Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1992

Vol. 422 No. 1

EC Summit: Statements

The Taoiseach

I attended the meeting of the European Council of Heads of State or Government in Lisbon on 26 and 27 June 1992. I was accompanied at the meeting by Deputy Andrews, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Deputy Tom Kitt, Minister of State in my Department with special responsibility for European Affairs, was also part of the Irish delegation.

As the House will be aware, the meeting was concerned essentially with three issues. First on the agenda was the financial perspective for the Community for the period 1993 to 1997. Next, were the prospects for enlargement, with no less than seven countries — Turkey, Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland at present applying for membership. Then, there were also political co-operation items like the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, and, in particular, the deteriorating conditions in Yugoslavia, and developments in the Middle East. Other areas discussed included the UN Conference on Environment and Development which was held in Rio de Janeiro and the agreement by the Community and its member states to an eight-point follow-up action programme. Ireland was congratulated on the outcome of its recent referendum. The decisions of the Foreign Affairs meeting in Oslo were confirmed. These were that each country should proceed with the process of ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, respecting the timetable to ensure the entry into force of the Treaty as of 1 January 1993, that there should be no renegotiation and that the door for Danish participation remains open.

At Lisbon, there was widespread acceptance that the dangers of creating an anonymous super-State must be avoided and that there must now be instead greater democracy, the citizens of Europe must be more directly involved and the identities and cultures of individual nations more fully reflected in the integration process.

We want to build a socially conscious community of States that accepts difference and diversity. The responsibility for decision-making should be kept at the appropriate level, where it is most effective, and be as close and responsive as possible to the will of the people. In other words, there should be no unnecessary centralisation or harmonisation for its own sake. The Community should undertake only the essential tasks necessary to implement agreed common policies.

One of the underlying principles here is what is called subsidiarity, and this is to be the subject of a report by the Commission to the Summit in Edinburgh next December. This principle of subsidiarity is now enshrined for the first time in the Maastricht Treaty, and we are satisfied that it is defined in a way that will allow for the continued dynamic development of the Community. But we must be vigilant against any attempt to use this principle to dilute Community competence in areas of vital interest to us and to the future development of the Union such as the Common Agricultural Policy, EC control on the level of state aids, and internal market principles.

The Lisbon meeting reviewed progress towards completion of the Single Market. Indeed, we noted that over 90 per cent of the measures needed to implement the market have been adopted. As Deputies will be aware, the Summit re-affirmed its commitment to the completion of the Single Market by 31 December 1992.

We touched on such matters as the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, the fight against drugs, on which we had a report before us from the European Committee to Combat Drugs; and we agreed with the conclusions of a Report from the "Trevi" Ministers and called for the preparation of a Convention to establish EUROPOL.

The Council welcomed the results of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June and, in particular, the acceptance by the international community at the highest level of the aim of sustainable development worldwide, while protecting our precious environment. We committed ourselves to an eight-point plan.

On the GATT Uruguay Round, which is of vital importance to Ireland, the Council invited the Community negotiators to intensify the dialogue with their partners, and in particular, with the United States, to resolve the remaining differences so that overall agreement can be concluded before the end of the year. Ireland, with its interests in agriculture, and as an exporter of some 70 per cent of its output — among the highest proportions in the world — has an especially large interest in a successful outcome to these talks. But, as the Lisbon meeting underlined, the negotiations form a whole, and success requires a substantial and balanced result in all areas. We noted that the Community has reformed its Common Agricultural Policy on a basis that, while ensuring that the incomes of our farmers are maintained, matches supply better to demand, thus helping to stabilise markets. We called on all parties to the Uruguay Round to show similar flexibility so that realistic and balanced solutions can be found in agriculture and so that tangible liberalisation takes place in the areas of services and access to markets.

Over the past few years, which have seen the collapse of communism, the Community has been looked to as a core of stability by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The rapid changes in these countries have often been marked by vicious ethnic tensions, the collapse of regimes, the disappearance of national or regional boundaries and the collapse of public administration. The Summit reaffirmed the Community's will to develop its partnership with the countries concerned in their efforts to restructure economies and institutions.

I have had copies of the conclusions of the summit placed in the Dáil Library for reference. As Deputies will note from the document, the talks ranged even more widely than it has been possible to encompass in my brief summary.

Of most immediate concern to Ireland at the Lisbon meeting, were the proposals for the financing of the Community in the period 1993 to 1997. This, in turn, is connected with the proposals for the enlargement of the Community. The European Council in Maastricht, last December, noted that negotiations on accession to the European Union "can start as soon as the Community has terminated its negotiations on own resources and related issues in 1992". This linkage is repeated in the Lisbon conclusions which note that the European Council agreed that the negotiations on accession to the union on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty can start as soon as the Community has terminated its negotiations on own resources and related issues in 1992 and the Treaty on European Union has been ratified. It is quite clear, therefore, that negotiations on enlargement can start only when there is final agreement on the Delors II Package.

I want to stress this point because there seems to have been a view that we should have been able to come away from the Lisbon Summit with agreement on the financial perspectives for 1993 to 1997. I never held that view. In fact, I emphasised, time and again that all that was likely to emerge from Lisbon were guidelines for the negotiation on Delors II. After all, the countries meeting in Lisbon have still to complete their different ratification processes for the Maastricht Treaty: different countries have different concerns and different processes for ratification. Some have referenda; some involve parliamentary action only. But they all have this in common: they are all subject to the most difficult and sensitive debate in their home constituencies. And the Heads of State and Government meeting in Lisbon had to take into account in their approach to all the issues before them, the views of their own parliaments and people. By the time of the Edinburgh Summit, ratification procedures will have been completed or very considerably advanced in most member states and they will be in a better position then to reach final agreement on the proposals contained in the Delors II Package.

In the event, the Summit came to a number of important conclusions. First, they made decisions on the Cohesion Fund, which will assist projects in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. The fund is referred to in the Maastricht Treaty "to provide a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure". The Lisbon meeting decided that this fund will be put in place early in 1993. This is an important advance, since Article 130D of the Treaty simply provided that the fund should be set up "before 31 December 1993". Thus, Ireland should benefit from early next year from Community assistance for projects at the particularly advantageous rates of Community aid proposed under this fund.

Next, the Lisbon Council decided that the regressive nature of the current system of contribution to the Community budget will be corrected. Again, this is a step forward since the Cohesion Protocol annexed to the Treaty referred only to examining means of such correction; now we have a commitment that there will be a correction which will take particular account of the situation of the member states with a GNP per inhabitant below 90 per cent of the Community average and will lead to some reduction in Ireland's budget contribution. The Commission will present, in July, its report on the application of the mechanisms for correcting budgetary imbalances, which relates primarily to the UK, although Germany is also affected.

Finally, the Lisbon Council concluded that the cumulated effect of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund will be an increase appropriate to reflect the Maastricht commitments. Again, this is an advance as the Protocol on Cohesion annexed to the Treaty simply referred to a review in 1992 of the appropriate size of the Structural Funds — now we have a commitment to an appropriate increase.

The Commission Paper published earlier this year, From the Single Act to Maastricht and Beyond: The Means to Match Our Ambitions, contains the Commission's proposals for implementing this Treaty obligation. In it, the Commission say:

Given the persistent disparities affecting the least developed regions, the Commission considers that it would be appropriate to allow a further significant increase in Structural Fund assistance — two-thirds in real terms — between 1992 and 1997. Regions in countries covered by the Maastricht Protocol (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) would also qualify for assistance from the new Cohesion Fund. This means that for these four countries together, the resources available for the regions in 1997 could rise by as much as 100 per cent.

I quote this passage in extenso to show the basis of the proposals that the flow of Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, together, should be doubled in the period from 1993 to 1997, which figured so largely in recent debates. The basis of the understanding is the Commission proposal: that proposal may or not be modified during its progress towards implementation, but I want to make it clear that doubling is a Commission proposal, and that is what Ireland will be seeking in the continuing negotiations.

Just how seriously the Commission take the proposal can I think be gauged from a recent statement by Commission President Delors, as quoted in a profile in Le Monde in its issue of 27 June, and I quote:

If I propose 100, it is not to obtain 40 but to obtain 100.

The same message is repeated in a quotation which I take from the London Times of 29 June, extracted from a Commission bulletin circulated after the Lisbon European Council:

It is likely that the agricultural guideline will be continued and that there will be a doubling by 1997 of the financial effort ... in the four poorer member states.

I make no applogy for following the line I have set out. Deputies will be aware that authoritative Commission estimates show that the increase in Community GNP likely to result from the completion of the internal market and from Economic and Monetary Union is in the order of 15 per cent. The benefits of this increase will accrue to all Community countries but, on all past experience, the greater proportion of the benefit is likely to go to the countries at the Community's core.

These additional benefits are likely to be a multiple, many times over, of the Commission request for additional budget funding — from 1.2 per cent to 1.37 per cent of Community GNP. In our request for additional Structural Funds, we are not shaking the begging bowl: we are simply asking that a small share of the extra benefit to the core countries of the Community resulting from coming economic changes, which Ireland fully and enthusiastically supports, should, through the budgetary mechanisms of the Community, be used to redress the imbalance in competitivity as between the more and less prosperous regions of the Community.

