Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 2 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 2

European Community Affairs: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I welcome this opportunity to consider the situation of the Community at the present time and to review the direction the Community is taking and the implications for Ireland of these developments.

Much has happened in the last few years to bring a fresh impetus to the process of European integration. Profound changes in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Communist régimes in these countries, have brought a new urgency to the Community's role. It has become a focus of political stability and locomotive of economic and social renewal, both for the Community itself and, now, for our neighbours to the East. The Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, brings the process of political union and economic and monetary union a significant step forward. It constitutes the Community's working agenda for much of the rest of this decade. The process of enlargement has begun and those countries with whom negotiations have already opened, or are about to open — namely Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway — will, hopefully, accede to membership in 1995.

In the field of political co-operation the Community and its member states have co-ordinated positions on a wide range of international issues and thereby strengthened the European identity in international affairs.

The Community has helped to bring about a Europe based on shared principles and values, contributed to the end of apartheid, promoted human rights in Central America, supported the Middle East peace process, and in the field of arms control and non-proliferation, aquired a stronger international profile in keeping with Irish priorities. There is time to touch on some of the main developments.

The newly independent states of the former Soviet Union have embarked upon the long and difficult process of political and economic reform. Developments in Russia in recent days underline the difficult nature of the transition to democratic institutions and market economies. The European Community and its member states fully support this reform process. It is vital that it should continue in a way that will ensure peace and stability not only in Russia but in Europe generally.

A number of initiatives have been taken by the EC in the humanitarian and economic assistance areas to assist the reform process. Of special importance is the development of a sound contractual framework for the evolution of relations between the EC and Russia. A number of rounds of negotiation on a partnership and co-operation agreement have recently taken place and I hope on Monday next the Council of Ministers will give further impetus to the early conclusion of the agreement.

In recent years, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) has begun to augment its traditional role of setting standards in various fields such as human rights and security relations between states by taking on a more active role in crisis management and conflict prevention. The Paris CSCE Summit in 1990 and the Helsinki Summit in 1992 have given the CSCE new structures and institutions which are designed to enable the CSCE to respond more positively and more effectively to conflicts in Europe.

The timeliness of this development is evident. Conflict continues in Tadjikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other parts of the former Soviet Union. The tragic consequences of events in former Yugoslavia are well known.

The Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997 states that the Government will work to develop the CSCE as a pan-European forum.

The European Community and its member states have played, from the beginning, a leading role in the search for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Yugoslav conflict, most notably through promoting mediation efforts first of Lord Carrington and now of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance.

The EC Monitor Mission, in which Ireland is an active participant, is operating in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and in the states bordering the former Yugoslavia. Ireland and other EC member states are providing military personnel to the United Nations Protection Force, UNPROFOR, in both Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia. I pay tribute to the Irish personnel who have served in former Yugoslavia.

The Community and its member states are also playing a leading role in providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the Yugoslav conflict. I might mention in this regard the prominent role played by Ireland in exposing the abuse of women in Bosnia and in international efforts to assist these most innocent of victims of the Yugoslav conflict.

We have all been appalled by the terrible scenes of suffering which we have witnessed in Bosnia, especially in Srebrenica. The indiscriminate shelling and the starving of innocent civilians in order to bring about territorial gains cannot be allowed to continue.

The Owen-Vance plan for Bosnia has now been accepted by the Bosnian Muslims and Croats, and some parts of it have been accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Efforts are currently under way to persuade the Bosnian Serbs to accept the remaining points. This will open the way for a Security Council resolution which will enable implementation of the Owen-Vance plan to proceed. Ireland, together with its EC partners is strongly supporting these efforts.

News of the resignation of Cyrus Vance as joint negotiator with Lord Owen prompts me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his persistent and untiring efforts in the search for a settlement plan for this strife-torn region. I am sure we will all wish him well in his plans for the future.

In recent years we have witnessed major events in the Middle East. The Iran-Iraq War came to an end in 1988 after eight years of fighting. In 1990 Iraq overran and sought to annex Kuwait, leading to the Gulf War which forced Iraq to withdraw. In the autumn of 1991 there was the historic launch of peace talks between the Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese. Ireland and our partners in the European Community are contributing to those talks and will do whatever we can to help them succeed.

In South Africa, the EC has consistently supported the endeavours of South Africans who have sought to bring about a democratic, non-racial and united South Africa. The Community's actions have included both sanctions and the lesser-known, but very important, positive measures programme in support of democracy and development. This programme recognised, that, although the statutory elements of apartheid have been removed, its legacy remains. A democratic and prosperous South Africa will greatly contribute to the general welfare of the southern African region.

As Deputies will be aware, in the latter part of last month, in my capacity as Minister of State with special responsibility for development co-operation, I visited Somalia, Zambia and Tanzania. These visits once again brought home to me how closely interconnected are my ministerial responsibilities for development co-operation and for European affairs.

During the second half of 1992, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, and An tUach-tarán, President Robinson, played a major world role in focusing international attention on the plight of the Somali people as a result of famine, war, and the indifference of their leaders to their plight.

It was therefore heartening to see, half a year later, what the effect has been of intervention by the the UN and by UNITAF forces. Deputies will be happy to be informed that the nutritional status of the people of Somalia, in particular of the children and women, has improved immeasurably in comparison with the situation some months ago. What has been achieved is due largely to the remarkable work of NGOs, particularly Irish NGOs, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, of the forces gathered under US leadership in UNITAF, and of the UN. Irish volunteers and Irish relief workers played a major part in the progress which has been achieved, and Ireland has every reason to be proud of their work, which enjoys international recognition. I salute their efforts.

There remain many problems. The NGO operatives continue to work in difficult and dangerous circumstances. When I was in Mogadishu, I attended a memorial Mass one month after the killing of Valerie Place. Seán Devereux and other relief workers, and a number of soldiers and civilian workers with UNITAF, have also been killed.

I had intensive meetings with representatives of Irish and other international NGOs, with UN agencies, and in particular with Admiral Howe, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, and with General Johnston, officer commanding UNITAF. I believe that in these discussions, I was able to improve communications between the UN and the military, on the one hand, and the NGOs, the Red Cross and other relief workers, on the other. Ireland will continue to support the work of humanitarian relief and rehabilitation in Somalia, principally through the Irish NGOs.

Although the situation in Somalia is now much better, during my stay in the region of the Horn of Africa, I became increasingly aware of the deterioration of the situation in southern Sudan. I have this week allocated £500,000 to Irish and UN agencies working in southern Sudan to support their relief efforts. The Tánaiste has caused the issue of southern Sudan to be raised within EC Political Co-operation and the concerns of the EC member states have been conveyed to the Khartoum authorities and to the leaders of SPLA factions. This is an area which we will have to continue to keep under careful review. Another Somalia must be avoided.

On a more positive note, I also had the opportunity to visit Zambia and Tanzania, in order to visit bilateral aid programme projects in the two countries. I had most interesting discussions with President Frederick Chiluba in Zambia and with Prime Minister John Malacela in Tanzania, as well as with other leaders in both countries. Both President Chiluba and Prime Minister Malacela emphasised to me in extremely warm terms their regard for the activities financed under Ireland's official aid programme, in particular because of our practice of targeting the poorest of the poor, and because of the close co-operation between our projects and the communities and administrations they are meant to support. President Chiluba and his colleagues made the point that the Irish programme was playing a vital role in helping Zambia meet its obligations under the World Bank-inspired structural adjustment programme.

Deputies will be aware that President Chiluba reintroduced a state of emergency in Zambia some weeks ago. He, as well as the other Zambian leaders I met, emphasised to me the extreme reluctance with which this decision had been taken and their firm intention to restore the rule of law as quickly as possible. For my part, I insisted that Zambia's friends would follow progress very closely and would be seriously troubled if there were any foot-dragging on the return to constitutional normality.

I attended the annual meeting of the San Jose process between EC and Central American countries held this year in El Salvador. The conclusion of the peace accords in relation to El Salvador in January 1992 opened the way to a new stage of national reconciliation and reconstruction for that country. It also marked a significant step towards the consolidation of peace in the Central American region as a whole.

Ireland, together with its partners in the Community, is thus concerned to see the full implementation of all elements of the accords at the earliest possible date. This, of course, applies equally to the Truth Commission whose report has recently been published. Ireland believes that its recommendations should be fully implemented.

In my address to the conference in San Salvador, I recalled the resolution on human rights, democracy and development which we adopted in the European Community in 1991. I stressed the importance which we in the Community attach to the notion that human rights have a universal nature and it is the duty of all states to promote them. At the same time human rights and democracy form part of a larger set of requirements designed to achieve balanced and sustainable development. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms to enable popular participation in development has become one of the core elements underlying the co-operation policies of the Community.

In San Salvador, I also met members of the FMLN who are now recognised as a political party, and I asked them whether there were any ways in which Ireland could make a contribution to the peace process. They asked me to consider the possibility of Ireland participating in the monitoring and observation of the elections next year. I agreed to consider carefully this request.

Nuclear disarmament continues to be one of the highest priorities of the Twelve in the field of arms control and disarmament. Nuclear proliferation is a major threat to global security and stability. The Twelve have called on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to abide by the commitments they made to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, as non-nuclear weapon states. In recent weeks, the Twelve have expressed grave concern at the announcement by North Korea of its intention to withdraw from the NPT and have urged that country to reconsider its decision.

The Twelve have also welcomed the conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention which was opened for signature in Paris last January.

A common approach by the Twelve to world affairs makes sense for the member states of the Community, enabling us to be more effective than we could hope to be acting alone. The European role is also welcomed by other countries, whether as a source of stability here in Europe or as a contribution to the solution of other international problems.

This is the background to the Maastricht negotiations, which have already been discussed in detail in this House. I believe Deputies will agree that the Treaty strikes the right balance. It points to a coherent European Community role in world affairs, while at the same time maintaining safeguards in such areas as the procedures for decision-making and the competence of the Union in the security field.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen the beginning of a new global agenda — an agenda for peace and security, for strengthening the United Nations, for non-proliferation, for protecting the environment and, not least, for economic development of a kind which will ensure that the needs of all men and women, in whatever region of the world they live, are provided for.

Through the European Community, Ireland has a tremendous opportunity to contribute to these international debates of the nineties on the basis of values which we have always stood for in international affairs.

Ten members have ratified and approved the Maastricht Treaty. As the House knows, the British Parliament and the Danish people have to decide on their countries' ratification, and that is a matter which we will leave to them. Ratification is in Ireland's interests, it is in the Community's interests, it is in the interest of the wider European family, not least the nations of central and eastern Europe. The Irish people, in the referendum last June, demonstrated their commitment to Europe and subsequent events have served to demonstrate that the need for greater integration along the lines set out in the Treaty is as great as ever. This is especially so in the context of helping the nations of central and eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, to overcome the enormous difficulties they face in establishing market economies and consolidation of their new democracies.

A major objective of the Maastricht Treaty is the achievement of Economic and Monetary Union. The final stage of Monetary Union is to be achieved in 1997, or at the latest in 1999. The turbulence in the last six months in the exchange rate Mechanism, ERM, which we joined on its inception in 1979, does not weaken the arguments in favour of European Monetary Union. On the contrary, these events have strengthened those arguments and our resolve to achieve European Monetary Union. We have seen again recently the problems that arise from uncertainty in the currency markets.

Of course, we were disappointed recently when we were forced to devalue the punt at the end of January. This took place despite the fact that the basics of our economy were sound. We felt that more could have been done to show the determination of the members of the ERM to resist speculative pressures. However, our job now is to make the best of our new situation.

Interest rates have begun to come down, aided by the 1993 budget's firm adherence to fiscal discipline. German rates, which are a key factor in Europe, have also come down significantly. The balance of advantage remains with the achievement of the Economic and Monetary Union and its implementation in line with the Maastricht timetable.

Today is European Day of Action on Employment, organised by the European Trade Union Confederation, rightly to underline the fact that the problem of unemployment remains our greatest challenge. It must be tackled vigorously by the Community on the basis of sound economic policies.

The Maastricht Treaty revises Article 2 of the existing Treaty, to make it clear that the Community must have among its main tasks that of promoting within the Community a high level of employment and social protection. I am pleased that my remarks on this fundamental problem can be given added weight by the happy coincidence of the Day of Action on Employment and our debate here today.

The Edinburgh European Council recognised the need to tackle the question of low growth in the European economy and launched the "Growth Initiative". At Community level there will be new EIB loan instruments to promote major infrastructure projects in Europe. National Governments are to examine how their resources can be mobilised towards growth. For our part, we increased our capital expenditure by nearly £500 million this year, helped by Community funds. The European Commission is at present actively involved in getting this Community-wide growth initiative underway, and the next European Council will continue its work on this issue.

The referendum on the Maastricht Treaty last June demonstrated the positive approach of the Irish people to greater integration. I was very directly involved in the campaign to secure a "Yes" vote. I drew the conclusion that much more needs to be done to ensure that citizens are better informed of the key issues being considered by the Community.

The general public should have greater access to information about the Community, its decision-making procedures and the significance of those decisions. The interdepartmental European Affairs Committee, which I chair, has agreed on a number of steps which should be taken to improve the situation.

The new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will provide a valuable forum for national debate on Community issues. Members of the Oireachtas have a very important role to play in ensuring that there is a wider debate and a wider appreciation of Community issues. In particular, the new Committee — which has been given very wide terms of reference — will be able to lead discussion on foreign policy issues in general and Community issues, in a useful and illuminating way.

The range of issues which I have covered in my speech shows the complexity of Community business. Our debates today will help to bring a greater degree of understanding to these issues. I am sure that the contributions which will be made in the course of the day will help to formulate Ireland's positions on the key questions in the future.

Mr. Hogan

I refer to the very disappointing and disturbing landmark decision made by the High Court yesterday. I ask the Minister to make a full statement to the House at the earliest opportunity about the timescale the Government has in mind in regard to the appeal to the Supreme Court and the subsequent legislation, if any, which will be required. The Government has been very slow in the past in bringing forward legislation to implement various EC Directives. Indeed, the Government has been dragged before the European Court on many occasions to force implementation. This is not the way to make Europe work for all of us. It is important that the people understand the relevance of Europe to them and how the EC can improve their quality of life. The Government has failed miserably in this area of essential work. The High Court decision yesterday has compounded that. As a result of this decision a new Government impetus is urgently required to ensure that EC Directives are transposed into Irish law and enacted as quickly as possible.

European political order has been radically transformed by the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Since 1989 a wave of democracy has spread eastwards from Poland and Hungary as communist systems collapsed. Germany has been reunited and great strides have been made in respect of political freedoms, in respect of human rights and improved social welfare for the peoples concerned. Yet in 1992 the frailties and difficulties to the reform process have been exposed. The slow pace of reform and pain of economic adjustments has led to frustration, intolerance and the resurgence of nationalism in some parts of Europe.

The developments in Yugoslavia have called into question the prospects of success for a peaceful, united and stable Europe. In spite of these developments the objectives of the founding fathers of the European Community are still relevant today.

In recent times the most ambitious objective proposed by the European Community has been the Maastricht Treaty. The objectives of European union have been solidly supported by the Irish Government and the Irish people which is a clear recognition of the important role that European policies play in the ordinary lives of Irish people.

The huge transfer of resources through the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the agricultural fund in particular has radically improved the standards of living of people, has generated substantial economic activity that the country could not afford otherwise and brought about tremendous regional development in the regions of Ireland.

There is a general assumption that the Maastricht Treaty will eventually be ratified by all member states of the EC and that the enlargement issue will take on an new momentum. However, I would caution that a "yes" vote in Denmark is not a foregone conclusion. There are deep seated historical fears in Denmark that are still not resolved and which could impede progress towards a Treaty on European Union.

