain from us, apart from our culture, young people and perhaps our food exports? Indeed, they might be glad to see our food exports disappearing as it would knock a small amount off the mountain of butter, etc. We should not delude ourselves that things would go on as before and that we would not lose anything.
I spent a few days in Brussels over Easter. I found it tiring but very educational in the attitude of the different speakers. I discovered that there are countries which have not been completely taken over by Maastricht. At the same time it is very important that they remain in the Community. Germany, which dominated Europe and helped in many ways by providing so much money, now has a problem of its own as a result of a united Germany and the cost to the former West Germany in particular. They may be somewhat worried about increasing the 1.2 per cent. President Mitterand is having his own battles in France. We in Ireland have become side-tracked in relation to a Protocol which perhaps should never have been included. The rest of Europe may be looking with a more serious eye at the whole concept of the Maastricht Treaty. It would be suicidal to do other than vote yes. Industry will come to Ireland only if we are in the European Community. What industry would want to set up here without direct access to EC markets? Portugal has gained immensely from its inclusion in the Community and we should ensure that nothing happens to keep us out.
If countries such as Austria, Sweden, Finland and even Switzerland are anxious to join with the new Europe, should we not be sensible enough to stay there? These are neutral countries. We are part of Europe. In the long run, is neutrality another word for cowardice? What exactly will we be neutral on if the crunch comes? If we were attacked by a flock of swallows or sparrows we would nearly have to appeal to Europe for help. We have to pull our weight. We cannot "take" all the time. Conscription has been made a major issue but it cannot arise. It will be 1996 before we vote on any common defence policy. It is unfortunate that so many red herrings are being dragged before us. I would have no qualms about taking a stand on defending Europe, but it is very hard to see who the attacker would be. Following the collapse of Russia and the eastern European states, is there a danger of anyone being attacked? The difficulty may be that we will have to come to their defence and assist them in their economic recovery. Many of these eastern European countries have potential but they are so backward that it will take them too long to recover. Let us hope democracy does not suffer there as a result of their difficulties.
There have been many discussions outside this Chamber about the Protocol and claims that a vote against the Maastricht Treaty is a vote against abortion. One thing I learned in Brussels is that they do not give a tuppeny curse whether we have abortion in Ireland. They see it as a problem we have to deal with ourselves and they have no particular interest. It is a pity this question is linked up with the Treaty, which is not concerned with anything like abortion.
In March I asked the Minister if he would advise the people in charge of running the referendum to make an effort to get suitable unemployed people to man the polling stations. In the case of a general election a Taoiseach might misread the opinion polls and rush to the country. In such circumstances it might be easier to call on the old hands. A referendum which is planned for so long gives ample time to organise presiding officers who do not take a day off from a well paid job. This may be a parochial point and non-European but I hope the Minister for the Environment will bear it in mind.
We have gained immensely from the European Social Fund. Many students would not have received third level education were it not for these moneys. All the roadworks have resulted from funds accruing from Community membership.
The protection of the environment is of major benefit to Europe and to us. Anyone who says that what happens in Europe is of no significance is living in a dream world. We must remember Chernobyl and its results. It is important to lay down standards for the protection of the environment. It is also necessary to protect the ozone layer. What can Ireland do on its own? We must be a member of a team which has the power, the knowledge and the finance to take effective action.
We will become citizens of Europe and have voting rights. This is important because so many of our young people will be working in foreign countries. They will be able to vote in European and local elections. A common currency will also be important. It should all lead to one big, harmonious country called Europe of which we are part. We should stay there.
There has never been a time in the recent history of the European Community when so many fundamental economic, monetary, social and political issues have been decided within such a short period. It is natural to expect that this very important debate will provide Members with an opportunity to range over the EC scene in all its aspects and in particular to range from the Single European Act to Maastricht and beyond to see if we can match our ambitions. The ambitions are enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty on European Union and they can and will become a reality when we enter the 21st century.
The European Union Treaty signed in Maastricht on 7 February last by me on behalf of the people of this country is probably the most significant development since the Community was established in 1957. The Treaty has established a new European Union of 12 member states which will have a common foreign and security policy, unified economic and monetary systems, a single market and Community competence in a greatly increased number of important areas. It is without doubt a major step along the road towards European Union. Perhaps a greater step might have been achieved and if it were — as we were hoping it would — we would have welcomed it.
This European Union Treaty is the result of over two years of detailed preparation and negotiation. There has been a period of enormous change across the continent of Europe with the collapse of Communist regimes in central and eastern Europe opening the way to German unification. The European Union Treaty is a testament to the strength of purpose and stability of the European Community. In such a turbulent time of historic change it was not only able to play a major part in reacting to the immediate political and economic circumstances arising but at the same time was able to put in place an ambitious blueprint for a prosperous and peaceful Europe to which we all aspire.
Ireland has always been a strong advocate of the evolution of the European Community into a European Union. We have certainly benefited from the closer integration which has taken place since we joined the EC in 1973. Certainly membership of the Community has helped to sustain Irish agriculture and has opened up one of the richest markets in the world to our trade.
As has been said already by contributors to this debate, two-thirds of our industrial exports now go to Community countries. Certainly membership of the European Community has resulted in significant and substantial contributions towards the development of Irish industry and the development of a whole range of infrastructural facilities. It is a fact that being a member state of the Community has enabled Ireland to play an effective role, to have an influential voice in world affairs and to present Irish views internationally much more effectively than would have been possible outside the European Community.
Against that background we approach the European Monetary Union and European Political Union negotiations with a very positive and very committed attitude. The reward has been a good outcome across a wide range of complex and sensitive issues. In particular, the outcome has been very satisfactory in the main issues of specific concern to Ireland.
I very much welcome the solid support for the Treaty on European Union that has come from political parties here in the House, from the trade unions, from the farming organisations and from business. I sincerely hope that my confidence in the forthcoming referendum, in which I believe the Treaty will receive the full endorsement of the Irish people, is proved to be well directed. I think that I am entitled to have that confidence for the reasons I have given.