These extra transfers will benefit the central states as well: if we look at the experience between 1980 and, say, 1990, in the development of trade between this country and the other countries of the Community, we can see that development, and even prosperity here can benefit those other countries. What we buy from Britain has almost doubled in that period. In fact, Britain is one of the few countries in the Community with which we run a balance of trade deficit. What we buy from France has doubled, from Germany and Denmark almost trebled and from The Netherlands more than trebled. In other words, Irish prosperity means higher trade volumes for the richer member states: they benefit and we benefit, and the Community is a more stable and cohesive entity. This is not begging bowl politics: it is the logic of the marketplace about which we hear so often in certain circles, and it is based on specific Treaty provisions. As a result of the Lisbon meeting we have not moved back or forward so far as action on this proposal is concerned, but we have secured significant advances on the Cohesion Fund and on the revenue side of the EC budget.

On enlargement, the Council considered that the agreement on the European Economic Area entered into with the EFTA countries, has paved the way for opening negotiations with a view to an early conclusion with those countries seeking membership of the European Union. As I said, the negotiation will be opened as soon as the Treaty on European Union is ratified and the Delors II Package agreed. The basis for the negotiation will be that the applicant countries will join a Community with new characteristics, on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty: it will have completed a Single Market, without internal frontiers; it will have created the European Union; Economic and Monetary Union, with the move to a single currency, will be well underway and there will be a common foreign and security policy, as defined in Maastricht. The accession of the EFTA countries will mean an internal market of 380 million people, held together by common rules of trade, policy and monetary discipline. It will be the largest single trading block in the world: its basic objective will be peace; and it will be anchored firmly in the principles of democracy and the rule of law. They bring with them a diversity of culture and traditions.

An important decision taken by the European Council in Lisbon, after consultation with the President and the Enlarged Bureau of the European Parliament, was to renew the mandate of Mr. Jacques Delors as President of the Commission. This was a decision I favoured and strongly supported, as Mr. Delors has given outstanding leadership in the process of European integration which has acquired a new dynamism since he first took office at the beginning of 1985. He has also shown himself to be a true friend of Ireland who has constantly sought to safeguard and promote the interests of the smaller member states within the Community.

Mr. Delors' new term is for two years, pursuant to the changes in the Maastricht Treaty that aim to make the terms of the Commission and of the European Parliament broadly parallel. In this context, it will be necessary for the Government to nominate the Irish person for appointment as a member of the Commission by the Governments of the member states. There will be no undue delay in making this nomination, but the matter will have to be considered by the Government, following the recent renomination of President Delors.

We had an extensive and detailed discussion on the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. The conclusions and annexed declarations set out the Summit's agreed approach to the issue, and to other international questions such as the Middle East peace negotiations, developments in South Africa, the Community's relations with the Maghreb countries of North Africa, and with developing countries generally, and the forthcoming CSCE Summit in Helsinki.

Yugoslavia was a matter of particular concern. The House will be aware that the Community has for the past year been actively engaged in efforts to bring an end to this tragic conflict on our own continent, through a Peace Conference, negotiated ceasefires, the Monitor Mission and support for action by the United Nations. I want to pay tribute to the Irish personnel who are giving such distinguished service to the EC Monitor Mission and to the UN force in Yugoslavia. There have been some successes, particularly in Slovenia and Croatia.

The European Council could not ignore the appalling plight of the people of Sarajevo who have suffered for months without food, water or electricity and have been subject to constant shelling from heavy artillery. Although no party to the conflict can escape blame, by far the greatest share of responsibility falls on the Serbian leadership and the Yugoslav army which it controls. The European Council focused especially on the immediate need to reopen Sarajevo airport to enable food and medicines to get through. We proposed that the UN Security Council should urgently take the measures necessary to open the airport and to deliver humanitarian assistance to the city and neighbouring areas. The Community and its member states declared themselves ready to co-operate in this effort.

While everyone wishes and hopes that these humanitarian objectives can be achieved by peaceful means, the European Council did not include support for the use of military means by the United Nations. Ireland was to the front in ensuring that support for any action of a military kind that might be necessary should be in the framework of the United Nations. We proposed and secured, significant amendments to the Declaration which make this clear, and which were described as "ingenious" by another delegation. I also proposed that the Troika of Foreign Ministers led by Mr. Douglas Hurd representing the new EC Presidency should visit Yugoslavia at an early date, which was also accepted. It was and is my hope that military action by the UN will not be necessary.

Since the meeting of the European Council the signs are encouraging. Serbian forces have withdrawn from the airport and have begun to place their heavy weaponry under the supervision of the UN. The Security Council has agreed to deploy a peacekeeping force to secure the airport. The first consignments of food and medicines have been delivered.

I hope that the lifting of the siege of Sarajevo signals an end to the violence and bloodshed in Bosnia and that the parties to the Yugoslav conflict will now co-operate fully with the UN and resume serious negotiations in the Community's Peace Conference chaired by Lord Carrington. In this connection I salute the courage and initiative of President Mitterrand of France in visiting Sarajevo immediately after the European Council, which had an important and beneficial psychological effect on the situation.

The European Council expressed its deep concern at the recent violence in South Africa and its shock at the massacre on 17 June in Boipalong. There is an absolute need to ensure effective control of the police and security forces in South Africa, and this will be taken up by the ministerial Troika of the Community when they visit South Africa in the near future. Ireland very much supports this. We want to see the conditions created which would enable all the parties to resume negotiations to ensure a peaceful transition towards a democratic and nonracial South Africa. It is vital not to lose the progress already made.

Finally I draw the attention of the House to the adoption by the European Council of a report prepared by Foreign Ministers which identifies areas open to joint action by the European Union vis-à-vis particular countries or groups of countries. This report, which was called for at Maastricht, is annexed to the Council's Conclusions. It outlines how joint action might be applied — when the Maastricht Treaty comes into effect — in the European Union's relation with Central and Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The Foreign Ministers have been asked to continue their preparatory work of defining the basic elements of the union's policy by the date of entry into force of the Treaty.

The domains within the security dimension, which may form the object of joint action; the CSCE process; disarmament and arms control in Europe, including confidence-building measures; nuclear non-proliferation; and the economic aspects of security, especially exports of arms and technology to third countries; are all subjects which we are happy to see discussed by the union. Most of them have been major preoccupations of Irish foreign policy, and they deal with security in the broadest sense of the term. We are very glad that the Common Foreign and Security Policy should start out in the area of security with these agenda items, and it augurs well for the character and tone of such a policy in the future in contributing to a more peaceful world. The House will note that the report repeats the language of the European Union Treaty included at Ireland's behest to the effect that the policy of the union shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policies of certain member states, a recognition that we are not and do not have to be members of any existing military alliance.

I took the opportunity, in the margins of the meeting, to meet the British Prime Minister. Our discussions covered the European Council meeting, the British Presidency of the Community, which commenced yesterday, and the round-table talks about Northern Ireland. We reviewed the talks process to date and the current situation. I indicated that the Government's agreement to the meeting held earlier this week in Strand Three formation was on the basis that it would help clear the way for Strand Two to commence in line with the statement of 26 March 1991 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We agreed to monitor the process closely and to maintain contact, including a further bilateral meeting in Dublin later this year.

This was the first European Council I have attended as Taoiseach and I look back on it with some satisfaction. Irish interests were promoted and defended both with vigour and with some success in the face of considerable pressure. The outcome should not be measured against the results that we are ultimately looking for, but judged as a stage of the process during which some progress was made in firming up the commitments made at Maastricht, while recognising that the Structural Funds continue to the end of 1993. As a result, we can look forward to a significant increase in EC funding next year. I also made a contribution to the wider agenda, in particular the sending of a peace mission to Yugoslavia.

I would like to convey my thanks to the Portuguese Prime Minister and his administration for the courtesy extended to us at all times during the meeting and for the excellence of the arrangements, which ensured that negotiations which were often tense and difficult, were eased to their conclusion with maximum patience and flexibility. I look forward to a continuation of the discussions and to decisions on the outstanding items at or before the Edinburgh Summit, later this year.

Mr. Barry

I do not share the Taoiseach's enthusiasm with regard to the Lisbon Summit. That Summit represents a lost opportunity, an opportunity for the Heads of Government to spell out the process towards monetary union, to examine the impact of expansion on the Community, to address the issues of democracy and accountability that are not addressed in the Maastricht Treaty, to critically assess the requirements of a common foreign security policy and, lastly, to put the financing of the Community on a firm footing. It seems that the European Governments have finally woken up to the fact that since the Single European Act the people of Europe have been unclear as to what European unity means. We should remember that one of the objectives of the Single European Act was to establish a people's Europe, a Europe more relevant to all its people, one with which they could freely identify and of which they could feel part.

It is clear from reports from the various member states that the people are unhappy with the manner in which the Governments are excluding them from debate and discussion on the question of European Union. That was quite clear here during the time of the referendum and it is obviously a view also held in Denmark. There has been a distinct lack of openness in this Government's approach to our participation in Europe. We have continually called in this House for more debates on European affairs. We continually asked to have the Maastricht Treaty debated here before the White Paper was finally published a few short weeks before the referendum took place, but the Government sinisterly ignored our request in that regard. The last few years should have been used to promote public debates, to provide information and to prepare the country for the challenges and opportunities provided by European Union.

Since ratification of the Single European Act the road to European union was clear. The task of the Government was to prepare the ground for our full participation in that process. What the Government should have been doing was acknowledging the challenges and difficulties and formulating national strategy to minimise difficulties and to maximise the opportunities that undoubtedly exist for business in this country with a market of 320 million people. In the last two years since discussions commenced on Maastricht they have not done that.

It is ironic that the buzzword of this Summit —"subsidiarity"— relates to handing back to the people the power to make decisions at the most appropriate local level. It does not appear from what the Taoiseach said in his speech or indeed from what he said this morning that he understands what subsidiarity means. It does not merely mean that Brussels delegates power back to national governments. It means the delegation of power to regional and local level within each member state. In an interview published yesterday the incoming President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Douglas Hurd, described subsidiarity as minimum interference from Brussels. The concept of subsidiarity does not stop at the shores of Ireland. It must also be applied within Ireland. There must be the minimum of interference from Dublin in the affairs of Cork, Galway, Donegal and other regions of the country.