In particular the Danish people have difficulty with their relationship with Germany and do not recognise that Denmark would be in a better position to confront the powers of Germany if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified. I hope the proposed accession of the Scandinavian countries will tilt the balance in favour of a positive result from Denmark on 18 May. The "national compromise" paper of 27 October 1992, agreed by the main political parties in Denmark, will be of considerable assistance towards removing some of the fears of the Danish people that resulted in a "no" vote on the last occasion. This has meant that the Danish Government received exemptions from the Maastricht Treaty obligations concerning EC citizenship, European Monetary Union, defence and co-operation, justice and home affairs.

However, I am extremely critical of the role of the European Commission and the manner in which it has handled the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and the recent currency crisis. In my view the Commission should have taken a more pro-active approach in respect of these issues. It demonstrates that at the very moment of political and economic crisis in the Community the Commission has forfeited authority as arbiter between the 12 member states and therefore, a power vacuum has arisen in the European Community.

One could say that the European Community has degenerated into a standing intergovernmental conference led by a weak Danish presidency which cannot see beyond 18 May. In other words, Europe is playing a waiting game while the opponents of Maastricht continue to make an impact. One of the great challenges facing the European Community is how to stimulate economic growth at a time of high unemployment. The recent reductions in interest rates in the Bundesbank discount rate is welcome if the European Community is to achieve its target growth rate of 3 per cent in 1993. When one considers that it will take at least 2.5 per cent growth to prevent a further rise in unemployment it shows the scale of the problem facing all member states.

The EC economy expanded by just over 1 per cent in 1992 but unemployment rose by two million. This year the number of people out of work in the EC could top 17 million. It is just not good enough that the European Community can stand idly by and allow this problem to get even worse.

What is urgently required is an EC growth package. Member states should seek to co-ordinate capital spending projects on roads, housing and infrastructure to kick-start their economies. The forthcoming national plan is an opportunity to achieve this objective in Ireland.

The real test for the Community where the Twelve can put on a convincing show of solidarity is to coax the US and Japan to support expansionary fiscal policies at the Tokyo Economic Summit next July. Without economic growth there is no prospect of the EC meeting its convergence objectives which will ultimately proceed to European monetary union in 1997 and the establishment of a single European currency.

The European Trade Union Confederation to which the ICTU is affiliated has designated today, Friday, 2 April, as European day of action in order to demonstrate the need for community wide action on the question of jobs and social rights. I wish to support this initiative by Congress to promote its objectives of generating greater economic activity with a view to returning to job creating growth. However, I appeal to the ICTU, and Mr. Cassells in particular, to work together with all sectors in the economy to achieve these desirable objectives.

Ireland is a small nation on the periphery of Europe which requires all sectors of the Irish economy, which includes the trade union movement, the representatives of the agricultural community, working together to find investment to generate employment.

It is not in the interest of workers to seek confrontation with producers of goods and services. We need to produce goods and services as competitively as possible in order to generate employment. The only result of this fragmentation and divisiveness is the distraction from the real objectives of European policy and the ultimate failure of the social partners to take the harsh decisions to remove the barriers and anti-employment practices in their own sphere of influence.

It is worth noting that Mr. Henning Christophersen told the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Committee recently that the Irish convergence programme needs to be brought up to date and he intends to present a report around Easter on the possible technical modifications to the ERM. I look forward to the positive contribution of the social partners to this issue in the near future with a view to ensuring that our economy becomes as competitive as possible and our goods and services can be sold into the European market efficiently and effectively with a view to greater export market share, thereby creating more employment for our people.

The EC exerts powerful attraction on its neighbours, an increasing number of whom have submitted applications for membership. It is likely to be a very important debate in the next year when member states consider the implications of the negotiations for the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the Community so it is hoped that negotiations will proceed rather quickly and will be completed in 1995. Negotiations on the accession of Norway to the EC are likely to advance as well in 1993.

This would suggest that this round of enlargement can be accommodated within the Maastricht Treaty framework. It also implies that these new members will be involved in the revision of the Maastricht Treaty foreseen at an intergovernmental conference to be convened in 1996. I also note that the General Affairs Council of 7 December 1992 invited the Commission to prepare its opinion on the Swiss application following the 6 December 1992 referendum in that country on the EEA agreement.

However, there are a number of issues which require review in advance of enlargement. The ERM crisis exposed weaknesses in the EC capacity to act cohesively. In my opinion it is an indication of a deeper structural crisis within the Community arising from changes in the international system, German unification and the public unease surrounding the Maastricht Treaty process.

It is essential that the Danish referendum is successful, and that confidence is restored by effective action to tackle the currency crisis recession and increase democratic accountability in the European Community. Enlargement must be considered as part of a broad strategy to revitalise and expand European integration.

The potential problems and stumbling blocks which have been exposed in recent months is a clear indication that the review of the Maastricht Treaty must take place in advance of enlargement. There is much work to be done, issues to be faced which would include the institutional arrangements and voting rights in a larger European Union and the necessary resources to facilitate enlargement, relationship between the European Union and other institutions such as the Council of Europe and the CSCE, and the timing of enlargement itself.

I wish to make it clear that Fine Gael believes that the Irish Government should support enlargement of the European Community, provided that it receives guarantees concerning its vital interests. Ireland has made great progress in recent years, articulating its concerns in respect of cohesion and solidarity between members of the European Union in relation to our financial capacity to participate in European Monetary Union and our representation in the European Union institutions.

It is essential that any Irish Government should ensure that the interests of small countries are protected in the European Union. It is noted that no analysis has been carried out as to the consequences of enlargement for the Irish economy. I call on the Government to engage in such studies at the earliest possible opportunity so that a clear indication and the fullest possible information can be given to all our people on the impact of such enlargement decisions.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my great disappointment that the European Community is perceived by the people of Ireland as being of minor relevance. The Minister mentioned this in the course of his remarks and noted the demonstration of such an attitude in the lead-up to the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of European Union. There is a huge information deficit between European institutions, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the citizens of our country. This information deficit is unhealthy and dangerous. It is imperative that an information programme be put in place immediately to inform our young people in particular, through the educational system about the importance of European integration and the impact it is making on our daily lives. It is important to point out the alternative to this particular path in the context of developments in the European Community that have taken place in recent years. I welcome the indication given by the Minister today that the information flow will be improved through the medium of various institutions.

I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will be able to play a very important role in educating Members of the Oireachtas and public representatives generally on the impact of Europe in the context of legislation and in the context of many issues that are important to Ireland. If we fail to address the information deficit Ireland could face a crisis ratification in relation to a future referendum on Community developments, similar to the experience that the Danish people are now going through.

Enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe poses a serious order difficulty for the Community in the future. This can be best illustrated in regard to agriculture. Pressure for further Common Agricultural Policy reform will arise from a general increase in demand upon the EC budget and the cost of extending the Common Agricultural Policy to these particular countries.

In addition, existing EC member states face the prospect of increased competition and the need for futher supply controls. The extension of the Common Agricultural Policy to the EFTA states, on the other hand, does not appear to pose such major problems, given that the size of their agricultural sector is relatively small. The EFTA states are expected to be net contributors to the European budget and in fact are accepting the principle of cohesion within the European Community by contributing towards the EC budget.

The impact for Ireland in respect of enlargement will be that our income per capita will be significantly more favourable in the context of our partners and the focus of Cohesion and Structural Funds from which we have benefited tremendously in recent times will shift to develop other economies. The case for special pleading in respect of our peripherality will recede and stop. Thus, the forthcoming national plan on the spending of Structural and Cohesion Funds from 1993 to 1999 will be the last substantial opportunity that this country will get for substantial transfers for the foreseeable future.

I am convinced that if the Community support framework is to serve as a basis for effective use of EC Structural Funds in the coming years it is essential that this framework should include a significant regional development dimension. There has been concern in Europe at the lack of this particular regional development dimension in the formulation and implementation of the previous National Development Plan from 1989 to 1993.

I am glad to say that on this occasion the Government appears to be taking a more constructive and positive approach in its efforts to involve the sub-regions in the presentation of the National Development Plan that is to go to Brussels in June 1993.

Again the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, appears to be engaging in fragmentation politics by seeking to create division and disorder in respect of her priorities for urban areas at the exclusion of other parts of our country. This approach is undesirable and I would ask the Minister to desist from her declaration of intent at this stage and to allow the regions an opportunity to make their case to the national plan and to ensure that fairness and equity is applied to all regions in the country in their efforts to develop. While Dublin is the capital of our country and an important focal point, it is not necessary for the Minister to prove conclusively to the rest of the country that she intends supporting exclusive urban zones of development, basically telling the other regions of the country that they can "go to hell or to Connaught".

New information on the previous round of the Structural Funds has led to a growing concern that my own area, the south-east of the country, which has been the recipient of the lowest net benefit, will be similarly disadvantaged in the next round. I could spend my entire contribution speaking about the difficulties faced by that part of the country and the way in which the forthcoming national plan should be structured to provide for improvements in that area, but I feel that it is right to take a more national perspective, while recognising the importance of allowing subregions to engage in much needed work. The sub-regions should be able to make submissions to the national plan. I hope that the criteria and objectives to be published by the Minister of State in June will give a clear signal that the Government intends to include policy objectives for each region in the National Development Plan presented to Brussels. A number of factors exacerbate the critical position in relation to regional development. We lack an integrated regional authority that has responsibility for various regional bodies such as SFADCO. In some regions there is an absence of a significant centre of population, resulting in an inadequate supply of resources to study and promote integrated strategies within the region. The net result in some regions is an inability to take advantage of certain regional schemes and programmes.

Many other issues could come within the ambit of today's discussion: the relationship of the European Community with Eastern Europe; progress made in the GATT negotiations, particularly between the EC and the United States of America, and the apparent tardiness in reaching a decision on this important agreement; the increased powers of the European Parliament and the way in which the European Parliament will have more of an influence on the affairs of national governments; the democratisation of the European Community, an aspect not referred to in the Minister's speech; progress made and difficulties, if any, likely to arise in the implementation of the Single Market; immigration policy, a factor being confronted at present by the Irish Commissioner, and the question of whether there is likely to be an internal and an external frontier.

In the past 20 years the European Community has changed radically. The Treaty on European Union, now being ratified by member states, is taking a new meaning in our daily lives. It is important that Irish people understand the way in which Europe is relevant to us. I particularly hope that the information deficit I mentioned earlier will be remedied as soon as possible to ensure that the ordinary people of this country understand the benefits of membership of the European Community and the relevance of the Community to them. It is important that we realise that we benefit each day from participation in the Treaty on European Union.

Mr. Cox

I welcome the opportunity for Members to make statements on Europe. A chill runs down my spine when I think that European affairs are to be dealt with by a Foreign Affairs Committee. European affairs are surely germane to Irish politics and should be anything but foreign to our concerns.

I join Deputy Hogan in his remarks about the outcome of the High Court case yesterday. It is obvious, having listened to the Taoiseach's response today, that, like a thief in the night, the decision managed to sneak up on everybody. It is a decision of immense importance necessitating urgent Government action. If I correctly understand the import of the decision, with the exception of company law, insurance law, value added tax and other tax harmonisation measures in addition to equal pay, the Houses of the Oireachtas have not engaged in a legislative process in respect of over 500 other EC directives, that they all derive their authority in respect of Irish law from section 3 (2) of the European Communities Act, 1972 which confers on the Minister the right to repeal, amend or apply, without modification, other laws exclusive of that Act. In other words, there was a very sweeping administrative power conferred on a Minister to act under the 1972 Act.

It is clear from the decision of the High Court that that court has taken the view that this is repugnant to the Constitution, expressly in respect of Article 15.2 which states:

The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.

If that fundamental contradiction observed in the High Court yesterday is to be sustained then we have a very grave crisis on our hands in respect of the entire corpus of European law stretching back to 1973. I would urge the Government to press this matter at the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, the probability is that these various directives are now effectively without status in Irish law until an alternative decision is delivered by a higher court. That is a matter of the most grave public importance and urgency. I would urge the Government to treat it as such and return to this House, if possible as early as next week, with a very clear set of proposals.

I do not know what the Supreme Court will decide because certainly the issue in law has been pointed out with considerable clarity by the High Court judge in question. Should that hold at the level of the Supreme Court, we would be faced with a legislative crisis of a type we have never had to deal with heretofore. I know, as a Member of the European Parliament, having dealt with issues that arose under the Single European Act over the past several years, that they are enormously time-consuming. Even if we wanted some omnibus version of introducing such laws I do not know just how easily we might cope with it.

On the wider issues, I was interested in the general international review the Minister gave of enlargement, CSCE, former Yugoslavia, the Middle East, South Africa, Somalia, Central America and so on. All of those issues arise within the domain of European political co-operation, all matters of deepening interest to the Community if and when Maastricht is ratified and, hopefully, we develop a more coherent Community foreign policy process. Of course, that is where our new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs should prove useful in terms of endeavouring to consider policy orientations.

I would prefer to concentrate my remarks on issues somewhat closer to home. In respect of the process of ratification of the Maastricht Treaty I agree with the Minister's sentiments that the sooner it is ratified the better. Clearly that holds with regard to the United Kingdom and Denmark. I might point out to the Minister that only nine member states have ratified the Maastricht Treaty, not ten. In the case of Germany, the Bundestag has agreed to ratify Maastricht but the President of the Federal Republic of Germany has not signed the instrument of ratification and it has not been deposited in Rome. At this very moment there is a case in the constitutional court in the Federal Republic of Germany, brought by a number of members of the German Bundestag, questioning the validity of the Maastricht Treaty in respect of the distribution of powers between the Federal State and the German Lander. From legal contacts I have had with a number of German colleagues I am glad to say it is the general view that the Constitutional Court will not prove problematic in the ratification process. I hope their courts do not prove to be as surprising as have ours within the past 24 hours on so fundamental an issue.

The reason I raise the issue is not to get picky with the Minister's head count. I believe the odds are that the constitutional court will find against the appellants, but we must have some contingencies in mind. Just imagine the disaster that would befall the currency markets, among others, if a core member state, like the Federal Republic of Germany, appeared to be forced by this constitutional process temporarily to back off Maastricht. We need to think through some contingencies just in case. It is like being a good boy scout — bí ullamh, be prepared — just in case such an eventuality arises. I would certainly urge the Government to think through different options. One must anticipate all of the complexities inherent in issues such as these.

The second general area to which I want to address some remarks relates to the process of economic and monetary union. Here I agree with the general tenor of the Minister's remarks that this is no less desirable today than when we spoke about wanting to ratify Maastricht some time ago. I found the absence of any wider discussion of the dimensions somewhat disappointing. I want to avail of this opportunity to pose a number of questions to the Minister which I believe must constitute part of a public policy dialogue. Expressly, if Maastricht is ratified, which hopefully it will be, stage two of the process begins on 1 January 1994. As we know, that will see the establishment of the European Monetary Institute, the embryonic European Central Bank. That will provide, among some of its statutes, for the possible pooling of monetary reserves. We got so badly bitten by the absence of such pooling of reserves during the currency crisis some months ago that this might well be something which, in statute terms under the EMI, we would wish to see brought forward in terms of our national interest, although I must admit that I have become something of an agnostic about the role of international reserves, particularly when I look at the fact that the combined reserves of the G7, most industrialised nations, are quite puny compared with the daily turnover rates in capital markets and money exchanges.

Real debate about stage two is missing from the Minister's remarks, that is from an Irish perspective. What is our Government's view of how long that should take? It is somewhat like asking how long is a piece of string. The Minister observes that stage three could take place as early as 1 January 1997 or by the end of 1999. Do we have a view? Do we have a preference? What are we pressing for in policy terms in that respect? Arguably the shorter stage two is the better because, logically, it will mean we would be less vulnerable to external shocks. The longer one waits for something to happen the more may be the external shocks. Also we would be less vulnerable to cyclical swings and economic fortunes because it would happen within a more compressed period.