The Treaty provides a good package as far as Ireland is concerned. One must have regard to the fact that European Union had to be agreed to by the government representatives attending the Inter-governmental Conference. The successful implementation of the Treaty's ambitious aspirations now needs to be pursued vigorously. Such implementation is a crucial element of the Government's efforts to achieve further social and economic progress. The further development of the Community and, in particular, the continued development of Ireland within the Community are at a crucial stage.
As well as the Maastricht Treaty, other significant developments are crowding in on an already very busy and complex European Community agenda. The internal market is on the brink of creation and is due to be completed by the end of the year, the agreement between the European Community and EFTA, the European Economic Area, has just become a reality and the further enlargement of the Community must also be regarded as imminent. All of those changes present possibilities and opportunities as well as threats. All of us, particularly Irish business and economic interests, must keep ourselves fully informed of developments and must be in a position to influence them and to take advantage of the opportunities.
Over the past few months much attention — naturally, I suppose — has been focused on the Maastricht Treaty and one might be forgiven for not remembering that 1992 and the internal market are upon us. However, work has been continuing to ensure that none of those, whether they be politicians, businessmen or consumers, within the Community or outside it, who view the Single Market as an irreversible process will be disappointed. The programme, designed to eliminate specific obstacles to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the Community, will be in place by 31 December 1992, and that deadline is now only six months away. Agreement has been reached on more than 80 per cent of the internal market programme of 282 measures. Areas of business in which major progress has been made include technical harmonisation and standards, the opening up of public procurement in transport, merger control, insurance and the liberalisation of capital movements. With little more than six months left before the 1992 deadline, the Community needs to be aware that there is very little time left to finally adopt the remaining White Paper measures and to implement them along with the measures already in place. The Community clearly has a major task ahead of it if the remaining measures are to be agreed to in time but I am confident that the commitment and the political will are there to achieve that.
The formation of the European Economic Area, the new relationship between member states of the European Community and the EFTA member states, now adds considerably to the market place and to the size of sale. With 380 million people and comprising 19 countries, the EEA will represent the world's largest internal market. This new trading bloc will offer increased opportunities to the business community and a greater choice in goods to the consumer. Ireland's trade links with the EFTA countries have been significant and it is hoped that the creation of the EEA will deepen and strengthen those links. The EEA allows free movement of goods, services, capital and people throughout the Community and EFTA states and will have beneficial effects for our overall trade with those countries involved.
Ireland's geographical location on the periphery of Europe has given cause for concern in the context of the changes currently taking place both inside and outside the Community. One step towards meeting those fears has been the creation of the Cohesion Fund for the less developed EC countries, which include Ireland.
The Community is increasingly being seen as the main focus for development by all of Europe and its neighbouring countries, particularly those in the east. The agreement reached at Maastricht has paved the way for the Community to address enlargement, to consider seriously not only the applications for accession that have already been submitted but also the probability that many other countries will wish for much closer association. Undoubtedly, the question of enlargement will now move close to the top of the political agenda in the Community. It will be necessary to agree to the political guidelines for the strategy to be followed in enlargement negotiations. I take the view that the Community should be very open in its attitude to new accessions but that extreme care must be taken to ensure that the issue of enlargement does not cause blocking or dilution of the efforts towards the new European Union envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty.
I am also pleased that the Community is playing its part in assisting those countries in central and eastern Europe that are in the process of changing from centrally planned economies to economies based on free market principles. It is vital that the process of change is effected by the introduction of competitive market forces and underpinned by active competition policies that will safeguard the new market structures.
All of those inter-related developments — the Single Market, the European Economic Area and the enlargement of the Community — will significantly affect the immediate post-Maastricht era in the Community. As I have already said, the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty rapidly and substantially is crucial for the Community and is particularly crucial for Ireland. I suggest that any delay will create instability in Community life, with a multiplier effect for the future and negative impact externally.
I very much welcome the Commission package of proposals submitted recently. I believe that discussion on the proposals in the Delors II package will be very important from Ireland's point of view. We were successful at Maastricht in having our concerns dealt with favourably in the Treaty. We must now ensure that these concerns are adequately dealt with in the implementation of the Delors package. I am glad that cohesion and competition are the dominant themes of the Commission's proposals. The strengthening of the Treaty provisions on economic and social cohesion was a major aspect of the negotiations and a key priority for us. The provisions of the new Treaty's charter on cohesion ensure that this dimension has a considerably reinforced role in the evolution of the Community policies. It is particularly important that the review process provided for in the Treaty will ensure that sufficient attention is paid to the adoption of measures designed to achieve the cohesion goal.
We were very insistent at Maastricht in company with other peripheral member states that there must be an additional commitment to concrete measures in the short and the medium term. These commitments are provided for in the creation of the Cohesion Fund. The fund will provide finance in the important areas of environment and transport infrastructure and will operate in addition to the Structural Funds. Flexibility in the operation of the fund particularly with regard to projects eligible for assistance will be very significant as far as this country is concerned. The Commission in its proposals for action, laid considerable emphasis on the need to continue to concentrate Structural Funds on regions where development is lagging behind, while stressing that procedure and privileges can and must be made to increase the effectiveness of structural policies. These are general sentiments that I wholeheartedly agree with. It is true that a streamlining of the decision-making procedures would add considerably to the effectiveness and impact of the policies.
Ireland has done exceptionally well from the additional EC resources provided so far for development purposes under the Structural Funds. Arising from that, the Community Support Framework agreed with the Commission provided the basis for some £9 billion of development expenditure over the five-year period to the end of 1993. The Commission's proposals for the period 1993 to 1997 envisaged a doubling of the resources available for the least prosperous regions of the Community including Ireland. This will be made up of a two-thirds increase in Structural Funds assistance together with additional finance from the new Cohesion Fund. We look forward to seeing these new proposals developed in discussion with the Commission. I am sure we will point out that the emphasis in respect of additional finance should be on the Structural Funds, which have a proven track record, and that the Cohesion Fund should be treated as an additional and separate element. We can certainly draw on our experience of the operation of the 1989 to 1993 Structural Funds programme and we can look to maximise the impact of EC funds in overcoming our structural weaknesses.