The whole question of regional decision-making and planning will be very important in a more integrated Community. Indeed, the Community cannot be held together unless the role of the regions is promoted and powers are clearly delegated to them.

It would make a great deal more sense if Structural Funds were allocated on a regional basis with the responsibility for their application and spending being agreed locally. I hope that in the next term the Government will bring forward measures to allow that to happen as was intended by the Maastricht Treaty and is wished by the people because that will promote a sense of responsibility as well as a sense of participation at local level. If European Union is to succeed after the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified there must be a delegation of powers to the regions.

These issues should have been discussed in the campaign leading up to the referendum. The Structural Funds are a particularly useful mechanism for the practice of subsidiarity. Perhaps the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when replying, will say how the Government intend to put subsidiarity into practice here and what they define as an appropriate increase in the Maastricht Treaty commitment to cohesion, because that is not clear from the Taoiseach's speech this morning.

The Summit was not a success in economic terms. The Taoiseach did not achieve a doubling of the Structural Funds. The Government's faulty expediency of emphasising the economic benefits in general, and the £6 billion in particular, their under emphasis of economic opportunities, their complete neglect of issues such as Europe's role in world affairs and the wider issues of social and cultural policy, demonstrates Fianna Fáil's lack of broad objectives for Ireland in Europe and their total lack of any interest in Europe except for the amount of money it brings in. It is clear that they have no national strategy with regard to our participation in Europe nor have they any real commitment to the evolution of European Union. It is unlikely that the post-Maastricht Treaty figure of £6 billion for the Structural Funds will be forthcoming if Mr. Kohl's and Mr. Major's attitude at Lisbon is to be taken as a guide. The vague promise of appropriate increase is hardly reassuring. The Taoiseach's optimism in this regard is misplaced.

Perhaps we need to approach this issue in a different manner. We need to show how we use Structural Funds constructively and effectively, while also assessing what return we have got in the past. The responsibility is on two sides — if we are pushing hard for and making the case for the doubling of the funds, we must demonstrate that we use the funds to maximum benefit and return.

There is no doubt that the Cohesion Fund will be an important means for our future expansion and growth. It is difficult to talk about cohesion unless there is a concrete figure available. We need to formulate policies that can maximise the benefit of a substantial transfer of resources from the Community to the Irish Exchequer not to cover up a budget deficit or to make budget figures easier for 1993 for the Government but with the intention for which they are designed, to bring the poor regions up to the level of the richer central countries.

We must also look at our industrial, fiscal and educational policies to see how we are doing, or not doing, and why we are performing relatively poorly compared to our European counterparts. Dr. Kieran Kennedy of the ESRI suggested in a recent paper that the key influence on our well being is the way the economy is run and the success of both private and public sectors. It is not a question of how much we get from the European Community, we must examine our own policies and how we use EC money.

The Summit conclusions are generally long on rhetoric and short on specifics or decisions. There are many issues and questions that arise following Maastricht that the Summit seems to have addressed in a superficial way. For instance, there was no further exposition of the issues and policies arising from monetary union. The Summit did not address itself to the reality of the inadequacy of democratic control of decision-making in the Community. The people of Denmark, and indeed France, Germany and Britain have underlined their unease in this regard. We should too.

We do not have a committee on European affairs or foreign affairs and we do not have adequate debate in this House before decision are made by the Council of Ministers. There is a huge level of suspicion among politicians and people in general that decisions are being taken behind closed doors. Our only knowledge of those decisions is when they affect us as a result of Government regulations and directions. If there is to be genuine European Union, if we are going to expand that union to incorporate other member states in the future, the method by which we convey decision-making to the people from the Commission and the Council of Ministers must be clearly looked at and every step must be transparent to all the people who will be affected by these decisions. That has not been done in the past 20 years, and we all bear some responsibility for that. If we go on in the same way for the next 20 years we will not create European union. We will break up the gathering of countries there at the moment.

There was not any reference by the Taoiseach to the Irish Government's view on the democratic deficit. How will that be tackled and what would the Government cite as the locus of power and decision-making? Do the Government see the Parliament, the Council, the Commission or this House as being the important part in that? The problem of democratic accountability and control will be exacerbated by enlargement of the Community. Unless we tackle this issue head on there is a danger that the legitimacy of European institutions will come into question. These are issues that could and should have been addressed in the past five years. They were not addressed at Maastricht. There is no point in doubling the number of countries in the Community, of adding even the EFTA countries that may apply for membership in the next 12 months, unless we overhaul the decision-making process in the Community. Otherwise, the people of Europe will not follow and will only be suspicious of what is being done at the centre rather than feeling part of the movement towards the worthwhile goal of European union.

A European/Foreign Affairs Committee of the Oireachtas could have provided the starting point for a debate on the issues of central importance to the future development of the Community. This committee has been promised for about two years. I hope it will be set up before the House adjourns so that a meeting can be held in August and another in September.

The Taoiseach said, in relation to enlargement of the Community, that he will veto any enlargement until adequate funds for cohesion are in place. Yesterday in the same article to which I referred the British Presidency say that negotiation on enlargement will commence in 1993 and that preliminary work can go ahead this year. If the Taoiseach really means to use the veto in relation to funds, he should insist that work on enlargement is not done until the matter of funds are cleared up. Otherwise the enlargement process may achieve a momentum that it will be impossible to stop. If the Taoiseach is serious about using the veto he should insist that work is not done at this stage. If the Taoiseach is not serious about using it, he should not have threatened it. A threat like that must be used. The Taoiseach should convey to the Presidency that work on enlargement should not be done until he is satisfied as to amount of resources that will be available to the structural and cohesion funds.

The crucial question of the role of the various institutions was not tackled in Maastricht. What will be the role of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers in the future? Where will the locus of decision-making be and how will the crucial notion of accountability be met — 1 made this point earlier. These questions will be even more difficult and urgent in an expanded European Community. There has been some suggestion of an eventual differentiation between the roles and powers of large and small states. This would go against the spirit of the Community which envisaged the participation of all member states as equals. And it is a matter that should not be left to chance — the smaller member states must preserve their right to appoint commissioners.

On the question of a common foreign and security policy the Summit stated many general aims some of which the Taoiseach repeated this morning. However, in the report to the Summit on enlargement, the External Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Andriessen, underlined the need for new members to accept the committment to a common foreign and security policy and ultimately a common defence policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty. Instead of dodging this issue as they have done in the past the Government should initiate a serious and constructive debate on the options facing us in this regard.

In the pre-referendum campaign the Government, correctly, made the point that a common defence policy is not part of the Maastricht Treaty. However, the intention to develop a common defence policy is, and this matter will be discussed by member states in 1996. The question of neutrality is a difficult and complex one — it has been a cornerstone of Irish foreign policy for so many years. The Government cannot ignore this issue, it needs to be discussed and the options spelled out between now and 1996, and not in 1996. The Government have a responsibility to initiate this debate. The people must have all the facts before they make a choice. Indeed, this House should be given an undertaking that the Government will not change our status at Western European Union from observers to participants without consulting the House.

I now ask the Taoiseach to give that undertaking. At present we have observer status and if a status is to be changed, this can only be done after this House has had the opportunity to discuss it. It is not clear in what capacity the Government representatives attended the last few meetings and the Dáil has not had a report on what actually happened. Perhaps the Minister would clarify this matter in his concluding speech and tell us who attended, whether it was he, his Minister of State or a civil servant, and what was discussed at the meeting. The achievement of a common foreign and security policy among the Twelve with different historic backgrounds and diverse historic political priorities will be difficult. The problem will be exacerbated by individual initiatives such as President Mitterrand's visit to Sarajevo just 24 hours after participating in a summit where the need for a common approach was underlined. Like the Taoiseach, I applaud his courage in going there but it is regrettable that he should do so without telling any of his co-signatories about his proposed initiative. That does not augur well for building a common foreign and security policy in the future. The member states will need to decide whether they favour inter-governmentalism or superanationalism. This is an area that warrants examination in the Irish context.

The Summit conclusions welcome the results of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro. This is an area that is important for Europe. We now realise that global co-operation on the environment is essential for preservation and progress in this area. There is a need for public awareness and commitment in this area and the Government need to mobilise support through debate and discussion. Attending the Rio de Janeiro conference is not sufficient, there must be an active follow-through on the ground involving the Government, Members of this House and the general public.

The summit conclusions also refer to the need for a swift conclusion to the Uruguay Round of the GATT talks. It is regrettable that there has been a lack of discussion of issues other than agriculture in Ireland. In the main the Taoiseach's speech this morning referred to agriculture, although he referred to other matters in a peripheral way. The question of access for our international services to other countries is important to Ireland. I have made the point in this House on a number of occasions that the Government seem unconcerned and unaware of the potential of this area. This is another area where a Government White Paper could have promised public discussion and debate. It is not too late for the Government to publish a White Paper in this regard outlining the benefits for industry and services as well as the dangers for our agricultural industry.

The European Community is the first supra-national structure committed to peace. Its ability to develop is based on more than trade; it is based on shared objectives and a commitment to liberal democracy. Our best hope for the future lies in our participation in the European Community and the evolution towards European Union. However, our participation must not be as passive beneficiaries but as positive and dynamic members who have something to contribute to the achievement of the European ideal.