I find the background to stage two very worrying. We will enter stage two in January next in a context in which the rate of growth within the EC is extremely poor. This year's Annual Economic Report forecast a growth rate as low as 0.75 per cent. It predicts a rise in unemployment of up to 17 million. Worse than that, the medium-term forecasts for the European Community make fairly bleak reading. The odds are that, by 1996, no significant inroads will have been made on rolling back the unemployment levels by any appreciable amount.

I note the Minister's remarks on the Edinburgh "growth initiative". I would not advise the Government to hold its breath in respect of the Edinburgh "growth initiative". Commissioner Henning Christophersen in the debate on the Annual Economic Report in the European Parliament admitted, under pressure of questioning and observation from members, that if one includes it in the macro-economic model of the Community, it might push up the growth rate this year from 0.75 per cent to 0.8 per cent. I can assure the House that that would have no impact on the unemployment or employment crisis facing the European Community.

I now want to raise another issue. I have raised the question of the length of stage 2 and of the process we are involved in. If we are launching stage 2 of the integration process after the Maastricht Treaty is ratified next January, as I hope it will be, and it is done in an economic context which is broadly low key, recessionary, low growth and with high unemployment, the odds are that from all the experience we have of the Community since its foundation — with or without Ireland as a member and going back to its beginning, the Community is now more coherent and converges better during periods of economic growth, for obvious reasons — people will put their own interests ahead of those of the Community. This is an inauspicious time in which to be looking for more convergence when all the economic phenomena are likely to be pressing more divergence onto the agenda.

Against that background there is one inevitable question. In relation to European Monetary Union, should there be a fast-track in case the whole thing blows up because of divergence, recession and so on? This has been the subject of debate for a long time but it has taken on more urgency in recent months and in particular since the currency crisis.

There is much logic in the fast-track thesis — it would be a kind of economic Schengen whereby those who are fit to get on with the job of having a single currency would do so with some urgency. Logical as this may be for those who may be in a position to do so, it is not an approach that I would recommend. I would like to hear a clear statement of Government and public policy on this matter because if we go for an economic Schengen and a system under which a fast-track approach is adopted in relation to European Monetary Union, inevitably it will be founded on intergovernmentalism which, if we encourage it in the Community, will undo the acquis communitaire and undermine the communitaire nature of what the Maastricht and other treaties have tried to keep together and it will be inimical and hostile to the interests of a small peripheral nation such as ourselves. Therefore we must cleave to the Maastricht Treaty process, press for a communitaire approach and stand back from inter-governmentalism. As I said, I would like to hear a clear and positive statement of public policy in that regard.

I am aware that one of our more prominent and articulate Europhiles, former Commissioner Peter Sutherland, has in the past few weeks in Paris recommended that there should be a fast-track in relation to European Monetary Union and recommend that we should hitch our monetary wagon to this fast-track locomotive. While I have a great regard for his views I believe that this would be inappropriate at this time.

What has been cruelly exposed in Ireland by way of economic policy in the European Community, is the fact that in the monetary sphere we are forced to ride two horses simultaneously — the horse of deeper European integration which we voted in favour of by a clear and substantial majority and the rather wild horse which is running loose outside the system, that is, sterling which, as we have seen, still plays a major role. The markets assesed that it was sufficiently serious and in the end they won and the Government, who held a particular view of public policy, lost with the result that we were forced to devalue.

In that context, depending on what would happen in the money markets, it would be disastrous for us, in economic terms, if there was a fast-track system with us locked in and we were then to find sterling plummeting as happened some time ago. Therefore, we need a clear statement of public policy on this matter and it has to be communitaire, against intergovermentalism and within the confines of the Maastricht Treaty.

As Mr. Peter Sutherland would be aware, having studied the text, these schengen agreements would be illegal under the Maastricht Treaty as it sets out a Community process in relation to European Monetary Union. As I said in the budget debate, even if we are good Europeans there is no necessary requirement that we should be more Catholic than the Pope. That suggestion has that kind of ring about it.

I further recommend to the Government that it should consider the question of budget deficits. I am not an adherent of large budget deficits for Ireland because I am inclined towards the view that they do not work that well in a small, open economy. However, I have a slightly different reason for raising this point. As the Minister of State will be aware, the budget deficit rule, in respect of the current budget deficit, is that it should not amount to more than 3 per cent of GDP in any one of several years prior to moving to stage 3 of European Monetary Union. While I am open to correction on this, virtually every member state, with the exception of Luxembourg — there may be one other — does not fit that bill. I have mentioned the medium-term review of the Euro-economy but I am worried about the potential recessionary implications across the Community if all of them have to rein in their public expenditure at the same time. We, as a small trading nation, need growth in continental Europe and in the United Kingdom because this translates into growth here through trade. I am, therefore, worried about the potential effects if a series of countries have to cut back, that is if we want an additional layer of recession which is induced when budget deficits are cut back.

The question I would like policy makers here to explore with the Commission and the Council is what is meant by a budget deficit under the Maastricht Treaty. There is a structural budget deficit which represents the gap between spending and taxation while on top of this there is a cyclical layer whereby during periods of recession, for example, one pays out more in dole and welfare payments and so on. It is in our interests to argue that that definition, in relation to the figure of 3 per cent, should apply only to the structural deficit while the cyclical overlay, or what is known as the automatic stabilisers, should not be taken into account. This would allow a fair amount of additional Euro-spending among many of the larger deficit member states which could lead to growth in Europe and in Ireland through our trade links in a way that is not hostile to our own budget problem. This would be well worth looking at but it is not defined in the Maastricht Treaty. The economic concept about structural deficits is different from the concept of cyclical layers. This is not a technical issue but a significant set of political implications can follow and I urge the Minister to consider it.

In relation to capital expenditure and Structural Funds, this week one of my colleagues asked the Minister for Finance what the rules were with regard to public capital investment appraisal systems in Ireland. If we are going to spend much more capital and we want productive investment, who will work out what the rate of productivity should be, in terms of jobs, the rate of return and so on? I have been told that it relates to a circular that was issued on 8 March 1983 and that capital spending is viewed in that light. I will not do so here but I could list a litany of what I would regard as disastrous, bad, unproductive spends during the last round of Structural Funds in terms of job and economic yields. I hope that something more rigorous will be applied.

Finally, I would nearly insist that this House should have the right of review and to have an input before this plan is sent to Brussels. This will be the major economic policy for the next few years and we have to engage the Oireachtas in that process not as a means of allowing the Government and the Opposition to line up and have a go at each other, but as a way of seeking consensus on a document which will be a very basic one in the future.

In the afternoon my colleague, Deputy McDowell, will concentrate on the political rather then economic aspects. I hope the Minister of State will take some of those points on board in the future.

Proinsias De Rossa

I should say, first, that we are supposed to be debating primarily ten reports on the Government's activities since 1988. Under the 1972 Act the Government is supposed to report to this House twice a year on developments within the European Community. Now, in April 1993, we are discussing the reports of July 1988, January 1989, July 1989, January 1990, June 1990, January 1991, July 1991 and January 1992. The report for July 1992 has not appeared and we do not know when the report for January 1993 will appear. The delay in the production of the report is anything from eight months to nearly two years. I do not think that is the way to conduct our business in relation to the European Community.

Today's debate is typical of how the Dáil has been allowed to deal with European questions: we are discussing legislation adopted, in many cases, several years ago and, no matter what any of us say, none of it can be altered in any way. Rather than contribute to such a surreal charade I propose to review some events in the more recent past and go on to put forward again a few modest suggestions on how this House might reorder its conduct of European affairs and thereby make itself and Europe more relevant to the people whom we are all here to serve.

It will shortly be the anniversary of the Maastricht referendum campaign. Although quite a lot has happened since then, in one way and another, those of you who wish to will recall that virtually the entire establishment — political, financial and journalistic — were united in urging us to vote "yes" under threat of terrible consequences if we did otherwise. While the referendum was carried by a handsome majority, exit poll analysis subsequently showed that one-third of those who voted "yes" did so with grave reservations and under what in a courtroom would be described as duress. That those reservations were well founded have been amply demonstrated by subsequent events.

What is the response now of those on the Government and Opposition benches who insisted ten months ago that growth, employment and prosperity depended on us voting "yes" to the wonderful deal negotiated at Maastricht? The most instructive, and probably representative, is that from the Minister for Finance, as outlined in The Irish Times on 16 March under a banner headline which read: “Ahern predicts 15,000 increase in jobless”. In fact, as the text made clear, 15,000 was on the low side and our Finance Minister was actually predicting that it could be as high as 25,000 before the end of the year. Deputy Ahern was commenting as he left a meeting of ECOFIN, a very powerful, if rather opaque, institution, made even more powerful and no less opaque by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. Presumably related to his remarkable insight into our jobless figures, the Minister for Finance, let fly fairly liberally in several directions. He “rounded on” as The Irish Times described it, the retail sector, newspaper managers and even Dunnes Stores as destructive whingers. In the same breath he held out little hope for the EC's “growth initiative” and did not think EC finance officials and central bankers were up to the job of resolving the weaknesses in the exchange rate mechanism. That does not leave many people free of blame for this impending hike in our jobless figures. Somewhat more constructively, he stated that Ireland would need an EC annual growth rate — let it be noted — of 5 per cent to make a real impact on unemployment. But this, he said, “was clearly not feasible in current circumstances” and because compliance with European Monetary Union convergence terms constrained his options, unemployment must continue to rise, but he is not to blame. If Bertie can make that stick he deserves to be reinstated in the Taoiseach stakes.

Unfortunately, there are very few in the political, business, journalist and even trade union establishments who do not have a vested interest in concealing the fundamental weakness in such an "excuse me" strategy. Less than 15 months ago the present Government partners hailed the Maastricht Treaty — in reality, European Monetary Union plus some trimmings — as a triumph. They knew, and were warned, then that the European Monetary Union convergence terms were inherently deflationary; but Jacques Delors had let them peep into the bag and the "£6 billion doubling of Structural Fund by 1997" mirage was born. In November 1991, one month before the summit, I published the only pre-Maastricht critique by an Irish politician of the Treaty, which was then in the final stages of negotiation.

The critique, entitled Towards A Democratic Europe, states on page 15:

We are now trotting along in support of an European Monetary Union package designed by Germany and the UK with convergence conditions set, which will strip us of any policy options we might have to stimulate growth and employment and with nothing but the hope of a fairy godmother to put in its place. We have gone along with convergence conditions, set by Germany, which are so tight that we cannot exceed a 3 per cent budget deficit even for productive investment to reduce unemployment.... Nor does the answer lie in waiting for dole money from Europe to pay it out as dole in Ireland when what is needed is the sort of investment in job creation that takes the pressure off the public finances rather than addiding to it.... The first demand at Maastricht should be for a Common Industrial Policy to create jobs rather than simply another dollop of wasted dole.

That position was further developed in the half a dozen documents produced by Democratic Left during the referendum campaign in which we identified the main shortcoming of the Maastricht Treaty, and its Delors II adjunct, to be its failure to deal with or to put in place any mechanisms to deal with, the prospect of rising unemployment and poverty. The Single Market, the programme towards European Monetary Union and the Delors II financing package determine the economic and fiscal parameters within which this country must operate for the rest of the century. If that is not right, and is not going to work, we are in serious trouble because there are virtually no mechanisms left to us which can be used at national level to change course or correct mistakes. There have been three European summits since our referendum, accompanied by three debates in this House. None has made any serious attempt to plug the holes in the Maastricht Treaty as Europe slides deeper into recession, because there is a blind refusal to acknowledge that any holes exist.

The Minister for Finance, now finds that we need 5 per cent growth at European level and is not in the least bothered by the fact that he was at least partly responsible for negotiating a treaty, and a budgetary package to accompany it, which at its most optimistic and expansive hoped for annual EC growth of 2.5 per cent per year until 1997. With even this hope now virtually halved, his solution is to bemoan that the level of growth necessary is "clearly not feasible" and hope that a spot of crystal ball gazing about the jobless figures will at least allow him to claim, in future, that he was right about something.

As far as employment creation and the prosperity of the Irish economy was concerned, Maastricht was and remains inadequate. We transferred some limited policy instruments which we still had at national level without having put any mechanisms in place at European level to replace them. In spite of several opportunities since then, Europe has shown itself unable or unwilling to take any steps to overcome these defects. It remains obsessed with fighting inflation and maintaining the inherently deflationary convergence terms set for European Monetary Union; it refuses to countenance the sort of industrial policy which could enhance the competitiveness of European manufacturing and promote a more equal development of the high value-added, high technology industry and research and development throughout all the regions of the Community; and, it has shown itself to be completely out of its depth when member state currencies come under attack from the financial markets.

There is little point in trying to outbid one another in forecasting increases in the jobless or in passing the blame onto "Europe", particularly by those who did not voice their disagreement and propose an alternative when the present policies were being negotiated. Neither, however, can we sit wringing our hands as the jobless figures climb without attempting to do something about it. The starting point must surely be that if Europe is unable or unprepared to take the sort of steps necessary to generate recovery, then we must give early and serious consideration to reclaiming what policy instruments we can to at least cushion our own citizens against the worst effects of recession.

Looking to the slightly longer term, the EC Treaties are due for revision in 1996, if Maastricht is eventually ratified, which, despite the hopes of the Government, is not certain at this point. This Parliament should learn from experience, that is, its complete exclusion from the negotiations which led up to Maastricht. Similarly the other member states and EC institutions must recognise that never again can the future of European union and its citizens be negotiated in the secretive, remote and technocratic fashion which characterised the process and the outcome of the most recent Treaty revision. Starting with this House, developments to date give little grounds for optimism that these lessons have been learnt.

We still do not have a European Affairs Committee, much less one which would have the authority, capacity and resources to oversee European legislation and policy formation from its initiation right through to its conclusion. The present Coalition, notwithstanding all the blather about ethics, transparency and democracy, proposes to let us have a sub-committee of the International Affairs Committee, which seems about as likely as its ineffectual predecessor to know of, much less influence, developments in Europe. Post hoc debates about legislation or treaties which cannot be amended are a farcical waste of time and energy.

For some time the 20 chambers of the Parliaments of the 12 member states of the Community have had a body specialising in European Affairs. None has had terms of reference as restrictive as our former Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation and in no case is the European Affairs Committee a sub-committee of any other committee, as is envisaged in the present Government proposals. For some time the various European Affairs Committees meet twice yearly within the framework of COSAC — Conference of bodies Specialising in Community Affairs — with a delegation from the European Parliament's Institutional Affairs Committee. On learning recently of the intention of this House to have only a subcommittee for European affairs they expressed amazement and are, I understand, considering a suggestion to exclude from participation in COSAC anything other than a full parliamentary committee.

A Congress or, as it has been called in the past, Assizes of the 13 Parliaments — 12 national Parliaments plus the European Parliament — of the European Community along the lines of that held in Rome in December 1990 is scheduled to take place in Brussels next November, where it will be hosted by the Belgian Parliament. On 28 May next the Presidents of the national Parliaments are scheduled to meet here in Dublin to do preparatory work for those Assizes. As things stand, given the absence of any preparation by this House and the nonexistence of any committee to first of all inform itself of pending developments and then co-ordinate the responses of Members, this Parliament will be unrepresented at this preparatory meeting other than by the mute physical presence of the Ceann Comhairle. On previous occasions, and through no fault of his own, when asked for the position of the Irish Parliament on particular issues the Leader or Speaker of this House has been forced to explain that he was not in a position to communicate their, as yet, unformed views, or, as the Sunday World might more succinctly put it: “He made his excuses and left”. This is not good enough.