The significant moves towards Economic and Monetary Union must be warmly welcomed by us and particularly by the Irish business community. It is to be expected that the completion of European Monetary Union will in due course provide exchange rate certainty within the Community. In the past, widely fluctuating rates of exchange have significantly damaged the growth prospects of Irish business and have contributed to a trading environment which has been hostile and uncertain. This will change under European Monetary Union. The achievement of European Monetary Union will eliminate the currency transaction costs for Irish firms as well as those throughout the Community. The gains will be greater for small, open economies such as ours and substantial savings will arise from the elimination of currency hedging costs for inter-European trade.
The emphasis in monetary policy, under European Monetary Union for the new European Central Bank, when established, will be to achieve price stability. This will lead to lower inflation rates than might otherwise be the case, and benefit Irish consumers. Rigorous controls in budget deficits will be necessary and European Monetary Union membership will further promote the sound economic policies which we have seen carried through by Government over the past four or five years. Ireland's attractiveness for overseas development and investment will also be enhanced by European Monetary Union as the currency risk on investment is removed.
The main danger for Ireland arising from European Monetary Union is the likelihood that the whole process of integration now under way will strengthen the tendency towards the concentration of investment in the more central, richer areas of the Community. We need not be passive onlookers in relation to this process. Provided we maintain a disciplined approach to income increases and public expenditure, as we did in recent years, our relative competitiveness will continue to improve and provide a powerful counter-attraction to any centralising forces within the Community.
There has undoubtedly never been a time in the history of the Community when so many changes have been taking place. Europe is being reshaped. There is a number of key elements that will dominate the European Community's agenda now more than they ever did up to now. They will have a direct and long term impact on every one of us. I mention European Political Union, Economic and Monetary Union, the completion of the internal market, reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Structural Funds, flanking EC policies, the question of enlargement and eastern and central Europe, EC budget reform, our external obligations to the Third World and our obligations to reinforce or support stability in developing political democracies.
This Treaty is a major step on the road to European Union — an ideal I hold dear and have always supported. However it is important to state my concerns about this Treaty. The Treaty document runs to 250 pages but the debate outside this House has focused too much on the four lines of the Irish Protocol. I believe in the right to travel and to information.
Much of the Treaty deals with finance and market competitiveness. Many Members who have spoken so far have dealt with these matters. However, the issues of agricultural structures and the fabric of rural society must be an important concern of this House. If there is any further erosion of the financial underpinning, or of the morale of the rural communities, then the European Union will have a hollow base. The work of the western Bishops has surely made this apparent to all. I have confidence that Ireland will rise to the challenge. This however will happen only if we face the problems honestly.
There are other issues. I am the Youth Affairs spokesperson in this House for Fine Gael/the European Peoples Party/the European Christian Democratic Movement. Last weekend I had an opportunity of listening to nearly 100 young people gathered together from the four corners of the island. For three days, under the banner of World University Service, they formed a model European parliament. In that forum they discussed eight broadly based resolutions covering the environment, human rights, poverty and the role of women. There were common concerns shared equally by those from this State and from Northern Ireland and from both communities within Northern Ireland which certainly opened up new vistas for me.
This Treaty through its social provisions is committed to human resource development in order to deepen and strengthen solidarity and social and economic cohesion between peoples while respecting their cultures and traditions. Part II on page 11 ties this to the idea of a high level of employment and social protection and a consequent raising of standards of living and quality of life. Surely rural development programmes must be embraced within this comprehensive ideal? Article 198 envisages a Committee of the Regions, with nine seats for Ireland. This body is of great importance to Ireland, particularly when linked to the concept of trans-European networks which will consider critical regional issues such as the impact of transport policy on islands and on landlocked and peripheral regions. What plans do the Taoiseach and his Government have for appropriate representation from regional and local bodies which will ensure either membership of or a significant input into this committee from rural communities, in particular from young people and women? I shall refer to this later. I pose the same question about the composition of the nine member Economic and Social Committee, under Article 194, and the mechanism for having an input into the workings of this committee.
I welcome the comprehensive mandate now being given to the European Ombudsman under Article 138e. I hope this will give young people, and people of slender means, the opportunity of redressing the effects of maladministration. This leads to the question: how will people gain access to the European Ombudsman? It is important that that be clarified. It appears as though the European Ombudsman has a more comprehensive brief than his Irish counterpart. Has the Taoiseach any proposals to extend the remit of the Irish Ombudsman? For example, has he proposals to co-ordinate the work and procedures of both Ombudsmen? Obviously, there will be an overlap between their respective functions and roles.
An issue of considerable concern to young Irish people and their parents is the full recognition of their certificates and diplomas and evidence of other education and training qualifications. Articles 123, 125 and 126 touch on these issues. I applaud the aspiration in Article 123, dealing with the European Social Fund, which aspires "to render the employment of workers easier and to increase their geographical and occupational mobility within the Community, and to facilitate their adaptation to industrial changes and to changes in production systems, in particular through vocational training and re-training." In the light of statements made both inside and outside this House, the most recent at the annual congress of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland in Tralee a few weeks ago, one must ask how do the Ministers for Education and Labour square this ideal with the proposal to remove European Social Fund maintenance grants from RTC students. There appears to be an obvious contradiction between what is included in the Maastricht Treaty and the policy the Government have pursued in recent times in relation to grants for RTC students. There is a serious conflict between the Treaty objective and stated Government intentions which should be addressed by the Taoiseach and the Government in replying to this debate. For example, this could well constitute one of the first cases for the European Ombudsman.