Finally, I want to say something about the Taoiseach's meeting in Lisbon with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major. The meeting appears to have been responsible for Monday's London meeting to set the agenda for what has become known as Strand Three of the talks to go ahead. If this is so, then I welcome the fact that the meeting in Lisbon took place. We should keep in mind what these talks are about — we are in danger of losing sight of the wood while we concentrate on the trees. After 23 years of violence, after nearly 3,000 deaths, after millions of pounds worth of damage to property, then all our priority must be peace. And last night's murders — and that is what they were — brings hideously home to us yet again the importance of finding a political solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. This morning another three families are mourning the deaths of these young men who died fifty years before their normal span of life should have expired.

The talks are important; they are a positive development that hold the prospect of achieving harmony between the communities of Northern Ireland, between both parts of this island, and stability and normality in relationships between Britain and Ireland. I am particularly pleased that a date has been fixed for the meeting of Strand Two, as I believe that the most difficult part of talks are going to be in this strand. But the temptation to use words like "historic" and "breakthrough" should be resisted, though it is understandable that these words are used. What is needed is head-down hard work that will bring about the establishment of structures in Northern Ireland that will be capable of attracting the loyalty and support of both communities, because if that can be achieved then we will see an end to violence and that will be a breakthrough and historic in the fullest sense.

Mr. Spring

From Ireland's perspective, the Lisbon Summit was not very successful. Whenever one of the member states needs to threaten to use the veto, or actually uses it, the process of consensus has broken down. When it is one of the smaller and more peripheral states that needs to threaten to use the veto, it can usually be assumed that all of the weaker states feel threatened. Sadly that was the principal feature of the Lisbon Summit.

A couple of weeks ago Ireland was the hero of Europe toasted with champagne in all the comfortable places where Eurocrats and Europhiles congregate. A couple of weeks later we are told that it is time to re-discover our place in the scheme of things. Our legitimate demands are based on an already made European commitment to narrow the gap between richer and poorer states. Those legitimate demands have been put into a very poor second place. We have been told that we must wait until rows between the richer states about the size of the Community budget have been sorted out.

What all that means is that the Taoiseach and the Government face an uphill battle if they are to deliver on the one promise on which they sold the Maastricht Treaty to the people of Ireland. Ireland voted for Maastricht principally because the people accepted that the £6 billion promised again and again by the Taoiseach would be a major contribution to improved living standards here, and to an equalisation of living standards throughout Europe.

It will not do for the Taoiseach to say to the Irish people now that he is doing his best, and that even through it is a tough struggle, he is hopeful of getting something in the end. This is not about getting as many of the crumbs as the richer states are prepared to give away. It is not about going to Europe with cap in hand, hoping that they will find it in their hearts to give us a few bob for marginal constituencies.

What is involved in the continuing negotiations about Cohesion Funds and Structural Funds is a fundamental principle. The issue is nothing less than the kind of Europe that will be developed in the future. A European union cannot be built on the cheap. It involves a total and absolute commitment to equality between citizens, regions and communities. That commitment was not evident in the response of the richer member states at the Lisbon Summit.

In other ways, too, the Lisbon Summit showed how fragile and cumbersome the process of European union can be. Faced with the continuing devastation and horror of Yugoslavia, the Community felt itself hidebound by procedure. While

I accept fully that the Irish delegation was right to insist on a role for the United Nations rather than the Western European Union, it seems clear that the Summit as a whole became bogged down in confusion between a military response and the much more essential and urgent humanitarian response.

In this connection, I believe that the whole of Europe owes a considerable debt of gratitude to President Mitterrand of France, who immediately after the Summit, took a courageous and, indeed, audacious personal initiative in flying directly to Sarajevo. I know that there was a good deal of muttering among officials and Ministers left behind, but the urgency of the situation in Yugoslavia simply did not allow for the leisurely approach that was being taken at the level of the Community.

The net effect of President Mitterrand's mission has been to secure a breakthrough. Although, clearly, the situation in Yugoslavia remains fraught and dangerous, there are signs that with every day that has passed since his trip, the United Nations effort is gaining in strength and effectiveness.

Most of the other issues addressed by the Summit will require a great deal more development during the United Kingdom Presidency, which will culminate with a further Summit in Edinburgh at the end of this year. That Summit will be the acid test for cohesion. If agreement is not reached then, we will seriously have to question the value of the process of European Union.

For that reason, I would reiterate in the course of this debate a call that I have made several times before. We share common ground with other peripheral states — with Spain, Portugal, Greece, and other poorer regions of the Community. That common ground was not in evidence in Lisbon, and I can only assume that one of the reasons it was not was because little or no work was done by our Government, and particularly by our Department of Foreign Affairs, in forging the kind of alliance that is absolutely necessary if richer states are to take the poorer states seriously.

I believe that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be on a permanent mission for the next six months to ensure that the peripheral regions of Europe will speak with one voice in Edinburgh, and that it will be a militant voice, demanding that Europe takes its own ideals seriously. If the ideal of properly shared prosperity is to be put on a back burner, then the principle of European Union is on the back burner at the same time.

I want to say a few words in this debate about how we in Ireland must continue to address the issues that arose during the Maastricht Treaty referendum campaign. Political leadership in Ireland — especially those political leaders who signed their name to a joint statement — must accept solemn responsibility to address those issues.

On 18 June last, the electorate in Ireland showed very decisively that it wanted to continue the European process. However, many of those who voted "Yes" had reservations. Many of those who voted "No" also wanted to continue the European process, but felt that there were serious unanswered or inadequately answered questions, which meant that on balance they had to vote against what was on offer as the Maastricht package. For whatever reason, a large proportion of those that usually vote did not vote. If one puts those factors together, what it means is that the vote on 18 June did not close the debate — it merely served as a starter on a serious debate in relation to our participation in Europe. In the aftermath of the referendum campaign, we have to face the fact, however unpalatable it may be, that the Irish economy upon which we depend is both small and vulnerable.

We are more dependent on external trade than any other country in Western Europe. Access to and regulation of our external markets, the creation of an economic, commercial and monetary union, which provide a genuinely level playing pitch, are vital if we are to achieve our economic objectives.

We must have no illusions about the obstacles we face. We operate in a global community which is fundamentally hostile to small nations. Whatever national pride might lead us to want to believe, ours is not a fully blown, self sufficient national economy comparable say to Britain or France. Ours is essentially a disadvantaged, regional economy on the edge of one of the largest economic concentrations in the world.

To survive and to assert our practical sovereignty in such a world, the only ultimate resources on which we can rely are our will to be a national community, our capacity to understand the system, to use it to promote our aspirations and needs, and to find and co-operate very closely with appropriate and natural allies. Information, measured and intelligent debate, a clear understanding of the issues and the options available, are more important to us than to any other European people.

We must accustom ourselves to a new kind of politics in which there is no longer any clear dividing line between real Irish domestic political issues, and slightly irrelevant unreal European external politics. Policy and decisions are no longer taken in Ireland alone, but in European fora in conjunction with our other European colleagues. The Council for the Status of Women know this. Trade unions, farmers, and business organisations know it. It is time that the political system and the community at large got to grips with it as well.

The debate which will continue is of crucial importance to us in Ireland. It will deal either directly or indirectly with issues of immense domestic significance to us. These issues include, how can we counter and change the trend towards a potentially very undemocratic and centralised concentration of economic and political power; how do we counter the efforts which are being made by some member Governments to demolish some aspects of the Community which are most important for small countries; what is to be the role of small countries in Europe, and how are their legitimate demands for recognition and subsidiarity to be met; what real political commitment exists at European level to the unemployed, the poor and the handicapped; what guarantees will there be to protect, cherish and enhance the cultural identity and diversity which is a fundamental factor in the social and political health of communities; what future security arrangements will be necessary — and what will not be necessary and what will be the impact of the enlargement of the Community on the Community as a whole — and on Ireland's ability to influence the evolution of Community policies?

If, as I strongly believe, the theory underlying the European process is the creation of democratic, just and constitutional structures, in a world which is deeply undemocratic, unjust, arbitrary and unstable, how do we implement this theory within a Community which is governed by so many conflicting interests?

I was forcibly struck during the referendum campaign by the degree to which many young people are suspicious of, or even hostile to the European Community. Much of this is due to the fact that we have come to take the Community for granted, that we know little or care less of its origins, that we have forgotten or never experienced the fratricidal jungle which it has attempted to replace, that much of its success has been based upon very technical, very methodical, very bureaucratic — and sometimes extremely boring — hard work. Until the Maastricht Treaty debate suddenly came to life a few weeks ago, the EC was for many people a total switch-off.

It is for these reasons that I proposed on Sunday 21 June — after the referendum — that serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a nation-wide council on Europe, which would be chaired by the President of Ireland. I would like to reiterate that proposal here.

Under the proposal a major consultative council would be established by law to examine all the areas of our economy, society and environment which will be affected by the European process.

The council we have in mind would derive significant authority from the fact that it would be chaired by the President of Ireland. There is no constitutional barrier to this, provided the council is established by law — under Article 12 of the Constitution, the President "shall exercise and perform the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution and by law".

We would see the Presidential council as being very broadly based. It should be capable of interacting, on an information and consultation basis, with Government and with specialist agencies in the public sector, such as NESC and the ESRI.

It should also involve the social partners, women's groups, environmentalists, community activists, the relevant Oireachtas Committees, welfare groups, and persons and groups promoting rights. In other words, the Presidential council should be a mechanism for forging the broadest possible base of support for a coherent approach to all the issues that we will have to deal with in the future.

I have already said that those challenges will confront us at two levels. First, across a range of policy areas, we will have to address the changes we need to make domestically. Our economy, and especially its trading sectors, will have to be a great deal more efficient and competitive. There will have to be a new emphasis on quality and reliability, and a new model of social partnership will have to be developed to deliver that, in the interests of both sides of industry — employers and employees alike.