Even at this late stage we should recognise the absolute necessity of having a fully-fledged European Affairs Committee with the authority and resources to carry out three fundamental tasks: to monitor and oversee all European legislation, from the prelegislative consultative stage right through to its adoption, and to provide a channel of communication and co-ordination for Irish representatives in the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the various consultative committees which have been established to advise the European Commission; to supervise and receive detailed reports back from the Irish representatives in the Council of Ministers, the most powerful and secretive of the EC institutions, and to prepare the position of this House, following a thorough public debate, for the future revision of the EC Treaties, which is due in 1996 and on which most other forward looking Parliaments are already working.

We should acknowledge that most of us are little better informed about the detailed workings of the European Community than the average citizen. Being deluged with obscure legislative texts and invited to comment once in a blue moon is no remedy. We should establish a research and information unit, either as part of the Dáil Secretariat or in conjunction with the information offices of the European Parliament and European Commission, who would be charged with producing in an intelligible format a regular summary of legislative developments in the Community. It should be distributed on a weekly or bi-monthly basis and should, in particular, report on proposals at the pre-legislative stage while providing updates on progress as legislation passes through the European Parliament to adoption in the Council of Ministers. Such information would facilitate those who have an interest in a particular topic in investigating further and, in conjunction with a proper committee structure, would be worth dozens of sterile and pointless debates such as this. Furthermore, if circulated to the news media and interested community organisations, it might prompt coverage of something other than the demise of the national sausage and how big the next Brussels handout will be.

Whether or not the Maastricht Treaty is finalised, another phase in the development of European Union is about to commence with the forthcoming Treaty revision and the expansion to include the EFTA countries. This Parliament must be much better prepared and must make a more vocal and constructive contribution than we were allowed to make on the last occasion.

In the few minutes remaining I want to deal with one or two other points in relation to Europe. Northern Ireland, as part of the European Community, is at least as important in terms of achieving peace as is the former Yugoslavia, or the former Soviet Union in terms of maintaining it. I made a contribution here yesterday which I felt was a constructive one. I gave an analysis of how I saw the problems there and made suggestions as to how they might be dealt with. For my pains I was attacked by a number of Deputies from the Government parties. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, simply dismissed out of hand the remarks I made. Because I said we should acknowledge that it is neither feasible nor desirable to seek to get rid of the political border, because I stepped outside the traditional view of how the problems on this island can be solved, she said my views should not be considered. Deputy Dermot Ahern sought, in an indirect way, to link me with illegal activities, which he acknowledged privately afterwards he knew to be untrue. The most serious allegations were made by Deputy Michael Bell when he said, and I quote——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind the Deputy that he has just one minute remaining.

Proinsias De Rossa

Perhaps then I should omit what Deputy Bell said in the Dáil yesterday and quote what he said on RTE, as reported in an article in The Irish Times of 31 July 1991:

Mr. Bell, who is TD for Louth, said that people like Ms. Paisley, a daughter of the DUP leader, the Rev. Ian Paisley, should return to Britain "where they belong".

Speaking on RTE Radio One, he said it was people like Ms. Paisley "who have this country the way it is. The only way this country will be united and be at peace is when people like her return to Britain."

He denied he was suggesting that one million Protestants should leave this island, but said Ms. Paisley represented those who had illegally taken Irish land. "They are not Irish people, they have given their allegiance to the British crown", he said.

Mr. Connor

The Deputy was at one time in the Fianna Fáil Party.

Proinsias De Rossa

Deputy Bell attempted to say here yesterday that that is not what he said. In my contribution yesterday I accurately attributed those remarks to him. The Deputy proceeded to state categorically that while he was defending this State in 1969-70, leading Irish troops, I was leading troops who were blowing up railway lines. That is a gross and total falsehood and the Deputy knows it to be so. I was not active politically or otherwise in 1969-70 other than in supporting the civil rights campaign. It is to grossly misuse the privilege of this House for a Deputy to stand up here and seek to besmirch my name and to attribute to me illegal activity in which I was never engaged. I was never a member of the Provisional IRA or of the Official IRA. I have never carried or fired a gun. I have never carried a bomb or set off a bomb. I want every Deputy in this House to be aware of that and that I will no longer allow my name to be dragged in the mud in this way.

Mr. Lenihan

I welcome the contribution of the Minister, Deputy Kitt, in introducing the debate, where he emphasised the political aspects of the European Community. We often tend to forget that the main thrust of the European Community is political and that the motivation behind the establishment of the Community was political, to ensure peace within Europe as far as possible. This has been achieved through the development of the Community into what is now an anchor of political stability in the world. The main objective of the founding fathers of the Community has been achieved within the context of the Twelve. European political co-operation is designed to ensure that in international affairs the Community continues to actively promote the democratic ethos of the Community with regard to human freedom and the social market throughout the world.

The emphasis of the European Community must be on Europe. We often tend to equate the European Community with Europe, although it relates to only 12 countries of Europe. The Community is to be enlarged with the addition of Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway, to be followed before the end of the decade by Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. I know enlargement creates problems but it is important. The political thrust of the Community demands that it be widened into a greater European federation. The European union is a step from a confederation of European states towards a federation of Europe. It is important, having regard to conditions in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Balkans that that anchor of stability represented by European union is maintained and strengthened.

The Programme for a Partnership Government emphasises the need to develop the CSCE as a pan-European forum. The CSCE is a very important European organisation. It was the first such organisation devised by people like Willy Brandt and others in 1975 to develop a broader European framework than the Community itself. It still represents the hopes and aspirations of those who want to see a broader Europe able to control all of the Continent in terms of security against fear and terrorism. The CSCE needs to be strengthened, and the European Community linked to the CSCE should be able to establish a more positive attitude to problems on the frontiers of the present Community in Yugoslavia and the problems that might arise in the old Soviet Union. Some of these problems are there to some extent already in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Tadjikistan and are compounded by the presence of nuclear weapons and the danger of their proliferation in some states of the old Soviet Union like Kazakhstan, the Ukraine and Belarus. In this area we need to get security and arms under control to prevent a repetition of the horror of Yugoslavia throughout the whole of Eastern Europe. What has happened in Yugoslavia is so horrific as to emphasise the importance of developing the CSCE in a meaningful way. Progress in that direction has been made by the Paris Summit of 1990 and the Helsinki Summit of 1992. The CSCE now has greater strength to be used by the Community in providing the necessary security apparatus to deal with the problems.

The enlargement process which will bring in countries with a similar attitude as ours towards collective security, countries such as Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, is a good thing. We have taken part in collective security by actively participating in CSCE since its formation in 1975, and through the UN in our contribution towards peace-keeping. Peace-keeping in Eastern Europe may shortly have to develop into peace enforcement. That is one of the hard realities at which we must look and we must be willing to take our part in this.

Mr. Cox

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lenihan

The old notions of defence and military neutrality which we rightly adopted over the years, were all developed in the context of a confrontation in Europe between NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact countries on the other. We are now in a new situation in which we require collective security in Europe as a whole. European Community as an integral part of the Continent must play a positive role in the context of CSCE and the UN. That is why the Owen-Vance plan is directly in line with my thinking. I am glad to see that Irish personnel are playing their role with the UN in Yugoslavia along with a number of other countries. The Vance-Owen plan represents the only possible plan with regard to Bosnia. To enforce something we must have a plan. We cannot talk idly about peace enforcement if we do not have a settlement to enforce. The Bosnian Croats and the Muslims are now agreed and the Serbs seem to be coming around. If a definitive settlement is agreed we can have peace enforcement. This plan is a microcosm of the combined approach between the Community, CSCE and the UN which I envisage with regard to Europe as a whole in the event of serious internal troubles elsewhere within Eastern Europe. From the point of view of the world as a whole Europe, including the old Soviet Union, must hold together. This goes back to the thesis of Willy Brandt in his North-South publication in the seventies suggesting that it is out of the prosperity of the northern hemisphere that economic growth can be generated in the rest of the world. There is no hope for the rest of the world to generate the economic growth which is required to alleviate malnutrition and prevent deaths arising from starvation, and other causes, until the engine, as represented by the northern hemisphere and particularly by Europe, is geared up.

I turn now to another area, South Africa, where similar progress can be achieved in the context of political co-operation. I welcome the very real moves being made towards stabilising public affairs in South Africa. Credit is due to the two leaders, Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandella, and other leaders such as Mr. Ramaposa on the ANC side and leaders associated with Mr. de Klerk in achieving a consensus towards having an interim partnership government. If that is done South Africa can provide the type of engine of growth in Africa as a whole which exists in Europe at present through the European Community. This brings me to a point raised by Deputies Cox and Hogan, that, ultimately, the political progress we desire whether in Europe or around the globe, in South Africa and elsewhere, can be stimulated only by economic growth. It is very difficult to maintain the tempo and the spirit of political development towards global peace while unrest is caused by lack of economic growth and high unemployment.

The lack of economic growth reflects the major problem facing the Community at present which is the high unemployment rate. This, allied to the need for an improvement of the decision-making process will be highlighted by enlargement when further countries are involved, and institutional problems will be created in regard to decision making. What is required is the combination of effective decision making and economic leadership. The difficulties of achieving that in an enlarged Community are very real and so far have not been fully addressed. The institutional problem of providing for greater decision-making is the single biggest problem facing the Community. That does not require remedies such as those referred to by Deputy De Rossa of more committees and more investigations. The main institution to which we should continue to adhere is the Commission which is the central decision-making body within the Community and it must be maintained. I know there are difficulties — I shall refer to them later — in regard to the information deficit but that can be met in another way through the Foreign Affairs Committee which it is proposed to establish. We should never lose sight of the fact that the Commission is a unique creation and represents the one area within the Community where decisions can be made, where treaties can be adhered to and the philosophy of the Community can be developed.

I support the point made by Deputy Cox in regard to maintaining Community solidarity provided the decision-making process is improved — I say this openly — by a greater use of the qualified majority system. That is one way of getting the decision-making process to work, otherwise the whole system would break down. That is one improvement that is required. The balance as between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council is not bad if the decision-making aspect could be improved. I am totally opposed to any erosion of the Commission's authority and function.

The one organisation that works reasonably well in the Community is the Commission, particularly for smaller countries such as Ireland. Following the enlargement, that will be even more important because countries of a similar size to Ireland such as Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary will all have their own philosophies, and political approach, much of which we would agree with in the area of collective security. This will add to the difficulties of the Community unless there is a decision-making central focus which can only be through the Commission. In that context the Commission should be strengthened. There is no point in talking about the Council of Ministers, and various parliamentary committees, because we want a central institution within the Community that can initiate and implement decisions. In this respect the Commission cannot be replaced. It is essential that that is said loud and clear because too often there is an irrational criticism of the Commission which is based on the fact that it is not a democratic institution, it does not have accountability which a democratic institution such as a parliament would have.

The Commission is a necessary institution provided it is balanced by national parliaments, governments, and the Council of Ministers — all democratic institutions. The central decision-making body — which the Commission represents — is the main hope for an enlarged Europe to have a more effective Commission to initiate and implement decisions. This came to light during the currency difficulties and the exchange rate problems in the latter part of last year and earlier this year. That points to the need for another central body — also referred to by Deputy Cox — a European central bank which is to be established under the Maastricht Treaty. The process of establishing a European central bank should not be delayed. A European bank would pool reserves, get into the money markets and seek control and regulation of them. That important item should be accelerated.

I agree with Deputy Cox on the danger of creeping inter-governmentalism. I understand ex-Commissioner Sutherland's impatience with the disintegration in the monetary process which took place during the past four or five months and which, happily, has been arrested, with the inflow of funds and the lowering of interest rates. Until we have a European central bank, a single currency and the full implementation of European Monetary Union, which, on the Maastricht target, will be 1 January 1997 and, perhaps, 1 January 1999, we will not have stability. That long timescale carries the risk of another outbreak of currency uncertainty and exchange control troubles such as we have experienced.

Far from what Deputy De Rossa said, the Maastricht Treaty process must be accelerated and developed and the sooner the other countries that have not ratified do so the better. So far as Ireland is concerned it is imperative that the Maastricht Treaty is fully implemented because it is fairly well fine tuned for our purposes. Criticism has been made by Deputy De Rossa of the manner in which the Maastricht Treaty was initiated. We could have all sorts of criticism on the information deficit aspect, lack of knowledge by the public of it and so on. As a Treaty instrument it is well tuned to our circumstances and carries within it the basis of a national development plan, which has been referred to here and which we could not dream of carrying out were it not for the Structural and Cohesion funds which will be available under that plan. Already this year we have an increase in capital investment of £500 million, mainly for infrastructural purposes. That would not be possible without the Cohesion and Structural funds envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty.

Maastricht tends to come under a great deal of criticism but in my view the Maastricht Treaty should be ratified as quickly as possible. It has received a considerable jolting from Britain's withdrawal from the EMS, a decision that will continue to create problems for us. We must have an acceleration of the Maastricht process towards economic and monetary union, but acceleration on a full basis of Community solidarity and not on the basis of an intergovernmental approach that could create many difficulties. The adoption of an intergovernmental approach would diminish the power of the Commission to implement treaties for the benefit of smaller countries. Larger countries in the Community could form a type of intergovernmental club which over a period of time come to disregard the interests of smaller countries, who are ideally suited to Maastricht, a follow on from the Treaty of Rome. Economic and monetary union must be brought about as quickly as possible. I disagree with the period of delay between now and 1997-99, a period which will be fraught with the danger of further speculative possibilities.

The establishment of a European central bank must be a top priority. Such an institution would supervise and control the monetary scene and have a role similar to that played by the Commission in supervising the administrative, political and economic scene at present.

I would like to refer to Deputy Hogan's contribution. There has been a serious lack of information in this area; we must inform the public of the benefits of Maastricht. I support the Maastricht process and the Commission but the public have been misinformed on those two areas. We must remedy that; people here and throughout Europe should be properly informed and I hope the new Foreign Affairs Committee will play a role in that regard. There must be a consensus here that Maastricht is in our interest. Politicians in all parties must convince the public that this represents a real chance for Ireland to operate fully in the process initiated at Maastricht and move towards economic and monetary union and a single currency as quickly as possible to facilitate the development of trade which will sustain growth.

Mr. Connor

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I have been impressed by many of the contributions thus far. While the Minister made an impressive speech in regard to the role of the European Community in the world, I am somewhat disappointed that he did not analyse the present difficulties in the Community. I will endeavour to address those difficulties in my contribution because pre-eminently they are the problems we will face as a member of the Community and, therefore, we should play our role in resolving them.

I would contrast many of the views expressed today on the role of the European Community with what the Taoiseach said yesterday in regard to Northern Ireland. He referred to Éamon de Valera's speech to a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in 1932 at which he stated that the Unionists should see their lot with the people down here rather than with strangers. Of course, the strangers referred to were the British and I do not believe the Taoiseach was speaking in the context of 1932, but rather expressing his own feelings and using that term in the context of 1993. That is not the type of rhetoric we should be using in the European Community. Although we have ethnic differences here — certainly in Northern Ireland — that type of language simply feeds the ethnic conflict that is rampant in the former Yugoslavia and some of the former states of the Soviet Union. If the Taoiseach was trying to address his constituents in Longford and Roscommon, a constituency I share with him, he should not use such rhetoric. The people in that constituency do not want to hear that type of base appeal.