Unfortunately, emigration is the scourge of rural Ireland. I have visited the young Irish diaspora in Britain on a number of occasions. However, it must be acknowledged that citizenship of the European Union is a step forward. Young people also have concerns about those who come here from Eastern Europe and the Third World, particularly those seeking education and training. We must remember that human resource development is a global issue. A uniform format for visas for those coming to the European Community and the aspiration for reciprocity of arrangements with other blocs should facilitate missionaries and development workers in general but particularly in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, those to which we hear most reference these days.
Many people, and particularly the young, care about this. Recently, in their generosity students of Tralee RTC refurbished a land-rover for a farm and leprosarium in the Anglican Diocese of Dodoma in Tanzania, thereby demonstrating their care in this area. Indeed, from my recent discussions with young people I found they were enormously interested in the overall question of Third World aid to an extent greater than is generally understood. I am glad there is an Article in the Maastricht Treaty reaffirming Community commitment to its policy on Third World aid which is enormously important to young people.
I am pleased also to note the commitment to the development of tourism. Kerry is the premier tourist region of Ireland. Kerry County Council, in particular the county manager, his team and the Tralee Task Force, have concentrated on this industry as a focal point for regional economic development. While I am happy to note it is included in the Treaty, I regret that the tourism industry has not featured more prominently in it. I would link with tourism the more comprehensive and welcome treatment of the protection of the environment in Articles 130r, 130s and 130t.
I also welcome the provisions for the promotion of research and technological development. In this respect I commend the foresight of the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, when as Minister for Education she incorporated much of the thinking in this Treaty in the Regional Colleges Bill issued last year. My only regret is that, two Ministers later, the provisions of the Bill have not yet been enacted. It would be my hope that we would put the geographically dispersed framework for research and development in these colleges into effect as quickly as possible. In this respect I would ask the Ministers for Education and Finance to expeditiously allocate RTCs a permanent industrial liaison officer at head of department level. I think this is vital. It is important that we utilise fully the potential of our RTCs in that they offer enormous potential for the development of regional policy, very much in line with the thinking in the Maastricht Treaty in relation to regional policy. Therefore we should make every effort to facilitate them having a head start on the benefits that will accrue from the Maastricht Treaty. These appointments should be made quickly so that the research and development schemes under the auspices of the European Community can have a more lasting effect.
This Treaty raises more issues than previous Community Treaties. My party and our partners, the European People's Party, are committed to a just and caring society in Ireland and in the EC. This Treaty provides us with the necessary framework. If we recognise the difficulties, face them honestly and keep our vision bright, Ireland will flourish. Indeed, it could go either way; but I am optimistic it will go the right way so that by the end of the century we will be able to say that Ireland was right to have said "yes" to Europe on 18 June 1992.
Before concluding I should like to refer to youth issues. In the post-1992 era it will be essential that young people be more proficient in continental languages. To this end emergency programmes should be launched with the assistance of the Department of Education, FÁS and so on. If our young people are not proficient in continental languages I predict we shall lose many of the advantages and opportunities awaiting us in other European countries. Certainly we should have a much more positive policy and approach to the teaching of European languages not alone in our post primary schools but in our primary schools. Despite the fact that we have given this aspiration lip service over the past 20 years since first joining Europe, we have made only marginal progress in this area. With the passing of the Maastricht Treaty one of the primary aims of our education system should be to promote the use of continental languages as much as possible in our primary and post primary schools.
Practical co-operation in social security matters should speed up payment procedures. There has been a breakdown in communications, especially in regard to social welfare matters between England and Ireland. In some cases applicants have to wait months for clearance from the English social security department before they can receive their entitlements. The Maastricht Treaty should lead to better co-operation and speed up the payment procedures not only between Ireland and England but between Ireland and the rest of Europe.
Young people are very concerned about our future defence policy. Many Members do not listen to young people. My eyes were opened in this regard when I sat in on the World University Service meeting in Tralee last weekend. Our defence policy and our neutrality are of major concern to young people. Questions in regard to our future defence policy such as compulsory conscription and mandatory military service need to be cleared up immediately. I accept that these issues will be addressed in 1996 but they need to be cleared up now for the population, especially our young people. I do not see why this cannot be done now.
Many young people are worried that Third World countries may be neglected under the new European Union. Ireland has had a very bad record in the amount of funding it has allocated to Third World countries over the past five years. If it were not for the funding provided by voluntary agencies to Third World projects our contribution to Third World aid would be very small indeed. We need to have a clear policy on Third World development. I welcome the enforcement and affirmation of the Community's commitment to the Third World in the new Article in the Maastricht Treaty.
The EC needs to boost training policy with a view to fostering, building and developing the talent which exists among young people. Some of this latent talent which is ready to be expressed is being hampered by education and by training policies. We need a more imaginative approach to FÁS schemes and other training schemes, including the special leaving certificate course for under achievers. There needs to be proper assessment and evaluation of these courses. While FÁS courses have produced good results they could be better and give more value for money. I believe that post-Maastricht there will be more scrutiny by Europe of the way we spend money. While FÁS schemes are most welcome — the trainees do much work in the community — we need more evaluation and assessment of the benefits which accrue from them.
We need a national youth policy. National youth policies across Europe should form the basis for EC policies. We have no youth policy at present. Our only policy in this area is to allocate national lottery funding to various youth organisations. It is up to these organisations to spend the money in the way they see fit without any evaluation or assessment. Some time ago I introduced a Bill which proposed the setting up of a national youth advisory committee. That Bill, which would have been a start in this area, should have been taken on board by the Government. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was involved in commissioning the 1980 O'Sullivan report which outlined the direction we should be going in regard to youth policy. This was followed by the Costello report which stressed the need for a youth policy. However, we have not acted on those reports. It is more vital than ever for us to formulate a coherent national youth policy.
Young people, and youth organisations, should be consulted, as a right, regarding EC decisions. All member states should allocate at least one seat on regional committees to young people. It is very important for young people to be involved in the making of decisions which affect their future in Europe; they will create the Europe of tomorrow. There should be a European committee of national youth organisations which would ensure that young people are well informed on EC matters. There should also be more liaison between the EC and youth organisations so as to ensure that young people are informed about what is happening in Europe. I am sure Members are aware of the amazing ignorance among people in the Community about Maastricht.