In addition, even as we continue to fight for extra funds, we must now begin to address the ways in which we can take advantage of extra Community funding to put policies in place which enable us to catch up on living standards throughout the Community. No one could argue but that we have always used Community support in the wisest possible way in the past, and if we are to make the most of that support now we need to develop a consensus that involves the whole community here.

Secondly, we need as a nation to decide for ourselves how we can best contribute to the debate in the rest of Europe. There is a host of issues which are being intensively debated in Europe but which have been largely ignored here. The environment; enlargement of the Community; relations between the Community and the rest of the world, especially the Third World; the debate between militarism and peace — in all these areas and more we need to develop coherent positions, and to do so openly and in the light of public debate. There must be no more secrecy and no other arrangement presented as a fait accompli to the Irish people.

I strongly believe that a broad-based approach, which would positively exploit the prestige and authority of the Office of President of Ireland, would not only be a fitting way to expand the role of that office — something which is long overdue — but would also contribute positively to a much greater degree of understanding of European issues and commitment to the best of the European ideal.

The Maastricht debate was about Ireland making its way in the world, with our eyes wide open to future opportunities and challenges. Instead of deciding that that debate is over, now is the time to widen and deepen it. That is why we have put forward this proposal, which we believe will attract the support of people right across the community.

Next Wednesday the President will address both Houses of the Oireachtas on the subject of Ireland's identity in Europe. I see that as a positive and welcome development and I hope very much that it will be the first step in the process of enlarging the debate about Europe.

In the Taoiseach's contribution we were told of the challenges and the complexities facing the Irish Government in their continuing participation within the European process. I would say to the Taoiseach that one of the most important aspects of developing a democratic Europe is that we are participating in that democracy. We have to address the agenda. It is an extremely complex agenda, and this House to date has not been properly equipped to make the contribution that Members of the House should make. In that respect, I would say that the sooner we have a committee on foreign affairs and a committee on European affairs the better it will be for our participation, because one of the lessons we must have learnt from the recent referendum was the basic lack of information and lack of participation by the public at large in the debate on the European process. It behoves all of us as politicians, as people involved in public life in this country, to ensure that the Irish community is allowed and assisted in the debate that will take place.

There are many extremely complex issues that have to be decided. Lisbon is part of that process. Many avenues have to be travelled and many roads have to be travelled but I would say that if the Lisbon Summit has shown us anything it has demonstrated, just as the Maastricht debate did, that we have a lot of work to do, and I mean all of us in the House. Rather than recriminate or seek to make scapegoats as a result of the inadequate progress made in Lisbon, I should like to believe that it would be possible for us to move forward in the European context on a broader consensus and understanding between the parties.

The Taoiseach's statement referred to his meetings with the British Prime Minister. Obviously, the whole question of Northern Ireland is very much part of the debate between this country and our European partners. Certainly one's good wishes are with the Government in their efforts to bring along the dialogue and the discussions taking place. Nobody would underestimate the size and the scale of the task confronting the Irish people in our collective efforts to bring about peace and reconciliation on this island but it behoves all of us to make a positive contribution to that debate.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

The Lisbon European Council expressed a determination to press ahead with European construction in the spirit of the Treaty of European Union. Agreement was reached on political guidelines reflecting the Council's determination to maintain the impetus for developing the Community's work internally and externally throughout the coming decisive period. For my part, I should like to concentrate on the outcome of the Summit in relation to the future financing of the Community.

As Deputies are aware, the future financing of the Community was one of the main items discussed at the European Council. That was based on the Delors II package, which was put forward earlier this year by the Commission. Deputies will recall that that package of proposals, made in February 1992, covers the outlook for Community expenditure for the five years 1993 to 1997 and the accompanying increase in the Own Resources (Revenue) ceiling from 1.2 per cent of Community GNP now to 1.37 per cent in 1997.

The essentials of the Commission proposals were as follows. The agricultural guideline would continue, but would be increased to take account of the cost of the then proposed reform measures. There would be an overall increase in 1997 compared with 1992 in structural operations — the Structural Fund and the new Cohesion Fund — of 11 billion ECU. This would allow the provisions for the less developed regions, the Objective 1 regions, to increase by 67 per cent. However, the new Cohesion Fund for Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland would bring the increase in provisions for those four countries taken as a whole up to 100 per cent — a doubling in real terms. The rest of the Structural Fund provision would increase by about 48 per cent. There would be significant increases in other areas such as research, external policies, miscellaneous internal policies and administration. On the revenue side of the budget, there would be a number of changes designed to make the system more equitable: the VAT element of own resources would be reduced from 1.4 per cent to a 1 per cent levy and the VAT base would be capped at 50 per cent of GNP rather than the present 55 per cent. That would benefit member states, including Ireland, whose VAT base is more than 50 per cent of GNP.

The main issues for Ireland in the debate are the Structural and Cohesion expenditures and the rate of growth of overall expenditure. There has been considerable opposition to the proposed rate of increase in overall expenditure and consequently in the own resources ceiling, with a number of countries seeking to have a lower level of increase and — or a longer phasing in period. In this context, it has not so far been possible to get agreement to the proposals for the doubling of funds for the four cohesion countries as a whole, taking the increases in Structural Fund and the new Cohesion Fund together. Ireland's position is that the ceiling must be adequate to meet the expenditure needs of the Community and that a substantial increase in funding for the less prosperous countries is fully justified.

Ireland's objective at the Lisbon European Council was to seek progress on the package as a whole but particularly on the cohesion aspects. As had been expected, final decisions on the Delors II package were not reached at Lisbon. This was left to the European Council in Edinburgh in early December.

However, substantial progress was made in a number of areas. In particular, the following should be noted: The European Council re-affirmed that economic and social cohesion represent an essential dimension of the Community and that the principle laid down in 1988 should be maintained and their application simplified. The Council agreed that the new Cohesion Fund will be put in place early in 1993, whereas the Maastricht Treaty referred only to it operating before the end of 1993. The Cohesion Fund is intended to assist projects in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece in the environment area and in the transport aspects of trans-European networks.

The Council made it clear that the cumulative effect of the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund will be an increase appropriate to reflect the Maastricht commitments.

The Council stressed that, in implementing the correction of the regressive nature of the current revenue own resources system of the Community budget, particular account will be taken of the situation in the less properous member states, including Ireland.

On agricultural expenditure, the Council warmly welcomed the recent agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The reform is very significant for the Community and provides for control of production while guaranteeing the income of the farming community in the coming years. The Council confirmed that the financial resources to maintain this policy would be provided, and accepted the Commission view that the reform could be achieved within the existing ceiling or guideline for agricultural expenditure.

The Council also accepted the view, expressed by a number of member states, including Ireland, that measures to improve the competitiveness of European industry must include the encouragement of small and medium-sized enterprises to participate actively in the research programmes of the Community.

The Council recognised the importance of good and harmonious relations between the institutions of the Community and agreed in principle that the 1988 Inter-Institutional Agreement on Budgetary Discipline should be renewed. This agreement incorporated the results of the Delors I package of proposals for the Community Budget for 1988 to 1992. The aim would be to ensure that the success achieved under the present agreement will be built on during the period of the new budgetary framework to be put in place at Edinburgh.

It was not possible at the Lisbon meeting to go further and determine the level of actual increase in overall Community expenditure or in cohesion expenditure because a number of member states were not yet in a position to commit themselves. This was due to a certain extent to domestic considerations such as progress on ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

Overall the Lisbon European Council was an interim stage in the discussions on the Delors II package, and negotiations have now entered the crucial stage. The Council Conclusions make it clear that decisions will be reached on the various components of the Delors II package at Edinburgh.

Agreement was reached at Lisbon that the new Cohesion Fund will be put in place early next year, and the Commission have proposed that a total of 10 billion ECU should be provided for this fund over the five years from 1993-97. The question of the size of the fund remains to be decided in the context of the negotiations under the Delors II package. We will be arguing strongly for an allocation of at least the scale proposed by the Commission, and the Government will be seeking to maximise Ireland's share of the funds.

The Cohesion Fund will support expenditures in the areas of transport and the environment. Aid rates of 85 per cent to 90 per cent are expected. On the transport side eligible investments will be in the area of trans-European networks and such possible areas as could benefit from funding will include strategic investments in roads, rail and ports. On the environment side aid will be provided for expenditures necessitated by Community legislation.

The availability of this new fund will enable us to undertake essential investments in the coming years without imposing an unacceptable burden on national expenditure. Details of the operation of the fund will be worked out over the coming months as the Council considers the regulations for the new fund.

In the negotiations Ireland has emphasised the important role the existing Structural Funds have played in modernising the Irish economy. We will continue to emphasise this point to our European partners in the coming months and to use the evidence of progress achieved so far as justification for the increases we are seeking for the future under the Delors II package. We recognise the importance of evaluation of the impact of the Structural Funds.

In partnership with the Commission the Government are devoting considerable resources to management, monitoring and evaluation. While there is a limit to the extent to which it is possible to establish the full impact of the funds at this stage of implementation, studies undertaken to date reveal highly positive results where Ireland is concerned. The Commission's mid term review confirms that implementation here is progressing satisfactorily. We have confirmed to member states that the full Community support framework will be implemented within the five year period.

The mid term review shows that the fund made a significant contribution to GDP growth. It estimates that the annual rate of growth in Ireland was boosted by 0.5 per cent over the period of the Community support frame. This is broadly in line with the Government estimates. Of course, this estimate does not take account of longer term supply side effects that can be expected to reinforce the positive impact of the funds.