I played a major role in the lead-up to the Maastricht referendum last year. I was a regional director of elections and was very enthusiastic about the whole process. That enthusiasm has not been blunted, but I would like to voice some criticisms. In the lead-up to the Maastricht referendum three words became very popular — convergence, solidarity and cohesion. Those words were used regularly in the campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum. The principle of convergence is important for us because of our distance from the stronger European economies with whom we must converge in order to participate fully in economic and monetary union by 1997 and 1998. We expected some assistance in that regard because of our weak economy. However, in Community terms, we have received little assistance and the clearest manifestation of that was from the time our currency came under pressure from the speculators last autumn until we were forced to devalue early this year. We received little assistance from our stronger community partners to help stave off the inevitability of devaluation. The fundamentals of this economy were sound and strong enough to maintain the value of our currency, but at the end of the day the speculators won because of a lack of the principles of convergence which are supposed to operate within the Community. In other words, those Community partners who were in a position to converge around us to ensure we could withstand a major challenge from the speculators did not do so. We are not alone in this, the British have had to withdraw from the European Monetary System.

If those who opposed Maastricht a year ago had been able to predict the withdrawal of Britain and Italy from the European Monetary System and that the Portuguese and Spanish, like ourselves, would have been forced to devalue, our arguments would have been greatly attenuated because they were based on the virtues of convergence. I am not saying that this has dampened my enthusiasm for the European ideal, but our experience in the past year has been that we, as a smaller member of the Community, did not receive practical help in regard to the principles of convergence which were referred to extensively in the lead up to the Maastricht referendum.

Similarly, the words "solidarity" and "cohesion" are interlinked. If there was greater Community solidarity, Ireland, Spain and Portugal would not have had to devalue their currencies and the British and Italians would not have been forced to leave the EMS. There has been a breakdown of political will. When the economic difficulties began to get worse, all member states saw the solution of their domestic problems as the greater priority. That may be a natural reaction, but I submit that member states should not regard the solution of their domestic economic difficulties as a greater priority than the solution of the difficulties of the Community as a whole.

The Community is not in a very good position at present vis-à-vis its major partners-competitors, the United States of America and Japan. As Deputy Cox said, growth in the Community this year will be less than 1 per cent and unemployment will reach a level of 11 per cent, or some 18 to 20 million unemployed. The level of unemployment in the Community this year will be the highest in its history. All the indicators, whether in relation to inflation, growth or unemployment, show that the European Community will be in a worse position this year vis-à-vis its competitors—unless we can call them partners-competitors — Japan and the United States.

This makes the case for greater convergence and solidarity among member states. By this I mean that our Ministers should be pointing out at meetings of the Council of Ministers the necessity for the Community to make unity a priority at this time. One of the absolute duties placed on us by the Maastricht Treaty, which the people of Ireland have ratified, is that we work towards achieving greater European union. This means that we have to cast aside many of our old attitudes and in many instances act in different ways. I often find that we do not recognise the need to play our part in bringing about a greater awareness of the importance of solidarity and of making a contribution towards unity and cohesion within the Community so as to ensure that every member state will have played a full role and made a contribution towards full European unity by the year 2000. I have no difficulty at all with casting aside some of our nationalism and pooling our sovereignty with that of our fellow member states. I see nothing wrong with the concept of a united states of Europe similar to the United States of America. It is very important that member states have a feeling of belonging to the Community and that they make a contribution.

This brings me to the issue of cohesion within the Community. A nation state has to feel that it is a cohesive partner in the Community. Regions of countries have to feel they are a cohesive part of the Community. Ordinary individuals must feel they are a cohesive part of the Community. Here I have to be critical of our Government. The Commission and the Community are full of good intentions towards member states — they want to promote the principle of cohesion, they want individuals to be a cohesive part of the Community and they want regions within member states to feel they are a cohesive part of the Community. I find the Government lacking in its efforts to ensure that cohesion is applied throughout the State.

The national plan drawn up in 1989 clearly identified the western region — Counties Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Sligo and Leitrim — as having incomes which were 25 per cent less than the Community average and 15 per cent less than the national average. There are categories of people in those areas, small farmers and the unemployed, whose average income is 60 per cent less than the Community or national average. The aim of the Single European Act was to close the gap between the better off and the disadvantaged regions. We hoped that Community funds would be targeted towards disadvantaged regions so that the incomes of people living there would be brought more into line with the average throughout the Community. Alas, we have found after almost four years that this has not happened, as the funds have not been directed to those regions. The gap in incomes between the better off and disadvantaged regions is as great today as it was in 1989. If the gap has shifted at all, it has only done so to the detriment of the people living in disadvantaged regions.

As Deputy Cox said, the national plan for 1994-99 should not be presented in this House on a take it or leave it basis — we can discuss it but we cannot have any input into it and we cannot change it. I hope that a draft of the plan will be brought before this House so that we can discuss it at length and that the suggestions made, the essence of the workings of democracy, will be reflected in the final draft submitted to Brussels. The representatives of disadvantaged areas should have the opportunity to point out in this Chamber, which they were not allowed to do on the previous occasion, the major economic and social disparities which need to be addressed. We need to talk about these disparities and discuss them with the officials in Brussels. Above all, these disparities have to be taken into account in a national plan for the forthcoming tranche of Structural Funds, the much vaunted £8 billion.

I have known the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, for a long time, and he is a man of much understanding. He has a background in a part of the country to which I am referring. I ask the Minister to take on board the suggestion that this House be given an input into the formulation of the national plan. We cannot criticise the democratic deficit which exists in the European Community if we do nothing about the major democratic deficit which exists in our own country. It is important from the point of view of history and social and economic development that we address this democratic deficit. I sincerely hope that we will be given the opportunity to have an input into the formulation of the national plan.

The Minister dealt at length, as did Deputy Lenihan, with the European Community and how it relates to the outside world, particularly to our immediate neighbours. The Minister painted a glowing picture of the role the European Community has played in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and so on. I disagree with the Minister. I have found that we are always slow to react when there is a problem on our doorstep. The civil war in Yugoslavia had become a full blown bloody war before the EC noticed that it was taking place. President Mitterrand's leaving a European Council meeting and doing his own thing by going to Yugoslavia — and almost getting himself killed in the process — did not present to the outside world a picture of coherence or of the European Community acting together. At the Council meeting there was a German view of Yugoslavia and a French view of the problems in Yugoslavia. I am sure there was an Irish view offered which would be somewhat at variance with the views offered by others; but there was certainly a failure to act. We let them get on with the killing in the hope that when they had killed enough people and blown their world apart they would eventually realise that what they were doing was wrong; but we would keep advising them and talking to them. I submit that more than that needs to be done.

We are, perhaps, seeing the genesis of another world upheaval in what is happening in the Soviet Union. Some of his predecessors would not say it, but I welcome President Clinton's saying, as he departed to meet President Yeltsin somewhere in Canada today, that solving the problems of the Soviet Union is paramount if we are to have peace in the world and that the United States of America and its partners — and I take it he meant his partners in the European Community — would have to play a role in ensuring that the reforms President Yeltsin and his predecessors are trying to effect in the Soviet Union are supported by assisting that country economically. That will mean every one of us making sacrifices. However, it is a short-term sacrifice. We must all make investments in our future, and we must invest in stability in one of the greatest land masses in the world which is, broadly speaking, part of the European family.

Ireland should ensure that it is a part of that effort by participating in the European Councils. We should not be afraid to say that sacrifices must be made in terms of what we may have to forego in our own spending in order to transfer resources to the Soviet Union by way of interest free loans, direct grant aid, etc. We must ensure that it is done. Five years ago, when one travelled across that closed off bloc, so much of which seemed so nightmarish once one went beyond the Ural mountains, one could not have envisaged the enormous changes that have taken place in a few years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute.

Mr. Connor

That is a pity, because I feel I have only started.

We must never lose sight of our responsibility to the world beyond us. Charles de Gaulle used to talk about a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Perhaps a part of that Europe might even go beyond the Urals. This is a time for statesmanship, a time for leadership. We have heard some very high flown words from the Minister about that aspect of Community activity. But, as one who closely watches events unfolding in the European Community and in the world, I am not satisfied that we react appropriately or adequately, particularly to events on our own doorstep. In that regard history will not be kind to us in the future.

Dr. Upton

I would like to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Broughan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Upton

As Deputy Lenihan said, the idea behind the formation of the European Community was a very worthwhile one. The intentions of the founding fathers of the European Community were honourable and wholesome, and we should not forget that. The idea that we should put an end to war in Europe is still worth reiterating, regardless of the difficulties faced by the European Community, and the problems in Eastern Europe re-emphasise that. The war in Yugoslavia presents an enormous challenge in the context of integrating that part of Europe into the broader Community.

The proposals for the enlargement of the Community are encouraging from our point of view. The inclusion of the Scandinavian countries and Austria in the Community is very welcome from an Irish perspective because many of these countries share our objectives, particularly in regard to neutrality, and this will strengthen our position within the Community.

Yesterday's High Court decision illustrates a very important aspect of our approach to Europe. In many ways we take the European Community for granted and simply graft European laws and directives onto our Irish legislation, with very little debate or input other than by small lobby groups who may be affected by them. Apart from that there is no widespread debate. It is useful, however, that the High Court has focused attention on that reality. Regardless of the outcome when it is appealed to the Supreme Court, it illustrates very clearly the need for us to take enactment of European legislation in this country much more seriously than we have done in the past number of years. It would be of benefit to us all if that legislation were scrutinised to a far greater extent than it is now, if for no other reason than that the wider public would gain some understanding of the law now operating here which is produced in Europe.

Deputies Hogan and Lenihan drew attention to the fact that there seems to be an enormous deficit in the communication of European ideas to the wider Irish public. Many European issues are simply ignored here. There was little debate on the Maastricht Treaty until just a few weeks prior to the referendum. Before that this matter made no impact on the public mind, despite the enormity of what was at stake.

I feel also that we pay little attention to generating new ideas and contributing to the debate in Europe. Our main interest in Europe seems to be to try to get what we can out of it without coming up with any ideas which might shape the overall development of the Community. In addition the Europeans have to some extent an inability to understand the Irish and vice versa. My own perception of the Europeans is that, broadly speaking, they say what they mean and mean what they say. That, of course, is not true of many Irish people. Many Irish people when they talk expect one to work out what they have been saying through a process of deduction and getting to the root of what has been said.

Mr. Dukes

Labour Party Deputies are experts at that these days, I must say.

Dr. Upton

The Labour Party does not have a monopoly on that at all; there are wonderful precedents from many different areas. I do not intend to waste my time going into the finer details of that now. In many ways that is part of the Irish condition and the disease is not at all confined to the Labour Party.

I find the manner in which the Europeans try to communicate their ideas very turgid and heavy going. Even documentation from Europe is badly presented, difficult to understand and uses a form of language quite alien to the average person. I sincerely hope that something might be done about that. There should be an easily understood synopsis of what is being proposed, rather than a supply of heavy documents that suffer greatly through the process of translation.

The recent currency crisis provided some fairly unpleasant lessons to be learnt by all of us in relation to the amount of support received by Ireland at that time. In many ways perhaps we were all a little foolish in not giving enough attention to the conflict between sterling and the forces being pushed from Europe. The outcome of that conflict is now clear and it is clear which forces prevailed. I would like to make one point about the way in which the Irish currency was defended and the amount that that cost. We have set for ourselves a first priority of defending jobs and solving unemployment. I therefore find it hard to understand the reason Ireland persisted in defending our currency to such a great extent. Undoubtedly, such a strong defence of the currency resulted in job losses. The defence of our currency seemed to finally cave in when it became obvious that an enormous number of further jobs would be lost if the policy started out on was persisted.

Certainly some of the recent Common Agricultural Policy reforms are to be welcomed inasmuch as they provide new opportunities for the development of our food industry. The older forms of the Common Agricultural Policy militated against the development of the Irish food industry, which is regrettable for many reasons. Ireland still has a very much underdeveloped food industry and we should all pay much greater attention to the development of that industry. It is imperative that Ireland now moves as rapidly as possible in this regard to ensure that firms involved in our food industry have the capacity to develop their own products and to market those products into and beyond Europe. Unless it is possible to consolidate the Irish food industry into firms that have turnovers in excess of £2 billion and £3 billion, that industry will be unable to make a sufficiently strong impact on European markets. I hope that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry considers this development to be a matter of priority. Development of the food industry here should be an overwhelming consideration in positions taken by our Minister in both European and national developments. At present some of our food firms have come close to the necessary level of consolidation. For example, I understand that Avonmore now has a turnover of about £1 billion. If the Irish food industry in general does not achieve the necessary consolidation we will continue to be at the mercy of those who own the European outlets, which would be very undesirable for Ireland in the longer term.

It might do no harm for us to remind ourselves that the Irish make up 1 per cent of the European population. With the expansion of the European Community, Ireland will make up even less than 1 per cent of the population. Our country is a very small segment of the European Community. It seems that at times we have rather grand ideas and then at other times we lose all interest in Europe. I wish that we could be a little more pragmatic in trying to do what can be done and in setting ourselves clearly focused, attainable objectives.

Mr. Broughan

I echo the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Upton, in relation to the events taking place next Monday. It is appropriate that the House is hearing statements on European affairs today, with Sweden, Norway, Finland and Austria on Monday beginning formal negotiations for entry to the European Community. With open arms I welcome those countries to the Community, along with probably all other Members in the House. We share with those nations that, it is hoped, will join the EC in the next few years many deep aspirations in relation to foreign policy, social legislation and job creation. We from the social democratic side of the House — and I note that there is a Labour Party Minister in the Chamber at present — are proud that the four nations about to begin negotiations for entry to the EC are nations that have great social democratic traditions. In Sweden, for instance, the Labour Party has been in power for about 50 years and has a legacy of enormous social achievement. We will be glad to have the company of those states in formulating the future common foreign policy of Europe.

I regret that there is such limited time provided for discussion of important documents in the House. The remit for this debate was for Members to discuss five or six European Community development reports, dating back to 1988. I recognise that there will be a new committee system, but it still seems very remiss that the House has such a tiny amount of time devoted to issues so vital to our national wellbeing. I hope that in the future much more time will be devoted to discussions on Europe. I recently had the honour, along with Deputy Eoin Ryan and Deputy De Rossa, to welcome, on behalf of the House, Herr Egon Klepsch, the President of the European Parliament. We held interesting bilateral discussions about many issues, including foreign policy and the relationship between this House and the European Parliament. Dr. Klepsch seemed to indicate that when the new subcommittees of this House are in action they could have a close and ongoing relationship with the committees of the European Parliament. If Dr. Klepsch is serious about that — he seemed to be; and perhaps provision is made for this under the Maastricht Treaty — it is a development that should be welcomed. I recognise that Dr. Klepsch has organised meetings of the Parliaments of the European Parliament, but it is clear that there is a need for much closer liaison between this House and all the other Parliaments of the Community and the European Parliament itself.

When the committee of the regions is formulated it is my hope that it will have a democratic input. It is important that we do not provide for representation of the regions of Ireland by civil servants. I speak particularly for the region that I try to lead, a Dublin region, when I ask that the nine regions be directly represented on the new committee of the regions.

I welcome the attempts under the Maastricht Treaty to deal with the democratic deficit and the provision for increased co-decision. It seems to me that the mess that Europe got into over the Maastricht Treaty goes back to the Community itself. I recently visited the European Parliament and attended a meeting of the Socialist Confederation. At that meeting Jacques Delores frankly admitted that to some extent the blame for what happened in the Maastricht Treaty process could be laid at his door and at the door of the European Commission. He talked of the lack of democracy and the lack of respect for subsidiarity in the Commission process. Jacques Delors seems to feel that he has learnt from that experience that the Community can now go on in a much more democratic manner.

I hope that the cohesion process will be advanced by this Government. Even though we have been assured, by way of a recent press release by our colleagues in the European Parliament and the EC office in Molesworth Street, that our GDP is now 72 per cent or 73 per cent of the European average, we lag significantly behind. There is all the more reason for acceleration of the cohesion process. It is my hope that at future Summits we do not leave it to people like Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the brilliant Socialist leader of Spain. We should not leave it to people like him to fight our case, which he did in Edinburgh. The Taoiseach returned and said we got £8 billion but we must take off our hats to Gonzalez and the leaders of Portugal and Greece. We did not appear to be in there battling our case. Henceforth let us adopt a more active role within the EC.