Last year the National Youth Council of Ireland carried out a survey on young people's attitudes to Europe and their knowledge of what is happening there. The results of this survey were frightening. Young people have very little knowledge of what is happening in Europe. They are concerned about broader issues such as neutrality but they have no great insight into the workings of the European Community. There should be more liaison between youth organisations, educational institutions and Europe and as much information as possible on Europe should be disseminated.
Between 1989 and 1993 more than 20,000 people will have participated in FÁS programmes. It is estimated that more than 22,000 Irish students attending regional technical colleges and third level vocational education committee colleges benefit directly from EC grants. We are major beneficiaries of European funding. Maastricht will improve our position within Europe. All of us have to regard Maastricht as a major challenge; we have to recognise the opportunities which exist in Europe for us. As previous speakers said, we should not be looking at what we can take from Europe; rather we should be looking at the great opportunities which exist there for us. I look forward to campaigning for a "yes" vote in this referendum and the acceptance of the Treaty by the Irish people.
As it is late in the night perhaps what we say will not dominate the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers. It is also late in the day to address how we can best exploit the opportunities which will exist for us in the new European Union. Nevertheless, I wish to point out the realities facing us following the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty on 18 June — a new liberalised European Union, a common currency and a liberalised world trading environment which will overtake if not subsume the internal market of the European Community if it does not have the necessary internal dynamic. It is time we made our efforts relevant and effective to Europe and the world in which we will live over the next 20 or 30 years. As Deputy Deenihan said, we need to make our efforts relevant to young people who are looking to us to point the way out of the current difficulties and to develop new opportunities.
I will begin by recounting an experience I had shortly before the termination of my position as Minister for Agriculture and Food. I attended the Enuga trade fair in Cologne, the great food fair of Germany, perhaps of Europe. A German buyer for the most exclusive supermarket outlets in Berlin appealed to me to ensure that our meat product would be made available on the Berlin market. I would make it very clear that the German market is the most exclusive and profitable market in the meat trade in Europe. An extra 20 per cent could be added to the value of the product in Berlin because of consistent policies of the German Government over the years. This buyer from the most exclusive chain of supermarkets could not get the Irish meat product because the highest market price could not compete with the intervention support systems into which we were putting our beef, a system that required no guarantee in terms of standards or consumer preference and that sometimes brought abuse on the part of producer and processor. This underlines the fact that the market, as Deputy Deenihan had said, is the best guarantee of our exploiting to our advantage future opportunities in terms of quality and efficiency, whereas supports and fund transfers can sometimes bring out the worst in the Irish character.
I hope that as we address this issue, we will consider it on the basis that we do not negative the importance of fund transfers, which, in terms of the Common Agricultural Policy, is in the order of £1 billion per annum. That is very small by comparison with what we could achieve if we took a vigorous approach to all the market outlets, not just in the indigenous sector, be it beef, dairy or otherwise. We need to co-ordinate and maximise all the opportunities through the various agencies available to us because the existing system will not last in any event. If we never adopted a Treaty on European Union, the GATT would not allow these systems to last. Waste and sometimes fraud — which is not exclusive to this country — would not allow these systems to last. What would demand that new opportunities would arise is consumer insistence on quality and consistency. We have that capacity, and I am speaking purely about the agri-food sector. It is time, as I have reminded the sectors over a long period, that we vigorously, confidently and enthusiastically ensure that we take that approach.
I am happy to acknowledge, after almost five years in that area, that in the dairy sector generally there was a proper, vigorous and confident response based on standards, efficiency and market analysis. In the pigmeat sector, when we introduced a programme of rationalisation, stringent measures were put in place by us to ensure that only the highest standards would be acceptable at every stage — slaughtering, processing and product development — and we have now broken through in markets that were closed to us for generations. I wish I could say the same about the beef industry generally. We have been engaging in commodity trading for a long time, and I do not want to anticipate the consequences of anything that may be on the way at the moment. There is only one guarantee, that is the guarantee of quality. If that guarantee is not provided, we will lose as a nation. However, I am confident that with this new thrust we will win.
What we must do is gear ourselves on all fronts to exploit our advantages, which are real and significant. This debate should focus to a much greater extent on how to achieve that, to underline the inadequacies of current structures — I propose to indicate some of them — and to mobilise our agencies and resources to create new opportunities in this new European Union, this liberalised union of free trade and free movement of people and of currency, where money will become simply a message to be transmitted and location distant from the centre will not be of such major consequences as it would have been hitherto.
From now on we should follow the Dutch example — I will pick two extremes from my own experience in Europe over a considerable time. In 1962 I first joined the European movement and I have been a Council member ever since. Having served in five different Ministries, Energy, Education and social policy, Finance, Foreign Affairs and Agriculture, and taking into account my period in office as Commissioner, I have some knowledge and awareness of the European scene, which is why I felt obliged to put matters on the record this evening as a basis for further discussion. I would commend the Dutch example at every level by contrast with the British example. The Dutch know how to succeed in Europe whereas the British impose barriers between themselves and success. The signals given to the British enterprise sector by their political leaders, most notably the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, by always taking a negative, hostile, demanding, aggressive attitude to Europe have done untold damage to the British enterprise sector. A country that had a capacity in technology, international trading and financial services, which could have dominated the European market, failed to grasp that opportunity because the message being given was a negative if not a hostile one.
The Dutch, on the other hand, saw the opportunity. They did not talk about transfers of money or say that the amount they put in must be balanced by the amount they receive. They realised that in a trading environment if they relied on quality and guarantee of delivery on time and on customer satisfaction, they would win, and they certainly have won. If we consider the benefit that Holland has enjoyed from the European Community by comparison with ourselves, they have not got the transfer of funds under Structural Funds or Common Agricultural Policy supports but they have got much more economically from the European Community than we have. I cannot ignore the fact that they were closer to the centre, but we cannot constantly rely on the fact that because we are not close to the centre, and we obviously have extra transport costs, that justifies our failure to explore and exploit new opportunities, particularly in the area of services, on which I will dwell briefly.