A detailed study of the position here has been undertaken by the ESRI and this report has taken account of the effects of completion of the Single Market. Overall the report suggests that, taken together, the Structural Funds and the Single Market could raise the level of GNP here by between seven and eight percentage points by the year 2000. It will also raise the annual growth rate by 0.75 per cent relative to the unchanged EC policy benchmark and raise employment by over 55,000 by the year 2000.

Another recent consultancy study in Ireland concludes that, "The CSF significantly augments the medium term prospects of the key traded sectors of manufacturing industry and tourism". It is clear the Community assistance has enabled the Government to increase investment in the structural area to a far higher level than would otherwise have been feasible. We have stressed to the other member states that, looking to the medium to longer term, the Structural Funds are enabling Ireland to make significant progress on building up the infrastructure crucial to economic development in sectors such as roads, access transport and sanitary services. They are also contributing to productive investment in industry, tourism and agriculture and to the development of human resources through training and education.

Implementation of the various Structural Fund assisted measures has produced impressive results to date and targets are being met and, indeed, exceeded in many cases. Under the industry and services programme, for example, a target of 20,000 new jobs per year was set. This employment target has been surpassed for the first three years with a total of 63,245 new jobs created to the end of 1991.

The performance of the tourism sector has been significantly boosted by the measures undertaken under the CSF. By the end of 1991 the number of overseas visitors had increased by 27.5 per cent, foreign tourism revenue was up by 50 per cent and an extra 15,000 jobs had been created in the tourism industry.

Major independent evaluation studies are being undertaken in respect of the industry, peripherality and human resources programmes. We will draw any necessary lessons from these studies to help us in future programmes.

That is the up-to-date position for the House from the financial perspective of what happened in Lisbon and what is likely to happen between now and the Edinburgh Summit, and the important work that has to be completed at that stage.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, does the Minister intend to circulate a copy of his speech?

Mr. B. Ahern

I will.

Proinsias De Rossa

This is the first opportunity we have had to debate the Maastricht Treaty and the EC since the referendum. I am slightly bemused by the fact that Deputy Spring appears in his speech today to be attempting to distance himself from the consensus of the four parties who argued for acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty during that referendum when he lent his support to the Government campaign which sought to emphasise the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty on the basis of the £6 billion that was supposed to be in the bag. That is rather disingenuous. I note that Deputy Barry made no such attempt to distance himself from his position during the Maastricht Treaty referendum.

Coming almost immediately after the referendum on European Union in Ireland, the Lisbon Summit offered an ideal opportunity for clarification on the many issues and questions raised during the referendum campaign. The commitment of the Community to assisting development in peripheral regions and clarification in the area of security and defence policy were among the two most pressing and important matters.

Rather than clear up the problems, the Summit has, in fact, reinforced the impression of a Community in which there is a continued and possibly increasing resistance to delivering on obligations concerning cohesion policy, and where a near covert drive to the creation of an EC military superstate is continuing unabated.

There is, of course, the argument that, if not much was agreed at the Summit, no great ground has been lost either. The Taoiseach, on a "Today Tonight" special following the Summit, referred to Lisbon as a half way house to the next Summit in Edinburgh.

Mr. Barry

The point was he was not on a "Today Tonight" programme.

Proinsias De Rossa

It was a special. This situation, however, was exactly the problem which the Democratic Left warned about before the Irish Government signed the Maastricht Treaty last February. It was why we demanded that the Treaty should be renegotiated rather than being presented, with its host of vague promises and unanswered questions, for acceptance by the Irish people in last month's referendum.

The Irish people now face the appalling vista, having voted in favour of the Treaty with the assurance of the cosy consensus of the four pro-Maastricht Treaty parties that the much sought funding was as good as in the bag, of the Irish Government's proposals on the Structural Funds being snubbed at last weekend's Summit. Come next December and the next Summit, the ECs attention is likely to be focused primarily on the problems arising in Denmark, where voters rejected the Treaty, and where a solution must be found before it can be implemented.

The Taoiseach over the past week, has stated that he is happy that the right signals have been given in Portugal on eventual acceptance of the Delors proposals. Perhaps it is time he instead sent up some smoke signals himself. The reference in the Treaty to "an appropriate increase" in the Funds can be interpreted widely. British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, for instance, also interviewed on "Today Tonight" after the Summit, stated that he felt there was little prospect of the Delors proposals being adopted in Edinburgh.

Reading the "Future Financing of the Community" section of the Presidency Conclusions, it is clear just how little was conceded to the four peripheral countries. While it is indeed likely that, in the end, increases will be agreed in the budget, we are clearly very far indeed from a situation which would ensure a convergence of Irish GNP and economic development significantly closer to the developed centre of the Community. We stand to gain in absolute terms, but will we make any relative gains? Will we catch up, even a little? Two decades after joining the EC and five years after the adoption of the Single European Act, all the evidence points to a continued failure of the traditional policies and strategy of the Community in this area.

The approach generally by the Irish Government to the funding issue and the parallel failure to emphasise the development of economic policies which will favour the peripheral regions like Ireland, highlights the paucity of Government thinking on Ireland's future as a region of the EC. The Government approached the entire debate on the economic issues of European Union from the vantage of seeking a deal or a scoop — of bringing home so much money in the bag that the natives would be dumbfounded simply counting the number of noughts in £6 billion.

As Democratic Left pointed out during the referendum campaign, such figures can be, and are, very misleading. The present Structural Funds amount to £3,000 million, another dumbfounding figure. Yet Ireland's living standards continue to lag at two-thirds the EC average, our unemployment levels are at record levels and have been among the worst in the EC for the past five years. With emigration predicted to rise again, we may shortly see a return to the situation of a few years ago when as many young people leave Ireland annually as live in the Taoiseach's home county of Longford.

These problems can only be solved by specific interventionist policies and mechanisms. Throwing however much money as a sop to peripheral regions offers no guarantee of producing economic convergence. It must be spent to develop the economy and industry of the peripheral region through an EC industrial policy. At present Germany, at the heart of what has been called the overdeveloped centre of the Community, spends 21 times as much as Ireland subsidising its industry. The Irish Government must demand an industrial policy which assists Ireland to overcome such an institutionalised disadvantage. It is not good enough, as the Government are clearly arguing, to say we have received positive signals and submit ourselves accordingly to the full rigours of economic and monetary union.

The Presidency Conclusions note "with satisfaction" that "over 90% of the measures needed to implement the single market have now been adopted." Further on the document states that "beyond the immediate horizon the Council recognises that attention needs to be paid to ensuring that the single market works fairly." It then "invites" the relevant institutions to take the necessary steps in this area. I presume that this is a reference to the Social Charter and its implementation — the fact that the Charter is not even named in this section illustrates the contempt with which the spirit of the social dimension of the community is being treated in the process of European Union.

It seems that in addition to ignoring the peripheral regions of the Community, implementation of the Treaty will also involve the creation of an equally ignored `peripheral population' of the Community. This includes the tens of millions of people who face unemployment, poverty and homelessness, the many millions more part-time workers — many of them women — school leavers and the disabled and elderly for whom the process of European Union and the Single Market raises many unanswered questions and fears, and the fate of immigrant workers and their families.

The conclusions go into considerable detail on the elaboration of a common foreign and security policy for the Community. Nowhere is there reference to development of a pre-peace policy for the Community; nowhere is there reference to developing defence and security based on non-nuclear policies; nowhere is there a rejection of the development for the EC as a military superpower. Perhaps the other member states rejected any such proposals, but I would welcome confirmation from the Taoiseach on whether any attempt was made by the Irish delegation to include such sentiments in the Conclusions.

With each reading of the Conclusions of these Summits, the ritual reference to not "prejudicing the security and defence policies of certain member states" becomes more hollow. Even leaving aside the issue of the Western European Union, the contents of the Annex on common foreign and security policy raise new questions on Ireland's increasing involvement in military style decision making. Paragraph 36 of Annex 1 states that "the union requests Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the European Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications."

In this context the reference to the Middle East under common foreign and security policy, and the stated aim to "ensure full compliance by the countries of the region with the relevant treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms control ..." leaves open many interpretations. If a Middle Eastern country is deemed to have breached any such agreements, could we see a request to the Western European Union to "implement decisions and actions" on behalf of the Community? What relationship would such action have to the CSCE or the UN? What is the extent of Ireland's commitment and obligations to defend such actions politically?

Given that there is a number of references in the Conclusions to covering all aspects of relations with countries, it would appear as though the separation between defence and other matters is being blurred beyond the point of distinction. A further particularly distasteful section of the Conclusions are contained in paragraph 13 — on relations with developing countries — and paragraph 15 on arms exports.

While paragraph 13 refers to promoting development, respect for human rights and democracy, Paragraph 15 further streamlines a common policy on arms exports. Given that the sale of arms and technology from EC member states to the Iraqi Government over many years was a contributory factor to the outbreak of the Gulf War, with its subsequent horrific consequences for people's lives, economy and environment in a number of Middle Eastern countries, developing a joint policy for arms exports should be replaced by a joint policy for military deesclation.

Paragraph 15 also refers and links arms exports to states' "legitimate needs for security and defence". But how, for instance, does the British Government square this point with the sale of arms to Indonesia, where there is evidence of continued repression by the authorities on the island of Timor? Since 1978 Britain has been a major supplier of arms and military and naval craft to Indonesia. Throughout the country there is continued widespread repression. More than two dozen long term political prisoners were executed in the late eighties. There are no independent political parties.