On the matter of European monetary union I agree totally with Mr. Henning Christophersen of Denmark that we should not go for the two-track approach which could be disastrous generally and, in particular, in the forthcoming referendum to be held in Denmark. Despite the assurances they have been given, it appears likely that the Commission propose travelling two-speed. We should hold our nerve and proceed along the general lines agreed under the original Maastricht Treaty which has yet to be ratified. We should travel together at the same pace. There should not be one Europe comprised of highly developed states and another comprised of those not so developed.

In relation to common foreign and security policies there were many references today to events in Eastern Europe. I took up this matter with Herr Klepsch, the President of the European Parliament. In the overall holocaust which has become Yugoslavia — on which we had a discussion here yesterday — Bosnia should be a terrible warning of what could happen in our country. The holocaust in Yugoslavia was precipitated by some European states unilaterally recognising Slovenia, then Croatia and putting pressure on the detritus of the Yugoslav Confederation. It was so ironic to read reports in yesterday's papers of ordinary Bosnian-Serb soldiers being convicted of mass rapes and murders, yet we know that the president of Serbia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, is the person who should be arraigned before a war crimes tribunal and tried for some of the greatest crimes committed against humanity in this century. Europe did not help in the terrible difficult process which followed the fall of the Communist states in Yugoslavia. There should not be unilateral action on the part of European States in the future. It is essential that all European States, including ours and those applicant members who will join in the future, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, act together. It appears to me that those states do not fall far short of the kind of convergence criteria to be applied for their entry to the European Community.

I refer to the disaster vis-á-vis the GATT negotiations. I have not been happy with some reports in our media about former Commissioner Mac-Sharry's handling of the overall negotiations. It seems remarkable that we allowed events under the Uruguay Round to reach the point, the night before the United States presidential election, at which matters had to be discussed in hotel rooms. Perhaps there was some justification for Mr. Jacques Delors' request that, if former Commissioner MacSharry were to be reappointed, he would not be allocated the agriculture portfolio. At present it rests with Mr. M. Cantor and Mr. Leon Brittan.

It is crucial to many aspects of Irish life that these negotiations be successfully concluded. I refer briefly to the rag trade, the clothing industry where there have been intense representations about the multi-fibre agreement, its continuance, and the necessity for a certain amount of protection of vital Irish industry, particularly in areas such as County Donegal. In the fishing industry it is absolutely essential, that we take urgent action on the protection of minimum stocks of white fish. I represent our leading fishing port on the east coast, Howth, where there are many people involved in that industry. They are very alarmed at the collapse of negotiations vis-á-vis the price of white fish occasioned by illegal imports from non-EC and non-GATT countries. We are very anxious that the new Minister for the Marine and Defence, Deputy David Andrews, takes urgent action with regard to providing some support for fishing vessels and all the ancillary aspects of that industry.

Before concluding I might make a brief comment on the environment since the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Stagg, is present. One of the most interesting developments within the EC is that there is now a whole raft of legislation on the environment, on which I should like to spend some 20 minutes commenting at another time. There is a proposal, for example, to have an ECO audit of the whole Community, which I support and welcome. Then there is the new directive of 1991 on the management of waste, in which the Minister of State may be particularly interested. There is the signature of the Rio de Janeiro Convention on the ozone layer, a measure all of us applaud. Our awareness of the environment has been given an enormous boost through EC environmental policies.

I look forward to a Europe of the peoples, a Europe in which there is full, ongoing direct representation by all the member states. We should protect and defend the powers of the European Council, the one European body in which we are treated as equals. It is my hope that an amended Maastricht Treaty will be supported so that, in the late nineties, despite what my colleague said about our constituting only 1 per cent of overall population, Ireland will play a vital role, we have valuable input to make.

Mr. Dukes

I had hoped that today this House would be brought up-to-date on the principal issues confronting the European Community and the wider Europe of today and would have presented an opportunity for the Government to give us its view on these issues and for Members of the House to give their opinions on what should be Ireland's response and that of the Community. To my very great regret, the whole matter got off to a very bad start this morning by reason of the utterly bland and anodyne remarks of the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt.

I suppose, in a sense, we cannot blame the Minister of State because he simply regurgitates in the House a speech which has been prepared for him within the system, by our political and administrative culture. However, I think he should have exercised somewhat more judgment on the nature of the speech he would make. It has long been a fact that we seem here to have a political and administrative culture that produces speeches — indeed the speeches of the Taoiseach and Tanaiste yesterday on Northern Ireland were particularly good examples — that tend to conceal more than they reveal, that will do almost anything except talk about what are the issues, that present every issue in the rosiest possible light and which, at the end of the day, say nothing at all about how the Government perceives these issues, what is its thinking on them, what it might intend to do about these issues or to raise any of the controversies before us.

The remarks of the Minister of State gave no indication of the depth of the controversy between the European Community and the United States on the GATT. The Minister's speech totally ignored the tensions and pressures obtaining within the European Community on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. It avoided any mention whatsoever of the very dangerous disposition there is, in many parts of the European Community, to opt for a two-speed Europe in monetary affairs. It said nothing about the fact that the whole Maastricht process is now stalled — may even be terminally stalled — and what might be the serious implications of that. The kindest thing I could say about the Minister's speech was that it glossed over the fact that the European Community today, in the face of very difficult problems not too far away from its own borders, is in total disarray in the whole foreign policy area. It would be fair, even kind, to say that the Minister of State's speech consisted of nothing more than the most insipid pap propaganda, a soothing drone to keep the House quiet, to give us the impression that the Government knows what is going on; a recitation of meetings attended by the Minister of State, hither and yon, in El Salvador, Somalia and elsewhere, to give the impression of activity while the Government bungles its way through a succession of crises within the EC and momentous discussions for the people of our Community, without making the slightest impact on the problems.

I could not refrain from grinning when, after that speech this morning by the Minister of State in charge of European Affairs, I heard Deputy Upton, with a brass neck, talk about a communications deficit. If Deputy Upton is worried that there is a communications deficit would he, at one of the meetings which I gather backbenchers sometimes have with Ministers in the Government, ask them to say something real when they come into the House instead of the pat speech we heard from the Minister of State this morning which, as I said, was designed to keep the natives quiet while the wallahs get on with the real business. The last thing they want to do is to tell us what they are doing because much of the time they do not seem to have a clue about what they should be doing.

We can see the lack of determination on the Government's part in the area of agriculture in particular. The Government has stopped talking — Deputy Broughan mentioned this a few moments ago — about the row that is going on between the European Community and the United States of America over the GATT negotiations. The agreement that has been reached is already having the most profound effect on life in rural Ireland, on employment in our food industry and on the prospects for the future development of that industry.

Dr. Upton

What is the Deputy suggesting?

Mr. Dukes

We are now being restricted on every side by quotas while prices are being pulled down.

Dr. Upton

It is getting boring.

Mr. Dukes

Only last week, and Deputy Upton should know this as well as I do, we had a further——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

The Deputy seems to be inviting interruptions.

Mr. Dukes

I seem, Sir, to be provoking dyspepsia on those benches.

Mr. Stagg

That is because the Deputy has nothing to say.

Mr. Dukes

I have not started on the Minister of State yet.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy started on this line a long time ago and it did not work very well.

Mr. Dukes

As I was saying, only last week there was a further reduction in export refunds for dairy products. This is going to lead to serious marketing difficulties for our food industry not this month nor next but through the summer, autumn and winter.

What is happening while this sanctimonious stuff is being thrown at us by the United States about the need to free world trade and remove distortions? The answer is that the United States is encroaching further into markets on which our farmers, food industry and food industry workers rely for a living. The GATT talks, in what has been agreed so far and what is being implemented, represent the most unequal possible result as between the US and the EC. We are changing our agricultural policy radically and fundamentally not to suit the needs of the European Community but to suit the requirements of the United States. While this process is continuing the United States, unapologetically, is moving further into markets which it has priced us out of by its sanctimonious lecturing on the principles of freedom of trade, a concept which the US ignores in its domestic policy. The Government has stopped talking about all of this because it has thrown in the towel. What it should be doing is trying to put some backbone into the European Commission——

Dr. Upton

How can that be done?

Mr. Dukes

——to try to retrieve some of the damage which, as Deputy Broughan rightly said, was caused by the last commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry who, in the most ridiculous and uncalled for "cave-in", unilaterally caved-in to the Americans at Dromoland Castle in the month of August a couple of years ago by offering the first stage of cuts in the process giving the Americans the taste of blood and making it very clear to them that if they wanted more it was there to be got.

As I said, what the Government should be trying to do is to put some backbone into the Commission——

Dr. Upton

How can that be done?

Mr. Dukes

——to make it go back to negotiate. I will tell the Deputy how it can be done in a few moments. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry does not seem to know what the GATT negotiations are all about. All we get from him is the assurance that everything will be all right on the night, an amiable smile and nice platitudes in his presentation to the House.

There are problems in areas other than agriculture. Deputy Broughan mentioned the rag trade and before he leaves the House I would like to remind him that the rag trade in this country is more seriously at risk in the short term because of what his party did in the budget this year, not because of anything contained in the GATT agreement or in the multifibres arrangement. If Deputy Broughan and his friends are serious about doing something for the rag trade, before they start pontificating in this House about the multi-fibres arrangement, they should get after their Ministers about the Finance Bill which will be dealt with in a couple of months time. By the time that Finance Bill, as currently proposed, has been in operation for one year we will not have to worry about the multi-fibre arrangement or anything else in the GATT agreement because the Government will have killed the rag trade. The Deputy should chew on that and come back to the House when we are talking about the Finance Bill to tell us what he is doing instead of relying on the GATT negotiations.

Mr. Broughan

Would the Deputy agree that the rag trade should have made representations before the budget?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy to continue without interruption.

Mr. Dukes

We find that the Common Agricultural Policy reforms are biting more deeply every day. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has sold the pass in relation to intervention weights for beef. We have unnecessary limitations on premiums for beef cattle and suckler cows and there is no clarity in relation to the milk restructuring scheme. We do not know if the Commission will allow a subsidy to be paid here to allow smaller producers take part in the scheme or what the details of the scheme will be. Neither do we have any idea what the Minister is doing to claw back for our dairy farmers some of the 4.5 per cent cut in the milk quota they have suffered in recent years. This summer as we drive around the country on our lawful business we will see for the first time the beauty of the set aside scheme under which 15 per cent of our land area will be left idle as a result of these daft Common Agricultural Policy reforms with which we have been saddled.

There is perhaps one small gleam of hope on the horizon because in France — thank God — the socialists have been replaced and we now have a Government there which may reopen these issues and which may have the commitment to undo the worst effects of the European Community's "cave-in" to the United States on agriculture. I wonder if the Government has the slightest idea of trying to form an alliance with a French Government which has a different stamp from that of its predecessor and which might show a disposition to reopen these issues — the Common Agricultural Policy and the GATT.

This is an issue which the House should look at — that is real politics, an area in which we could have a real effect on what the European Community is doing but there was not a single word about that in the Minister of State's speech this morning. All we get is an amiable grinning silence which seems to be the normal posture of our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

Let me turn to the Maastricht Treaty. The process in that regard is stalled. I know that the ratification process is proceeding but, even if it is completed, as we all hope it will, it will be a dead letter unless a way is found to infuse new political life into the European integration process. There is no sense in trying to hide this. The dogs in the street know it. All of the Foreign Ministers of the European Community member states should know it but is our Government saying a word about it — not a chance. As far as the Minister of State who spoke here this morning is concerned, the ratification process is proceeding, we have great hopes that, finally, the Danes are going to change their minds and, after the new referendum, ratify the Treaty but there was not one word about the far deeper and fundamental malaise in the process.

I am not the only one who believes that what we need is another initiative, perhaps along the lines of the Dooge committee, to breath new life into the Single European Act process. There are people in other member states who see it like that. The Christian Democrat parties know it, many of the other parties in the European Parliament know it but our Government has not said a word about it. The Government does not seem to know that this approach now seems to be the only one that has a chance of rescuing the Maastricht Treaty process and getting European integration back on the rails.

There has been some discussion about the possible dangers of a two-speed Europe. It was either Deputy Broughan or Deputy Upton who mentioned it a few moments ago, and I was delighted to hear they were worried about it. That idea is fraught with great danger for the European enterprise and for us. In recent times I have been involved in meetings with political figures from other countries — including one of the main winners in the recent French election — and bankers and business people. A very seductive line is being peddled on a two-speed Europe in monetary affairs. The proposition being made is that if the countries which are in a position to do it now go ahead and do so, they will encourage all the others and they might — according to some — create the conditions for growth if they got the central monetary corps going and other member states would be then enabled to join, but they would have to conform to all the criteria.

I hold a different view. Quite simply, if we have a small corps of member states that go ahead with that part of the process, the very fact that they do that will relieve them of political responsibility to do the other things that are required to enable the other member states to come on board and to be part of the process. My fear is that if we have the establishment of a two-speed Europe — even on an allegedly temporary basis — we will see it rapidly becoming entrenched, it will become the norm for quite a long period and it will not be reversable.

I said earlier that the Community foreign policy is in disarray. One of the sad parts of the debate on events over the past three years is the reflection that if we had in operation the provisions of Title V of the Maastricht Treaty on a common foreign and security policy, the European Community would in fact have been in a far better position than it has been to respond to the events that started with the fall of the Berlin Wall and have led to the tragedies that we now see in the former Yugoslavia. We need that kind of provision now. I am becoming increasingly worried about what I hear from the Government. I am becoming increasingly depressed by it. I hear that the Labour Party is going back to the old religion on neutrality. My fear is that this will drive the Fianna Fáil Party back into its old conservatism. We hear individual members of the Fianna Fáil Party, including Deputy Lenihan from time to time, expressing very expansive views. When I hear the Tánaiste and some of his fellow party members saying the kind of thing the Labour Party has been saying lately about neutrality, it is a signal that they are going back into the old shell and we will see the fruits of that. Deputy Costello.

I say this without the slightest desire to make a narking political point but from a deep conviction and worry. We will see the result of that if and when the United States gets around to discussing the prospects for peace-enforcing rather than peace-keeping operations. We will then see the breast-beaters and the craw-thumpers in Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party who week after week bemoan the fact that the European Community and the United Nations do not seem to be able to deal with these problems. They will say in this Chamber that peace-enforcing conflicts with our neutrality and therefore we cannot be involved in it. They will be stepping back deliberately from the only prospect that the European Community——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. Dukes

How time flies, Sir.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Stagg)

It seemed long enough from over here.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister is in luck because this House seems to have this nonsensical disposition to believe with the Government that the less we say about problems the better. That is good Minister, for your skin, your hide and your comforts. There will be other opportunities.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has half a minute left.

Mr. Dukes

The final point I wish to make, and there is very little time to draw it out, is that the Minister of State made a very brief reference this morning to the situation in Somalia and I think he was referring to the Horn of Africa generally. We know now that even if tomorrow, peace and normal living conditions were restored in the Horn of Africa and in East Africa generally, it would be at least five years before ordinary commercial agriculture could go to meeting the food needs of those areas. We know they will have massive food deficits for the next five years and my plea is that the Government would try to get the European Community and others to start the process of planning for the kinds of food aid that will be required in those areas for at least the next five years. They will not get it wrong, the only thing they might do wrong is to underestimate the need. For God's sake, let us do it now and not leave it until the problem gets worse.

Because I have been provoked, I would like to know, Sir, if the Government parties have any real interest in this debate and I request you call for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Costello

The behaviour of the recently arrived Fine Gael Deputies contrasts very well with the somewhat unacceptable behaviour of their former party leader——

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy has not been here very long.