In this area we will at least have one certainty. I have suggested recently that we should not present any special figure, be it £6 billion or whatever, by way of Structural Funds between now and 1996. It is demanding too much of any Minister for Foreign Affairs to request that he "come back with £6 billion or else". The world of negotiation is not quite as easy as that. While I know that the Minister and the Government will make every effort in this regard, we should consider the question of a common currency. How well equipped are we to not only compete and expand opportunity under the new common currency? Fund management and trust funds have become a feature of the financial world. Money is so mobile that those who know how to advise, invest or move money at a given moment will become key figures in this new European Union. Which State agency is equipped at present to deal with this very sophisticated and complex element in attracting funds, as distinct from commodities or investment for product to this country? I do not yield to many in my respect for the IDA, but the staff of the IDA or CTT are neither trained, qualified nor equipped to maximise the opportunity that is now available and will be available in much greater measure when the common currency union that will follow this Treaty is in place. It is past time that we geared ourselves to this. This brings me to my main point.
Existing structures may have served past and, some might say, current needs but can we now afford to have the IDA, CTT, Bord Fáilte, SFADCo and the Department of Foreign Affairs operating independently without having a priority direction? This is not a criticism of the present administration, far from it. The opportunity is there for this administration to take up new opportunities. Our diplomatic effort should have one priority, as have the German, French, American, Dutch and Danish diplomatic services, that is the external advancement of the national interest. It is not an academic thing or a matter of theory which gives their foreign policy real relevance, it is a matter of very vigorous national interest. We now have the opportunity of gearing our diplomatic service to be the lead element of all State agencies that have operated in different areas in different times in each of the European countries.
In each European capital we need to create one presence, "Ireland House", with a common purpose of availing and exploiting the opportunities that are available in the new era, and not yesterday. In that context, it was never more appropriate that we should review the role of and recruitment to our diplomatic service. I suggest this as a practical priority at this time. I yield to no one in my respect for what our career diplomats have achieved for our country, equally I would be blindfolding myself if I said the standard was uniformly good. However, there is no uniformity, the standard may be very good but sometimes it does not measure up to the same high level of achievement. The diplomats themselves recognise that they should be geared to specialising in the new opportunities that will arise in the internal union and that will follow from the liberalised trade environment that will be an inevitable consequence of the GATT. What is happening in Europe is absolutely in harmony with what is happening in the greater world outside. As an open trading economy we need to be ready to avail of these opportunities. If that means recruiting new people, with special competences in this new environment, to any of our services, be they Foreign Affairs, the IDA or CTT, let us do so. That would enhance the capacity and quality of our services at a time when they will have a very vital role to play in our future.
In that context, perhaps it is time the Department of Foreign Affairs should come under the umbrella of the Committee on Top Level Appointments in the Civil Service just as every other Department does. I do not quite understand why a particular Department should not be subject to this committee. I see that distinguished lady, whom I had the privilege of appointing as chairperson of the Commission on Taxation some ten or 12 years ago — and it is significant that many of the recommendations that she and the commission made then are now being followed through — has been appointed chairperson of the TLAC. We should examine whether there are reasons why a particular Department should be excluded from the terms of excellence required for top level appointments. I am not suggesting the Department of Foreign Affairs staff are not excellent. Indeed, we are privileged to have some of the most excellent and committed ambassadors but they should have the back-up of relevant practical experience.
Now we will be talking more in terms of the movement of people, funds and services rather than of the movement of products. For that reason I wish to refer in passing to the Culliton report. The terms of reference of the Culliton report — and I do not criticise Culliton for this — were somewhat confined and narrow. It was almost as if the issues could be solved by addressing the problem solely and exclusively in Ireland. I do not think that can be the case in an economy such as ours which is so dependent on the international trading environment and on our capacity to explore it. I would not have excluded them from making any recommendations in regard to our external export promotion efforts, our marketing efforts, our external diplomatic efforts, or the external promotion of our tourism, which should also be linked to an integrated approach to the common effort we must make in the European Union. When a German, Dutch, Italian or Spaniard looks at Ireland he sees a composite picture and we must now set about marketing that picture at every possible opportunity and not distinguishing one product from another.
I regret to have to interrupt the Deputy to remind him that just one minute remains.
One of the advantages of the financial services sector is that nowadays you do not have to be physically at the centre, as you did before, to play an active and vigorous role in the market. One can now be anywhere, provided one has the technological capacity and knowledge. One can transfer money from any part of the world by way of electronic signal. We need to address this immediately as a direct consequence of the Treaty on European Union. We must be better than and not just equal to others. We can develop the banking sector if we have the technology. We can make this country a centre like Luxembourg, Brussels or wherever. There is no law that says that what has been done in those countries cannot be done here. I agree with Deputy Deenihan that certain things have to be done to advance that cause, and nobody appreciates that more than I do.
On the question of acquiring linguistic facilities let me say that the fact that we are already bilingual — mar a bhí mé féin roimh dul don Mhór-roinn — is a great advantage — in terms of modern languages, as I know from my own experience. I hope we put this to good effect.
There is a very tough and difficult task ahead but it is very challenging. If we want to get the proper response from the Irish people we should tell them, and this has been said in this House already tonight, this is the opportunity and the challenge and not that this is going to be passed on to us. I am glad to say that I have got through my speech without mentioning that other word at this point. When we come to address that issue, I hope it will not have clouded this issue of European Union. I had hoped it would never have clouded that issue. When we come to address it I will have views to express, views based on the experience of other countries and a conviction from what has happened in those other countries. But tonight I say míle buíochas and I am very confident that if we approach this matter in a positive and vigorous way we will have a positive result.