Since the Suharto Government seized power, British companies have sold Indonesia a range of military equipment, including naval frigates, 20 Hawk advanced fighter aircraft, seawolf missile launchers and armoured cars. I understand a further 40 Hawk fighter aircraft may shortly be sold to Indonesia. Selling the machinery of death to such a government is not compatible with the official sentiments of the Lisbon Summit Conclusions. Therefore, what weight do we give those conclusions?

As I have stated in many previous debates in the Dáil on European Union, Democratic Left support the development of a common foreign and security policy, but our concept of security is much broader than the definition to be found in the Maastricht Treaty and as further outlined at the Lisbon Summit. Security is threatened not just by military matters, but in many other ways such as underdevelopment, economic and social injustice, exploitation and racism and faulty environmental and developmental policies.

Judged on this basis the greatest guarantee of genuine collective security is a policy of nuclear and conventional disarmament and one where the military industrial complex is turned towards civil objectives. That is not compatible with the old cold war vehicles of NATO or the Western European Union. Instead the future of collective security must be seen under the umbrella of the CSCE and a reformed United Nations.

In addition the European Parliament and Dáil must have adequate powers and mechanisms to control and monitor developments in this area, particularly the decisions made by Council of Ministers' representatives from each country.

This brings me to the problems facing the Oireachtas generally in carrying out its democratic mandate of monitoring the institutions of the European Community. The decision to again only allow time for statements on the Summit is un-acceptable. The Government also agreed the Annex on a common Foreign and Security Policy without any reference to the Oireachtas. When will we have a further debate on European Union? Will it be after the next Summit when further agreements may have been entered into without consultation with elected representatives of this State? This state of affairs says little for the Taoiseach's promise of open government. It also says little for any hope we might have that secret deals by the European Council will be brought to an end.

We have proposed the establishment of a European affairs committee which would act as an effectvie watchdog for the Dáil and Seanad and keep the Oireachtas fully informed of developments so that it can respond rapidly and effectively. It is regrettable that the Government have ruled out the establishment of such a committee no later than Tuesday of this week and that the draft terms of reference for a foreign affairs committee specifically preclude that comittee from dealing with matters related to the Government's negotiating position at the European Community.

Such a committee is a vital necessity for the democratic development of this stage of European Union. Discussing and deciding behind closed doors is no recipe for public confidence or democratic accountability. It is necessary that such a committee should examine all Commission proposals, involve consultations with Ministers before and after Council meetings and provide regular reports to the Oireachtas. We can no longer permit the Government to operate on our behalf in a semi-secret way informing the Dáil only grudgingly of what they have done after the event.

Mr. Connor

I am delighted to have this opportunity to make a few points in relation to the Lisbon Summit and, with your permission, Sir, I would like to broaden the agenda to discuss the development of the Community to which no reference was made at Lisbon. The Taoiseach said that the Lisbon Summit was successful, but I cannot agree with him. The Council decided to mark time rather than take any positive decisions. There is no doubt that the decision of the Danish people not to ratify the Maastricht Treaty cast a cloud over the deliberations. It also appears that they lost direction, given the way they went about their business. That is not good for this country.

I was surprised that the Council did not address the problems that have arisen following the decision of the Danish people not to agree to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. One must wonder therefore if there is any way Denmark can now ratify the Treaty. The Council should have taken the opportunity to address the problems which have arisen in a positive way and ask themselves if they could make it possible for the Danish Government to hold another referendum or plebiscite to allow the Danish people ratify the Maastricht Treaty. That should have been the primary aim and achievement of the Lisbon Summit. Alas, it seems that they achieved nothing in that area.

This leaves us in a far worse position than most of the other member states of the European Community. During the course of the debate on the Maastricht Treaty I said, as a regional director of elections, that Ireland had more to lose than any other member state if the Treaty was not ratified. As a result, increased Structural Funding during the next three to five years has been placed in jeopardy, while a question mark also hangs over the Cohesion Fund. This will have a negative effect or the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Through good propaganda the message has been sold to the people that the country will gain under the Common Agricultural Policy reform package. I was willing to agree to most of that package so long as the country reaped the benefts under the Maastricht Treaty.

This country should not lose if any adjustments or changes are made. However we were one of the losers following the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. That cannot be gainsaid either in this House or anywhere else; while the experts disagree, it is possible that the country will lose in the order of £500 million per annum in relation to net transfers. While we cannot disagree with the principle and the way the package was negotiated it is bad that the future of the Maastricht Treaty hangs in the balance. My primary criticism is that the Taoiseach did not take the lead at Lisbon. It is of vital importance that a guarantee be given that the benefits, the compensatory measures, will flow under the Maastricht Treaty and that everything will be done to ensure that the Treaty becomes a reality.

The Taoiseach spoke in an upbeat way about the Cohesion Fund and mentioned that the Structural Funds may yet be doubled but I find it difficult to take him seriously given the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit. I am concerned also that Britain is about to take over the Presidency. While one does not want to be too critical of our neighbour, Britain is probably the least European of all the member states. The new President of the Council, Mr. John Major, has his own difficulties with the Euro-sceptics in parliament and will be inclined, by word and by deed, to make concessions to them. I do not believe that his Presidency will take any major initiative to ensure that Denmark is involved in the process. I am one of those who believe that the Maastricht Treaty cannot be implemented unless it is ratified by Denmark.

The country holding the Presidency will have to make subtle gestures to France, where a referendum is due to be held, and to Germany which is experiencing difficulties in adjusting following reunification. Many ordinary German taxpayers feel that they are paying far too much, that too many Deutsche Marks are being provided to secure European union while too little is being provided to bring about a union in their own country which is of primary importance to them. We do not blame them for that but we should bear in mind what we had hoped to achieve under the Portuguese Presidency, which supports the concept of full European union, and the fact that the Presidency is due to pass to a country which by no means could be said to support it fully. It was therefore in our best interests to ensure that decisions were made under the Portuguese Presidency. As I said, that matter was not addressed at Lisbon. I find it very difficult therefore to take the Taoiseach seriously in relation to most of what he had to say this morning.

It was also disappointing that the Summit did not address the position in Eastern Europe. I belong to that group of people who believe that Europe begins along the western shores of this country and extends to the Ural Mountains. Ultimately we will never have a true European Union unless we take the whole family of European peoples into it. The ultimate of that dream would be to bring the world into some kind of world family of nations, all under a single umbrella of trading and so on.

Immediately what we must deal with just beyond our doorstep is the volatility of Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism. We have seen what has happened in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was regarded, under the old communist regime, as the most stable of all the Eastern European countries. It was more advanced in terms of economic development than any of the old satellite states of the former Soviet Union. Yet, less than two years after its assuming a new form of independence — as we had hoped, a country up on its own two feet — we find it is to sunder in two halves. For those two years, they were led by a very wise man, Vaclav Havel, a true nationalist whose dream was to see his country hold together. Yet old nationalism reasserted itself. Now, sadly, his country seems set to sunder.

The outgoing Chairman of the EC Council of Foreign Ministers, the Portuguese Foreign Minister, made the point, in the dying days of their Presidency, that it was a great pity that that should be allowed to happen. He seemed to imply that the Community might do something at least at first by way of advice and not allow this to happen. Yet, to my knowledge, this Summit did not address that problem. To my knowledge the Irish delegation did not address that problem in Lisbon.

Then there is the appalling problem of Yugoslavia. In his statement the Taoiseach said there was a Community initiative. It did not look like that. While not wishing to be critical of him — because apparently his trip was successful — President Mitterrand apparently took himself to Yugoslavia without telling any of his Community partners or, if he did, he told them in a very surreptitious way. That was not good Community action. While we are endeavouring to get common action taken on such issues, the Head of one member state — certainly one of the larger powers within the Community, no doubt with a good deal of influence in that part of Europe — took himself to Sarajevo, arrived at an airport which, up to that point was not safe for anybody and walked the street. While one may compliment him on what he did — and, as it seems now, on what he achieved in a sense that it was the catalyst for getting the United Nations to secure proper control of the airport; it appears it was the catalyst for getting food and medical supplies into the country without those transporting it being fired on as they landed — nevertheless the action smacked of being anti-common action, or common foreign policy position among the member states. We made much of the benefits of a common security and foreign policy. If that type of action had been taken before the Maastricht Treaty referendum here, it would have ridiculed the stated position of many people on these and on the Labour Party benches. Again, that was a raggedness in terms of the results of the Summit in Lisbon.

There is also the great difficulty in the former Sovier Union, in Moldovia and it appears there was no references to that at the Lisbon Summit. There is the question of whether Romania can keep the lid on all its ethnic minorities and hold that country together. For example, can Hungary, probably the most homogeneoud country of the new Eastern European states, hold itself together considering it too has major minorities? After all it borders Czechoslovakia and has a very large land border with the old Yugoslavia.

Wise men would need to take a long look at what is taking place on Europe's eastern borders, particularly the leaders of this European Union we are now building. We should be seen, whether by advice or action, to influence events in that part of the world. However, it was not addressed at the Lisbon Summit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mr. Connor

I should like to have spoken at greater length on the need for a more positive statement as to the meaning of subsidiarity and cohesion. Without doubt the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will devastate peripheral areas of this country, affecting farming and major enterprise because, in those parts where there is little or no industry they survive on the transfer of funds. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will mean an enormous amount of that funding will be withdrawn and the position of the people who live in these areas will be more marginal.