Mr. Costello

——in calling for a quorum immediately after he had spoken, with no regard for those waiting to speak.

Mr. Lenihan

It is highly egotistical of the Deputy to depart from the House after speaking.

Mr. Durkan

There are not many members of the junior partner present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us resume normal business. Deputy Costello, please, without interruption.

Mr. Costello

I hope I will get my full time. I am glad the decision was taken yesterday to extend the parameters of this debate to include not only the European Community but all of Europe. I am glad we are in the process of establishing a foreign affairs committee. It is sad that we never got round to doing so until now, despite the ever-increasing impact of foreign affairs, particularly European affairs, on this country in terms of the Single European Act and the developments that have taken place in the past number of years. It was extremely embarrassing this morning to hear that many hundreds of ministerial orders to implement aspects of EC legislation are likely to be deemed invalid because the proper procedures have not been adopted. I am quite sure that if a foreign affairs committee was in place that would not have arisen.

It seems that history has an unfortunate habit of repeating itself. We seem to have learned very little from the great disasters and conflicts of history. In this century alone there were two world wars which devastated Europe and other parts of the world. There was also a cold war which lasted more than half a century. Once again another conflict threatens to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is ironic that on the one hand we are working towards European unity within the European Community while on the other there are forces making European unity virtually impossible. It is a harsh reality that these wider forces are in the process of creating a new Europe, unlike that envisaged under the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. That is an alarming development. While the Treaty of Rome dates back to 1956, in the space of just a couple of years these new forces have had an impact far beyond the length of time they have been loose in the European and world forum. It is a race against time to unite the 12 member states and incorporate other states. I am glad to see that Sweden, Denmark and Finland are to begin negotiations next week to link the wider community of European nations.

We are losing the fight against time due to a number of unforeseen factors in the phasing in of the European Community process which have come upon us, suddenly assuming huge proportions, dominating the political and economic process in recent times. One factor relates to the former USSR. The Cold War came to an end and everybody was delighted. The sense of euphoria throughout the USSR, Europe and the world was immense. The period since 1917 has stunted any democratic development and any development experienced earlier by many other European countries towards nationalism. Many of the new States are reverting to the conditions prevailing in the Europe of the 19th century. They are going back 100 to 150 years to religious, ethnic and nationalist roots. Instead of a great leap forward to the 21st century, states are breaking up along the religious, ethnic and political lines that were part of the 19th century. This is more dangerous now because of the threat of nuclear conflict. The challenge to the former USSR, an empire that was ruled initially by the Czarist hegemony and then almost immediately by the Bolshevik hegemony, without the transition to democracy, is to move into the arena of democracy. This will test to an enormous degree the ability of the state, its people and the political system to transform.

Other than welcoming the end of the Cold War, the world community has not been very helpful in assisting the process of that democratisation and the open market economy that the former USSR is seeking to approach. Mr. Gorbachev, the architect of perestroika and glasnost, got cold comfort from the US and the G7 nations in terms of financial assistance in the transition period. Under the new leader, Yeltsin, there is enormous destabilisation which is extremely dangerous. I welcome President Clinton's remarks yesterday in relation to a recognition, albeit a late recognition, that Russia must be assisted and that it cannot be allowed to degenerate into political and economic chaos. I hope the President stands by that assertion and that we as a country with a lot of influence with the US and in the EC will use our good offices to push for immediate assistance to the former USSR to prevent further destabilisation and degeneration. In the former Yugoslavia we have a microcosm of what could happen in the former USSR. There the situation is horrific. Savage atrocities are taking place, the people have returned to basic fundamental instincts, the old elements of ethnicity, religious fundamentalism and nationalism are raising their heads. Ethnic cleansing and genocide is taking place, and Serbia is the main transgressor of human rights. For example, human rights organisations estimate that some 50,000 women have been raped, abused and impregnated deliberately by Serb fighters. Huge areas of Yugoslavia have been cleared of their non-Serb population and one million to two million people have been displaced and dispossessed deliberately. Thousands are reported to have been murdered. We have not offered very much assistance in the European Community, where different stances are being adopted by different countries. Recognition by Germany of Slovenia and Croatia has not assisted the process. The EC has stood idly by because of its disagreements as to what the position should be. Likewise, the United Nations has not been effective. The swift action taken by the United Nations to deal with the oil rich state of Kuwait by the United States-led UN force compares with the slowness of the response in relation to disintegration and destabilisation in the former Yugoslavia. We must be much more energetic in the role we play within both the United Nations and the European Community to bring about a speedy solution.

The EC is in a critical situation. The Maastricht process is stalled. The French passed the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty by a hair's breath; the Danes, according to the polls, are cooling off their support for the second referendum. The currency crisis had an enormously adverse impact. Within the Community one country after another was allowed to be picked off by the stronger members. There was no unity of purpose or action. This underlines the fact that emphasis was placed on monetary union to the detriment of proper social and economic integration. The emphasis was not put on eliminating the democratic deficit, unemployment or the social problems but on a narrow monetary union. Now that has all fallen asunder.

The other element which has intruded is the unification of East and West Germany. The Deutsche Mark and the ostmark have been united and West Germany has taken on enormous liabilities and is now much less disposed to funding European union. The new agenda for Germany incorporates a move towards the markets of the east and is no longer focused on Europe. That in itself is a whole new focus in terms of European unity.

Structural and Cohesion Funds are a once-off contribution and are extremely limited. If we are to eliminate the peripherality problems from which this country suffers — and will continue to suffer because we are an island — then a continuation mechanism should be built in. Once the money is spent we will have to face the harsh and cold reality of relying on our own limited resources. The money must be properly used but in terms of European defence neutrality is not an outdated concept. We have to look very closely at what replaces NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A substitute European army is not the way to go about it. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Switzerland have expressed an interest in joining the European Community and some are in the course of negotiation. Those countries have a long tradition of non-alignment. We must put together a new procedure for dealing with security, not simply a negative type of arrangement. We must examine how best we can co-operate and put in place new structures that will ensure our security but will not result in aggression. Any new structures must be devised in concert and in consultation with the United Nations.

I note Deputy Briscoe is in the House and I think it appropriate to refer to the periphery of the European Community in terms of the Middle East, Palestine and Israel. The Middle East has been a flash point of trouble in relation to the European Community. It is important that we encourage dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelies. There is much abuse of civil rights. There are many refugee camps in the Gaza Strip and a community of people who are not empowered to control their own affairs. We have a duty because of our particular relationship, our history and our traditions to assist in bringing together both those communities to provide structures and to put a Government in place that does not deny either the humanity or the civil rights of the other.

Mr. Dukes

When?

Mr. Briscoe

Here is a representative of the Irish people.

Mr. Costello

It is appropriate also in relation to Northern Ireland which is part of the European Community. As I did not have an opportunity to speak yesterday I should like to say a few words on Northern Ireland where the central issue is dialogue. The two pillars on which dialogue can be based, in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, are the categoric statements, first, that until such time as new structures are put in place the two sovereign Governments — the Republic and Britain — will be responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland and second, there shall be no unilateral change in the status of Northern Ireland unless and until the majority of the people in Northern Ireland are agreeable to it. That is the reason the present debate on Articles 2 and 3 are irrelevant and a red herring. That commitment in the Anglo-Irish Agreement not to have a unilateral change unless the majority of the people in Northern Ireland are agreeable to it covers the issue in practical terms.

We should have dialogue without any preconditions with all parties around the table. It would be much better if the people of violence were around the table rather than out in the cold and continuing with their violence. A political solution will not come about independently. It will come about only by the community will of both traditions in Northern Ireland to compromise and put in place other structures, such as an ecumenical and an educational approach. The two communities should be educated under the same system. The community can do a great deal of work on its own. I welcome the recent protests against violence and Senator Gordon Wilson's willingness to move the boat out a couple of yards in an effort to speak to the men of violence.

Our record in regard to asylum seekers is disgraceful. We have not put in place proper procedures or criteria for assessing a non-national's entitlement to asylum here. Now that we are members of a broader world community we must ensure that we fulfil our responsibilities in that context. We must show consideration for non-nationals at home as well as abroad. We have been very forthcoming in providing aid for the people of Somalia and other fellow human beings abroad, but if any of those people set foot on this little island of ours we would put them in prison or send them home on the first plane or boat leaving the country. They would not receive the consideration expected from a civilised Government. Therefore, we must ensure that the commitment in the programme for Government to put in place procedures to cater for asylum seekers is adhered to as soon as possible.

We should have a debate such as this more often and I have no doubt that will be the case when the new Committee on Foreign Affairs is set up. That committee will enable us to be much more informed about events in the wider world and to fulfil our role in a much more informed way in the future.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic regarding the developments in the European Community and European affairs generally. It is very disturbing that a Government with the largest majority in the history of this State is unable to maintain a quorum in order to further this discussion. There has been much talk today about the democratic deficit and the need for further information. If the Government cannot maintain a quorum when discussing an important topic such as this, it does not augur well for its interest in European affairs and the developments so badly needed for Europe at this critical time.

I will begin my remarks by addressing the issues of social rights, the development of a social charter and equal rights within a United Europe. For many people a contradiction exists between the idealism and hopes for the European Community and the record which clearly shows that Community policy has been concerned almost exclusively with economic developments. That contradiction exists because for many people the European Community has represented economic ups and downs. Many people do not see the EC as a positive force in the decisions that affect all areas of our lives. It is seen as being concerned with bureaucracy, structures, funds and systems rather than people, peace and improving living conditions and standards for workers. Such developments are possible within the European framework and I believe they will come in the years ahead.

When the European Community was established the expectations were to bring about permanent peace in Europe and to improve conditions and standards of living for workers. Within the European discussions so far there has been too narrow a definition of social policy and it has been linked too closely to the world of work. In social terms there are many problems within the Community, many inequalities between regions, extreme inequalities in the standards of living enjoyed by various European countries and, unfortunately, poverty and unemployment are increasing.

In many ways the social policy provision in the Maastricht Treaty was and should be a new beginning. Maastricht refers to the high level of employment and social protection that is needed. It refers also to raising the standard of living, improving the quality of life and to economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states. New phrases in Article 2 place a special emphasis on the social developments — for example, balanced development, employment, social protection, quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity. Maastricht places great emphasis on cohesion for dealing with inequalities between the member states and focuses more on social policy areas, including employment and public health — and this is the first time health is mentioned. It emphasises the question of subsidiarity. The Protocol on social policy means that the EC should now be able to deal with poverty issues to a greater extent than in the past because of the new emphasis on dealing with social exclusion and the new procedures which are outlined for decision-making in social policies. Those recommendations on education and health should be very helpful for us. For example, the educational provisions could facilitate cross national exchanges and mean that education could be more grant-aided from Brussels as we are playing our part in the European labour market.

The concept of EC citizenship is extremely important and is the latest stage in developing a peoples' Europe. It will help us all to identify more closely with the Community as a whole. That has not been the case up to now. There is no doubt we have had a Europe of the elite and this must change. I spoke already about the democratic deficit. That was very evident during the Maastricht campaign. Clear deficiencies existed in relation to European affairs. This lesson has been learned not alone in Ireland but in other member states. It is critical that this issue is addressed in this House as we have a special role to play in that regard. Obviously, there should be more debates on the issues we are discussing today, more feed back and interest in the decisions taken at European level and more mechanisms to ensure that work done at European level is integrated at national level. In my experience resolutions, directives and positive action programmes initiated at European level are not translated at national level. Not alone are they not translated, but we do not have adequate discussion in this House on those issues. That is why I maintain that it has been a Europe of the elite, but people will not tolerate this any longer. This critical issue must be addressed.

Despite the difficulties, one of the major challenges facing the countries of the European Community is sustained economic growth and further development of the concept of the Single Market. On the issue of enlargement, critical and complex questions on the government of the Community will have to be faced up to. The issue of the reform of the Structural Funds must also be tackled.

In this regard I would refer the Minister to the document submitted by the Council for the Status of Women on how the Structural Funds and the European Social Fund could do more in their application to involve women. The research which has been carried out to date, and which I have read, shows very clearly that Ireland is very low down the list of European countries in tackling this issue. There is less than a 2 per cent participation rate by women in certain programmes. Clearly the employment situation facing Irish women is critical. We must have a national employment policy. In particular, we must tackle the issue of integrating women into the range of Community initiatives and programmes which will be developed under the Structural Funds.

The European Social Fund has been very important to Ireland in increasing the availability of training. This training must be widely spread, available and accessible to women. The critical issue of child care being funded from the European Social Fund must be addressed. We must examine why other countries can fund child care from the Social Fund to a certain degree while we cannot. I ask the Minister to take note of this point and come back to the House with proposals for programmes in this area.

There is no doubt that EC membership has been critical in putting equal pay and equal treatment legislation on our Statute Book. However, we must remember that the Government and other organisations — for example, employer organisations — lobbied for a derogation from implementation of the equal pay directive. There is no doubt that our membership of the EC has helped to create a political climate which is helpful to women, particularly to women in employment. Many of the networks which have been developed have been extremely helpful to women's organisations, including the European Women's Lobby, in which I have been directly involved. The action programmes, including the Third Action Programme for Women initiated by the EC some years ago, have been particularly important in this regard. They have also developed a greater awareness at European level of the need to involve women in the decision-making arenas both within Ireland and Europe. Here I would make another request to the Government. Will it examine the various European-bodies on which there is representation by Irish men and women and ensure that there is a gender balance in that representation? I believe that there is not the gender balance there ought to be at this stage on those various bodies.

I have referred to the need to promote a national employment policy for women and to use EC funds in this regard. The recently published report by the Commission on the Status of Women refers to the need for a national employment policy for women. I have already criticised the lack of female participation in the various programmes which have been run. However, I should say that participation by Irish women in EC programmes for young people has been very high. This is certainly to be welcomed.

I wish to refer to one particular directive. I am getting down to the micro area here, but sometimes when one examines micro decisions one can see the macro policies which should be in place but which are not. The directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity allows for the spouses of the self-employed to join a social security scheme. This would affect many women who are married to farmers and shopkeepers. At present such spouses may only pay self-employed PRSI if they are partners in the activity. There is also an 1984 EC recommendation on positive action which gives positive action a place in collective bargaining. There is no evidence that this recommendation has been taken on board by the Government or the social partners. The EC anti-poverty programmes have been particularly helpful in Ireland, but we have no published criteria in relation to their use. We need such criteria.

Europe does not have the option of standing still at this point in time. If it is not moving forwards, it is moving backwards. There have been serious upheavals in our currency policy, which of course have led to doubt and uncertainty. However, we must recall that prior to this the ERM had gone through a period of unprecedented stability with no realignment for over five years. The success of the ERM inspired many people who favoured a swift move towards Economic and Monetary Union. The recent turmoil on the foreign exchange markets has dealt a serious blow to Europe. This turmoil arose for a number of reasons, many of which have been referred to here today — the after effects of German unity, the uncertainty caused by the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty and the margin of the "Yes" vote in the French ratification of the Treaty.

It is unfortunate that there was no intervention to support Ireland at an earlier stage in our currency crisis. The devaluation of the Irish pound was a very significant blow to the ERM. Its significance was underestimated at European level. A two-speed process towards the achievement of European Monetary Union looks like developing. This is a development we must watch very carefully. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to moving forward within the European context despite these difficulties. It is essential that the EMS be put back on the rails. We need to restore confidence in the European ideals and concept. Many countries are clearly facing major economic problems. I am referring to countries such as Germany, France and Italy, which are going through a major political upheaval at present. Many member states are faced with major domestic pre-occupations. Despite this, there is no alternative — we must work together and ensure that there is more growth and co-operation in Europe.