I seek leave of the House to share my time, in equal parts, with Deputy Garland.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Labour Party maintain at this point in time that the Irish people have no choice but to ratify the Maastricht Treaty on 18 June. This view is based on the reality that Ireland has been part of the European process for the last 20 years and that it is too late to back out or to rethink our membership. However, we must look back over the history of our 20 year membership of the European Community, which has not been an entirely happy one. The Labour Party maintained at that time that we would have been better off in 1972 staying outside the Community. That point was argued long and hard at the time and the Irish people made their decision. However, 20 years on we find that 21 per cent of our population is unemployed and that we are in the dubious first rank of nations of the European Community so far as unemployment is concerned. It has not done much for us in that regard. I am aware of a recession worldwide at present; but that recession affects all countries, not just Ireland. As far as some 300,000 would be workers in this country are concerned, the great promises held out about European funds in 1972 and what they would do for us have fallen flat and they feel betrayed. There is a feeling of déjá vu with the promises now being made and the talks about the Cohesion Fund and the Maastricht Treaty. Cohesion, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, was promised to us at that time also. Twenty years have already gone by in which cohesion could have been achieved if it was going to be achieved.
We have to remember too that the Europe of today presents a very different picture from that of 1972, in particular the position of Germany presents a very different position today from that which obtained in 1972. We have to recognise the fact — and we would be very foolish if we did not — that a united Germany is a very different proposition from the old West Germany. It has a tremendous task to integrate itself. The tendency there, which is already evident, will be for the Germans — to a large extent the paymasters of Europe — to look inwards and to concentrate their resources on the united Germany rather than dispensing largesse to the same degree as they did in the past to the less well off regions of Europe. We had better wake up to that fact and recognise that things will be different in this new scenario of a united Germany.
We would also be well advised to look at political developments not just in Germany but in most of the countries of western Europe, virtually all the countries that are members of the EC. I refer here to the frightening increase in the support for Fascist and extreme right wing parties that is becoming evident in Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and so on. Some of the votes that have been achieved by Fascist parties in parts of Belgium, for example, are frightening and we should be cautious not to lock ourselves in even more tightly through the Maastricht Treaty.
In campaigning for a yes vote, as the Labour Party will be doing, we will not be campaigning for an uncritical endorsement of the Treaty. We believe that after Maastricht this country will face huge challenges, and for the Government to state otherwise is false. We hope the Government will take seriously the many sincere reservations expressed by Irish citizens with regard to the ratification of this Treaty. We also hope the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Coalition Government will learn from past errors and will now introduce a proper system for consultation and debate with Members of the Oireachtas on decisions being taken and which they propose to take from time to time in relation to Europe.
Before the Intergovernmental Conference last December the Labour Party asked the Government to consult with the Oireachtas on the critical negotiations which were then taking place, but unfortunately that demand fell on deaf ears. If the Government had not been so arrogant in their approach to Europe they might now find themselves in a more coherent and plausible position. Unfortunately, the begging bowl mentality of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Coalition Government in relation to Europe must stop now and they must be aware of the vital issues at stake.
The big danger arising from the proposals at Maastricht and the adoption of this Treaty lies partly in the economic field, but there is also a very serious psychological element. There is a feeling abroad that if we adopt the Maastricht Treaty the Cohesion Funds, with all the figures bandied about, will take care of everything, that some process will evolve where the EC will take care of us and that everything will come out right. There is a feeling that the appalling problems of unemployment and emigration and our failure to achieve the objects of cohesion will be resolved in some mystical fashion by the adoption of this Treaty. But it will not come right in the end if we simply sit back and continue the way we have been going in the past; clearly it will become much more difficult. If we sit back in our seats here in Dáil Éireann and say we will create the atmosphere for employment creation, that we will improve the infrastructure, manipulate the taxation system, provide better communications and roads and expect jobs to evolve — jobs which our people so desperately need — that will not happen. All those things have been done in the past; they have all been tinkered with. Our roads may not be up to the autostrada in the centre of Europe, but they are not all that bad. The reason jobs are not forthcoming is not due to inadequate roads, to an inadequate taxation system or to an inadequate communications system — all of these are not bad but they warrant appreciable improvement. I doubt that any would-be entrepreneur, either indigenous or foreign, contemplating setting up an industry and providing employment in this country would be put off because the roads or the telecommunications system are not up to standard. There is much more to it than that. We are treading on very dangerous ground if we allow ourselves to be lulled into a psychological feeling that by adopting the Maastricht Treaty these things will follow.
Does the Deputy wish to honour his promise to his colleague? The ten minutes have almost expired now.
I want to say a few words regarding the issue of travel and information. It is regrettable that on this issue the Government have treated Irish women with appalling arrogance and contempt. The Government have not taken seriously the justifiable concerns of Irish women but have used the issue of travel and information, which are basic democratic rights, in a carrot and stick manner to the women of Ireland. The Taoiseach has been given ample opportunity to clarify the issue of women's rights that is inextricably bound up with the Maastricht Protocol. Unfortunately, instead of clarifying the issues in a way that women are entitled to expect, he has promised on a number of occasions and, further, threatened that the promised referendum on the right to travel and information for women may or may not cover other issues. When will the Taoiseach realise, once and for all, that women in Ireland are entitled to the same rights as women in any other European state? The Government, in failing to address the issue of travel and information as they apply to the rights of women in Ireland prior to the Maastricht Treaty will be doing a grave disservice to Irish women and men.
I would like to thank Deputy Taylor for giving me some of his time.
On behalf of the Green Party/ Comhaontas Glass I wish to state that I am opposed to this Bill. The Government are trying to convince the people that there is nothing controversial in this Treaty and that the benefits are so obvious that we would be mad to oppose it. Let me deal first with the alleged economic advantages in the Maastricht Treaty. I would remind the House that when Ireland joined the EC unemployment stood at 65,000. It has now reached 280,000. Surely this cannot be purely a coincidence, as the Government maintain.