I should have liked cohesion to have been defined at Lisbon because we will not get a good definition of it at a crucial time under the British Presidency. We should have been told what cohesion will mean to the people of, say, the west of Ireland? For example, will there be a positive transfer of resources? We read in the Maastricht Treaty that there will be a review of the policy of cohesion every two years, and that the EC could act outside of the funds to ensure it was taking place but what does that mean? That is a leading question for all of us and an answer is sought in many parts of the country. I would have expected that we would have had a response to that important question at Lisbon. Indeed, the appropriate persons to pose that question were the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, I am satisfied the question was not posed. That, from the point of view of that part of this nation which is peripheral and marginal, is a great tragedy.

Minister for Education (Mr. S. Brennan)

Following the resounding endorsement of the Maastricht Treaty by our people I am pleased to have this opportunity of putting the major points of our European and education policy, as they are connected, on the record of the House.

The underlying principle is to give Irish education a clearer European orientation — this was clear at Maastricht — while, at the same time, safeguarding its essential Irish character. There is no contradiction here. Ireland has always played a significant role in the development of European education and culture. Indeed history records that, at a time of social upheaval on mainland Europe, during the first Christian millennium, Ireland became the main centre for the transmission of European civilisation. What we now propose represents not so much a radical change of direction but a renewed recognition of a principle which has always informed the theory and practice of the Irish education system.

However, social economic and political considerations now lend a fresh urgency to the task. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress states that Ireland will continue to pursue a clear national strategy directed to promoting full and balanced European integration in the economic, monetary and social spheres, within the framework of evolving political union.

Accordingly, an important social policy objective will be the achievement of economic and social cohesion by the Community, which would complement the efforts of the less affluent member states and regions themselves including: first, a further strengthening of structural policy, implemented primarily through the Structural Funds, suitably extended and reformed; and, second, the targeted and, as necessary, regionally differentiated application of other Community policies and actions in relation, inter alia, to support for education, training, innovation, and research and development.

Looking back over the history of Europe since the Second World War one is struck by the faith and vision of the founding fathers of the European Community. I recall in particular the pragmatic assertion of Robert Schuman shortly after the war when he said:

A united Europe will not arise overnight, or in one grand design; it will be built on practical achievements, creating at first de facto interdependence.

One hesitates to paraphrase such a towering intellect but it seems to me that he was expressing, in a graphic way, the basic idea that European Union lies at the end of a road of shared learning and experience among the peoples of Europe. This is precisely where education can and must play a central role.

There are two main European Community aspects to education policy; first, European co-operation in the field of education and, second, the development of education and training with the support of the EC Structural Funds.

In relation to the first aspect, Ireland, as you will have noted from the Government White Paper on the Maastricht Treaty, tabled a proposal for an article on education policy at an early stage of the negotiations on the new Treaty. We, therefore, claim a share of the credit for Article 126 which, for the first time in the Community's history, confers a Community competence in the field of education. For the first time education has been put at the centre of the stage of European affairs.

While explicitly respecting the responsibility of member states for the content of teaching and the organisation of their education systems, the new article provides a more explicit basis for Community support for actions by member states in the broad area of school-based education. Activities such as exchanges of young people in second-level education, promoting the European dimension in education and developing European-wide efforts to solve problems such as school failure and illiteracy will be more fully supported.

I have little doubt that these kinds of initiatives, repeated across the Community and networked by the Commission, will facilitate the development of a European awareness among our young people. This will, in turn, accelerate progress towards the completion of the Internal Market, and, indeed, can be regarded as an essential prerequisite of closer economic and political union.

I turn now to the Structural Funds and their role in the development of education and training in Ireland.

Article 130a of the Maastricht Treaty defines the broad objective of economic and social cohesion for the Community through harmonious development and a reduction in disparities between the various regions. The Structural Funds are a major instrument in the Community's progress towards full economic and monetary union.

As is pointed out in the Green Paper on Education which I launched last Thursday, the essential objective of the Structural Funds is to reduce disparities between less developed regions and the rest of the Community. The application of the Funds must serve that objective and their success will be measured by the extent to which they facilitate progress towards it. Moreover, lessons drawn from the current phase of the operation of the Funds will be taken into account when decisions are taken regarding the effectiveness of this approach to resource allocation after 1993.

Under the current Community Support Framework, aid from the Social Fund for Department of Education activities amounts to more than £100 million per year for the period of the agreement which remains in force up to the end of 1993. This is a very significant sum indeed.

These activities include one-year vocational preparation and training courses for young people who have completed compulsory schooling as well as a range of certificate and dilopma courses provided in third level institutions.

In addition, and for the first time since Ireland acceded to the Community, a number of postgraduate courses in universities are aided by the Social Fund. Some important initiatives for the long term unemployed and for young people who leave school without qualifications are also supported by the fund.

A mid-term review of the current round of the Structural Funds is nearing completion and all the indications are that the reforms introduced in 1988 have been successful. The main elements of reform were: concentration of funds assistance on geographical regions; a programmed approach to aid allocation; more co-ordination between the funds; partnership between the Community and national governments; a greater emphasis on monitoring and assessment; and additionality.

These reforms appear to have increased the effectiveness of the funds in promoting social and economic cohesion. They have therefore been incorporated into the Commission's Delors-II package proposals for the next round of the Structural Funds — up to 1997 — which were published immediately after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty.

As Deputies are well aware the Commission proposed a two-thirds increase in the Structural Funds. This, taken with the new Cohesion Fund provided for in the Maastricht Treaty, was intended to lead to a doubling of allocations from both sources to Ireland for the period from 1994 to the end of 1997.

The report of the recent meeting of the European Council in Lisbon reaffirms that economic and social cohesion represents an essential dimension of the Community and that the reforms adopted in 1988 should be maintained.

It decided that the Cohesion Fund provided for in the Treaty should be put in place early in 1993. It also decided that in the four member states concerned — Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain — the cumulative effect of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund will result in an appropriate increase in funds to reflect the Maastricht Treaty commitments. The European Council will reach decisions at its meeting in Edinburgh on the various components of the Delors-II package.

While final decisions have not yet been taken the outcome of the Lisbon Summit holds out the clear prospect of substantially increased support from the Social Fund for education and training after 1994. Discussions are already taking place at national level as to the most appropriate mix of measures and programmes which might be presented to the Commission. We are approaching this task from the standpoint that the Lisbon conclusions leave open the possibility that we can achieve a doubling of appropriations from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the next round.

Negotiations are also proceeding at Community level where again our task is to convince our Community partners, especially the more affluent member states, that social and economic cohesion is a two-way process which serves their best interests as well as ours. We will be pointing to the positive results achieved under the current Community Support Framework and we will be emphasising the by-now widely acknowledged quality of our education and training programmes.

We will be making the following specific points in relation to the demand for education and training in Ireland — a level of demand not approached elsewhere in the Community:— The rapid rate of expansion of courses under the current Community Support Framework has outstripped the level of available European Social Fund 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. The current position is that 19,600 students on ESF third-level courses are aided by the fund. The total number of students on these courses is 22,200. The additional 2,600 students are fully funded by the Exchequer at a cost of £10 million per annum. This is an obvious case for an upward adjustment of ESF aid under the next agreement.

Let me say, too, that in relation to third-level education generally numbers have expanded rapidly over the last quarter of a century, from 21,000 in 1965 to almost 70,000 in 1990-91, increasing to about 75,000 in 1991-92. Student intake in 1991-92 represents almost 40 per cent of the age group and, with the additional places we are providing at present, participation is likely to increase to 45 per cent of the age cohort by the middle of the decade. That is 45 per cent of school leavers in the country now going on to third level education. The corresponding figures around Europe are about half of that. One European country that is a member of the Community has about 21 per cent of its students in this age group going on to third level education. We are heading for a figure of 45 per cent by the end of this decade. In terms of the number of people in that age group who go to third level education Ireland is very well up the international league and that is something of which we can be extremely proud. A total enrolment of 100,000 in full-time, third-level education is projected by the end of the decade.

Secondly, the continuing expansion of our population in the 15-25 year age range and the consistent growth in demand for post-second level education and training makes our position unique among our Community partners.

We are all 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.

We will of course also argue strongly for further support from the Regional Fund for the development of our educational infrastructure. The rapid increase in enrolments in recent years has placed great demands on the physical facilities, both in terms of buildings and equipment. Moreover it goes without saying that on-going investment in plant and equipment is essential in order to keep courses, especially those in the area of the new technologies, at the highest possible level of relevance to emerging needs.

Our case for a substantial increase — £92 million in the amount of Regional Fund aid from the current CSF is exceptionally strong and we will be expecting infrastructural aid from this fund to increase to the level of about £50 million a year or a total of £200 million over the period of the next CSF. I stress that this is very much a target but a target I will be working to achieve. Between the two funds the Department would be in a position to draw down close to £1 billion in aid.

In conclusion let me list the initiatives in the area of vocational education and training for which, in line with national priorities, we will be seeking support in the next round of the Structural Funds.

These are developing and expanding existing provision and significantly upgrading the training infrastructure, including the establishment of technology centres; targeting the needs of disadvantaged persons, especially early school leavers and those needing second chance vocational education and training; providing increased access to further skill training for those in need of retraining or upgrading of skills; establishing formal links between programme providers and the social partners, especially industry and business, in programme development and provision, with particular reference to the promotion of a culture of enterprise in all vocational education and training programmes; developing vocational education and training, including certification and the harmonisation of qualifications; developing the range of vocational options within the leaving certificate vocational programme with the objective of increasing the leaving certificate participants in the programme to at least 30 per cent from 1994. A review of the nature and content of the vocational-technical subjects will be undertaken to ensure that the programme will be relevant and will promote gender equity; and expanding the range of eligible courses, especially at third level, to include many currently not eligible for support from the Funds. It is clear, therefore, a Cheann Comhairle, that the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Summit has put education at the centre of the stage of the new European Community.

Debate adjourned.