We have heard about the mythical £6 billion of EC funds which, as the Taoiseach said, is on offer. How real is that? It is significant that the referendum is being held prior to the Lisbon meeting in July when important decisions will be made in regard to the disbursement of these funds. The Taoiseach gives the impression that these funds are some kind of bonus to Ireland. In fact they represent compensation for the loss of our independent decision-making and the loss of jobs which seems inevitable. It amounts to one massive handout to keep Ireland quiet.
The dependence of our economy on multinationals is notorious and represents a very unstable base. This week, for example, we have the threat of the loss of 400 jobs in Apple computers in Cork. It is said that the Labour Party who are supposed to represent what is left of our workers and, generally, the poor and disadvantaged, have surrendered to the Right. Their only policy is one of pleading with multinational companies to supply work to their supporters. I note some of the major trade unions have come out in favour of Maastricht. They certainly show touching faith in the ability of multinationals to protect the jobs of their members. Will they ever learn?
Fine Gael support for Maastricht was, of course, expected. They have always had a low opinion of our ability to manage our own affairs. A united states of Europe, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, is clearly their objective, and this is what we are heading for if this referendum is passed. Another aspect of economics is the huge cuts which will be necessary in public expenditure to bring the national debt GNP ratio to the 60 per cent required by our EC partners.
Let me now deal with defence and security issues. The Treaty spells out the end of what is left of Irish neutrality and is expressly linked with NATO. By Article J of the Treaty common foreign and security policy is established. The Taoiseach is incorrect in suggesting that the Irish people will have the constitutional entitlement to have a further referendum in 1997 on security and defence matters. By this Treaty the EPU is given competence in these areas. Any further developments will be considered to be within the competence of the stated objectives of the original common security policy.
In the Dáil yesterday the Taoiseach attempted to drive a wedge between the Irish Green Party and the other European Greens by his claim that they were in support of the Maastricht Treaty. It is ridiculous for him to claim that the Green group in the European Parliament called on the Parliament and national parliaments to ratify the Maastricht Treaty when the opposite is the case and they voted against it last month.
Another matter the Taoiseach spoke about was how positive the EC had been on women's rights. I agree with those who highlight one of the major problems of the EC, that it is male centred and has been geared towards the interests of the most powerful who are mostly men. I hope Irish women will not be taken in by the Taoiseach's plámás. Danish women are certainly not happy with the Treaty and with the EC in general because they see their achievements being undermined and Danish standards in women's issues being lowered as a result of EC membership. It is all very well having equal pay it is of little benefit if there are no jobs. If the Treaty is ratified we will have increased unemployment, poverty and emigration and, as usual, it will be the women who will bear the brunt.
Another area of concern is the effect of the European Patent Convention. The European Patent Office has already granted a patent on a live animal, the `cancer' mouse. The patent is for any non-human animal. Although it is claimed that animal life maybe turned into commercial property, human life remains sacred. However, many people may not be aware that patents on human genes have already been granted by the EPO to research institutes in Australia and Japan. Huxley's "Brave New World" is not far away.
The Taoiseach's speech yesterday was a prime example of the distorted and manipulative propaganda that the citizens of this country have been exposed to over the past five weeks. It was inaccurate and shamefully evasive and misrepresentative. As such it is a sell out of Irish neutrality and independence for the benefit of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor, the unemployed and the planet. The Taoiseach has failed to admit that this Bill will ensure that this is our last referendum on European matters. He is far from the truth when he claims the amendment is simple, straightforward and limited. It is not, and it is dishonest of him to say so.
The Taoiseach lists those supporting the Treaty without listing their vested interests in so doing and, at the same time, fails to mention the opponents like the United Farmers Association which represents small farmers. Many environmental groups have grave reservations about the Treaty, including Greenpeace Ireland and Earthwatch who are most concerned with environmental and neutrality issues. Greenpeace Denmark have already come out against it. It is apparent that the people who constitute what Desmond Fennell called "the State class" who might also be called the Euro bullies, to use John Water's phrase, are in the process of selling our heritage a mere 70 years after we achieved our independence.
The public are being completely hoodwinked. They already know that the bulk of the politicians cannot be trusted but in addition their union representatives, business leaders and the media have all been bought out. On previous occasions we have sounded warnings about this kind of development, particularly in 1987 and the Single European Act, but this pales into insignificance compared with this monstrous proposal. The amendment is constructed so as to give a blank cheque to the EC. My fellow Deputies have been circulated with an excellent analysis of the proposed amendment by a champion of this nation, Mr. Tony Coughlan——
I must ask Deputy Garland to conclude.
I am trying to conclude.
The Deputy will have to do better than that; he must conclude.
I argue that the short guide produced by the Government to sell their treachery should have been neither produced nor circulated using public funds unless those opposed could do the same. If they must circulate anything it should be a copy of the Treaty or a more balanced White Paper. The proposal to insert advertisements in newspapers and on television at public expense is similarly outrageous. RTE and other publicly regulated stations may find themselves in hot water if they do not accord fair coverage to both sides.
In response to what I have heard from Deputy Garland, I greatly resent the allegations he made that the politicians and the Members of this House are not to be trusted. It is an outrageous allegation particularly by a Member of this House.
It happens to be true.
I would go so far as to say that I found his contribution to this debate a bit daft.
As Minister for Energy I am pleased that the Maastricht Treaty sees the establishment of a single energy market as an important objective of European Union and that the Community will contribute to the development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, communications and energy infrastructure. Special importance is also attached to the need to link island and landlocked peripheral regions with the central areas of the Community.
As part of this overall Single Market energy strategy, I favour the creation of greater competition within the electricity industry. The building of the gas interconnector, which is scheduled for completion next year, will also play a vital role in creating the internal energy market and will help to guarantee supplies to our island community. The gas interconnector and the EC legislation will provide access to European gas grids for gas imports to Ireland and will enable Irish gas to be exported to the Community via Britain in the event of further gas finds here.
Debate adjourned.