I have some questions for the Minister to which I would appreciate replies. If there is an accelerated process towards European Monetary Union, where will that leave Ireland? What will the attitude of the new French Government be towards integration, given the domestic upheaval in that country? Will the Minister publish the evaluation of how the last tranche of Structural Funds, £6 billion, was used? Has the NESC been asked to produce a report on this issue and will this House have an opportunity to discuss that report? It is critical that we discuss this issue before we face into discussions on the promised £8 billion. Will those Structural Funds be used in a different way to previous funds so as to ensure that indigenous industry is developed and supported? Clearly, this is the key to moving forward.

I wish to refer briefly to eastern Europe. It is critical that western Europe leads the way for east European countries, which are clearly having great difficulty in establishing their constitutions. West European countries must value their Constitutions and strive to develop the concept of European unity. If we do not do this we will be faced with very serious problems. The crisis in eastern Europe can only be resolved by a strong western Europe moving ahead and developing a deeper commitment to the Community. The issue of the crisis in confidence has to be dealt with. We must play our part in moving forward.

I wish to refer to the position in the former Yugoslavia. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to do everything possible to deal with the problem there. The suffering being endured by men, women and children in that country is truly appalling. I ask the Minister to look at the UN mandate. Should this mandate not be extended to include the protection of women and children in vulnerable groups? Are we at this stage satisfied with the efforts being made to contain the problem in some sort of way rather than being more pro-active in looking after the safety of the population? Are 23,000 troops enough? As Deputy Costello said, we have taken in 178 refugees from that country. Is this enough? Are there more refugees who need to be helped? I know that people wish to remain within their own country, but I make a plea to the Irish Government to be pro-active in terms of examining the position in that country and giving whatever help is needed to resolve the problems there.

Western Europe has been the source of many liberal ideas and practices which have struggled against the authoritarianism present elsewhere in the world. As Europeans, we must take this responsibility more seriously than ever. If the countries of western Europe mobilise and give deep political meaning to the European Community they will reinforce the beliefs of all those working in eastern Europe for constitutional liberal solutions. However, if westerners relapse into a retrograde nationalism then the impact on the east could be devastating. The fate of the constitution-building process in eastern Europe will rebound on western Europe if liberal democracy fails there, and we will face enormous pressures from asylum seekers trying to escape new problems in their countries. There is no way that Ireland will be immune from this, nor should we seek to be.

This is "make or break time" for Europe, not just as an economic entity but as an entity which stands for human rights, for dignity and for decency. We face particular challenges. Europe was a vision, a cream and an ideal. Unrefreshed, any vision pales and dreams die and the ideals become unrealistic. That vision was arguably best articulated in Ireland starting more than two decades ago by Fine Gael and specifically by men like Dr. Garret FitzGerald. In recent times there has been a poor follow-through on that vision by this country. We have developed a sort of learned helplessness about Europe, and we have developed this at Government level. It is time that this Government moved away from this learned helplessness and began to lead on the many issues which I have mentioned instead of being forced into what seems like a minimal obedience to what is handed down.

Europe is at a critical stage. Ireland must continue to develop a pro-active approach, particularly on the situation facing countless citizens in Yugoslavia. We must be seen to move to protect the people in that country in whatever way we can, and we must continue to develop and promote the European ideal. Failure to do that will have repercussions, not just in Ireland but at European and at world level.

Mr. Briscoe

According to the Opposition today, everything Fianna Fáil, or the Labour Party in coalition with Fianna Fáil do is wrong. I heard nothing constructive from the Opposition. This saddens me because it was always a tradition of this House that Opposition Members would compliment the Government on something it has done.

Mr. Durkan

Deputy Costello made some suggestions.

Mr. Briscoe

We were not congratulated on the fact that interest rates are down, even though we were blamed when they went up. In regard to the calling of the quorum, we have a system in this House whereby one third of Members are present on each Friday for statements and those who wish to participate stay here. However, constituents want to see their Deputies, and not just at election time.

Mr. Durkan

The biggest Government majority in the history of the State should, at the very least, be able to provide a quorum.

Mr. Briscoe

The Labour Party Conference is on this weekend, there would normally be 11 Labour Party Deputies in the House.

Mr. Durkan

Where are the 11?

Mr. Briscoe

Some years ago when we were in Opposition it was difficult to get someone to stoop so low as to call a quorum. I always liked Deputy Dukes. I looked up to him as a very constructive politician. I am very disappointed he has done this. It is like seeing someone one knows failing in their health. It depresses me because Deputy Dukes is a man of outstanding ability. I wish he would direct it more constructively. I say that with the best will in the world.

Mr. Durkan

That is a poor excuse for lacking a quorum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Deputy without interruption, please.

Mr. Briscoe

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am sure there are few people here who do not have a view on European affairs or, for that matter, on world affairs. We are probably one of the most educated people in the world on public affairs. Most people here could give the name of the Prime Minister of any other country.

With the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, and in the former Soviet Union, it is important that these countries, and particularly Russia, are aided in developing a democratic process and market economies. Like others, not just in this House but in the Parliaments of Europe, I welcome President Clinton's helpful remarks that we must get aid, in whatever form, into Eastern Europe and, particularly, into Russia which, if it collapses, could result in the horror that is happening in Yugoslavia being multiplied many times over. Countries in Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, with poor if no traditions in democracy and market economies, are looking to Europe to inspire them to economic progress. I am referring specifically to the former East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland who are now knocking on Europe's door for entry to the economic community of Europe. Negotiations are taking place with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway.

Europe generally, and Ireland in particular, always enjoyed sound economic and political relations with the US. It is of vital importance to Ireland that there be a successful conclusion to the GATT talks, and due to our special relationship with America, we have a part to play. The former Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, did very well in the negotiations, but if they are not successfully concluded and there is a trade war it will not bode well for our country which has many industries dependent on the US market. To cite one example, Baileys has a very big market in the United States, and if a trade war goes on for any length of time sanctions will increase which will eventually be applied to Irish products. We do not want to see that happening.

The United States of America is particularly important to us because of the vast population there who are of Irish descent. It is said that there are 40 million Americans of Irish descent living there. They encompass all religions, Catholics, Protestants and members of the Jewish faith. There is an organisation in the United States known as the "Loyal League of the Yiddish Sons of Erin" for those of the Jewish religion who were born in Ireland. The Irish in America are very influential. Five years ago 35 per cent of the chief executives in 500 American companies were either Irish born or of Irish descent and they are not only of enormous help to us at present but they have the potential to aid this country in the future. One only has to mention the names of Tony O'Reilly; Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the former Speaker, Tipp O'Neill; the Kennedy family and Daniel Moynihan to realise that we have a very strong link with the United States. We have our part to play in cementing those relationships because within the United States a number of people are worried about what is termed "fortress Europe".

The stability of Europe is important to the US. Europe can never forget that the United States saved democracy in Europe in two World Wars. That is a debt that we can never repay. It does no harm to remind our American cousins that we recognise that fact.

It is noteworthy that we in Ireland do not refer to our Defence Forces as the army, we always refer to the Defence Forces. This country has always earnestly assisted in peace-keeping operations. Earlier in the week it was said that at the time of strife in the Congo, Ireland was not engaged in peace-keeping operations. in that the United Nations had, as it were, invaded Katanga. That operation was officially known then as a peace-keeping operation, although I do not believe that what happened then would happen today. It should not be said that because of that operation Ireland was involved in peace-making. Ireland is not involved in peace-making.

Deputy Dukes referred to Irish neutrality. We have all seen on television what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. I do not think there is a mother or father in this country who, if a son or daughter were in the armed forces and were asked or volunteered to take part in peace-making operations in Bosnia or Hercegovina, would be happy to see their child go over there. It is my belief that Ireland, as a sovereign state, has the right to choose, if it wants to go to war, its own battlefield and when it will go to war. I believe that countries have a right to defend themselves. Comparisons made between the troubles in the former Yugoslavia and the position taken at the time of strife in Kuwait and Iraq are not fair. Everyone knows that it was only a matter of time before the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, got nuclear weapons into his possession and he would have been prepared to use them, if necessary, in the entire region. He would have used his possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent in an attempt to take control of all the Middle East oil, whether that oil was in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran or anywhere else. Saddam Hussein is the kind of person who, once he had nuclear weapons, would be prepared to use them.

The terrain of the Middle East is very different from that of Serbia or Bosnia. The areas are completely different, as is the case with the disputes, and it is unfair to make comparisons. I would be reluctant to see Irish troops going in to enforce peace—our role should be that of peacekeeper.

Ireland has played its part in sending out many tonnes of food and medical supplies. I have often said in the House that the Irish people are known for their generosity. No country gives more per capita towards charitable causes. We all can feel proud of the way in which our young people get involved in fund-raising for countries such as Sudan and Somalia. As we know, the conditions in Sudan are as bad as they ever were in Somalia, the only problem being that attention has not focused on that area. We were all proud when our former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, went to Somalia, as we were when the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, went there. As an Irishman, I was extremely proud when our President went to Somalia and focused world attention on the famine in that country. I realise that in the House Deputies are not supposed to refer to the work of the President, but I feel that I have to place on the record that our President behaved in a manner that will always remain in the hearts of our people with a sense of pride. The President did a wonderful job and we all, irrespective of political persuasion, commend and compliment her for it. Long may she continue to do such great humanitarian work on the part of the people of Ireland.

It is recognised that the Maastricht Treaty is crucial to Irish interests. Probably no country has benefited more than Ireland from membership of the European Community. To use a popular expression, there is an information deficit as regards the advantages of our membership of the EC. I agree with those Members who have said that when the foreign affairs committee is set up — a body of which I hope to be a member — the information deficit should be tackled. That people had difficulty in understanding the text of the Maastricht Treaty is understandable. Because the text of the Treaty was difficult to understand, those who were opposed to Irish ratification were able to use the resultant lack of understanding to try to mislead the nation. However, as I have said, our people are very bright and intelligent and they voted by 2.5:1 to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.

It is my earnest hope that the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty will go ahead. I am optimistic enough to believe that the people of Denmark will ratify the Treaty and I believe that Britain also will ratify it. It is my opinion that the British Labour Party has made as much politics as it can out of the Treaty but it knows that Britain's interests lie in being a full partner in Europe. We must look forward to the time when we can participate with Britain and with Denmark. Perhaps then more progress will be made in our own country in relation to our own problems, North and South.

The unemployment problem has not been given too much attention in this debate but it is an issue which is very much on the minds of all Deputies. Our level of unemployment underlines the urgent need for a united Europe. Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty should provide our people with better employment opportunities. Our young people should have the same access to universities as do young people in Britain. I am not satisfied that Irish people do have that same access to university education. For people living in urban areas, in Dublin in particular, it is very difficult to have children at university. In my own constituency some families have children attending Maynooth University and they get no allowance for transport costs, yet bus fares have to be paid. EC funding should be used to help in the provision of better access to third level education. I am anxious that we have a better understanding in particular of the needs of middle-income people who are trying to provide their children with a university education and who have to borrow from banks to do so. Recent high interest rates have made that aspiration particularly difficult, but even if there were no interest rates or very low interest rates they would still face great difficulty.

Deputy Costello talked about the Middle East. We all hope for a solution to the problems in the Middle East. I believe that once a peace agreement is reached between Syria and Israel a peace agreement with Jordan and with Lebanon would follow within hours. I think that the Palestinians and Israelis could sit down together to discuss the arrangements. I met a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in this House yesterday and had a cup of tea with him. He agreed with me when I said that if the Palestinians were to have a state of their own the only guarantors of the integrity of that state would be Israel. There would be many Arab nations in that area who would not want them.

I am grateful for Ireland's input. I should like to see somewhat more balance, of which there has not been much to date; that is my personal comment on the reporting of those issues. Unfortunately, these people have been used as political pawns by many of their Arab neighbours and are aware of that. I hope that fundamentalism will not take a grip in that area because, if that happens, there will be no place for them.

I should like to see European monetary union progress as quickly as possible. As has been said, had we had a single currency we would not have experienced the difficulties we did in the recent financial crisis. The sooner European monetary union is achieved the better it will be for our electorate.

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, on the wonderful work he has done in his Department and before becoming a Minister of State. I commend his humanitarian work and the whole-hearted manner in which he carries it out. I wish him well in the future.

Mr. M. McDowell

Today's debate is a very timely one because, in conjunction with yesterday's debate in this House, it focuses my mind initially on the circumstances in which this House has been invited by the Government parties to consider the establishment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I should like to dwell on the propositions put to the parties on these benches in relation to that Committee, with a view to pointing out what is wrong with what has happened thus far and pointing out what could be done if there were a real and genuine commitment on the Government benches to establish a genuine capacity on the part of the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider the matters of foreign affairs and Northern Ireland on a continuous basis.

Foreign policy is of enormous importance to this country. Many people think it is not, that it is not an issue which concerns the ordinary individual, that the ordinary individual is concerned with tax, crime, joblessness and the like, the other day-to-day mainstream issues of Irish politics and that foreign affairs, in some sense, are divorced from those issues. The perspective I wish to offer in this debate is that foreign affairs are not divorced from ordinary people's lives, that the whole thrust of developments is that decisions now being taken at international level will affect ordinary people's lives here, that as time goes by we cannot afford to do what we have done in the past, that is to delegate to Ministers, who were non-accountable in any real sense to this House, the handling of our foreign affairs. Of course, Ministers are theoretically accountable under the Constitution to Dáil Éireann for the way in which they discharge their duties.

We now find ourselves in a position in which, effectively, this House has no real handle on what is happening at European or international level as far as the conduct of the Executive, the Government, is concerned. We imagine in this House that we have an influence on foreign affairs. There are occasions, like today and yesterday, when statements are made in this House on the issues which arise under the broad umbrella of foreign affairs, or our affairs with our neighbours in Britain or in the North. In reality, being honest with ourselves, it is true that in the past this House has exercised virtually no influence at all on the conduct of Ireland's foreign policy. I have to say we have delegated it to a professional Department of Foreign Affairs, staffed by many very skilled diplomats and public servants, and have abdicated our function of responsibility for the overall direction of Irish foreign policy.

Our foreign policy options are limited because we are a small, open economy, because we are not in a position — by use of economic, military muscle or whatever — to influence people's behaviour in a way which is other than commensurate with our size and importance internationally. Our capacity to influence foreign affairs is dependent on the extent to which there is a worked-out strategy in existence at any given time. The regime of benign pragmatism that has passed for a foreign policy in Iveagh House for a long period is probably inadequate for our present needs.

As a democracy we need to address fundamental issues of foreign policy. That is why we need a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I might add that the Constitution provides that it is Dáil Éireann which has a function in relation to foreign policy, much as has the American Senate. It is interesting to note that the Constitution specifically gives this House, rather than Seanad Éireann, a role of superintendence in relation to international agreements. I have misgivings as to the appropriateness or otherwise of creating a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs when this House has a special role in relation to the supervision and ratification of international agreements under our Constitution.

Be that as it may, now that a decision in principle has been taken to establish a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, certain features of that proposed Committee require close scrutiny. It was suggested that this Committee should not examine any issues on which Ireland was currently adopting a negotiating posture at international or EC level. In my view, that original proposal was offensive to reason and to whatever dignity this House, as a Chamber of representatives in a democracy, is entitled to. The idea that this Legislature, which is comprised of two Houses, should have no discursive function in relation to decisions, agreements and negotiating positions being taken by the Government on our behalf at international level is offensive. I am happy to say that original proposal was withdrawn. A second set of draft guidelines, or terms of reference to this Committee, make no mention of that prohibition.

The other area in which there was a remarkable curtailment of the freedom of this Committee was in relation to Northern Ireland. The first draft of that Committee's terms of reference suggested there should be no discussion of any security or policy issue in relation to Northern Ireland. That may well suit those who conduct policy in these matters on our behalf in Iveagh House and the Ministers whom they serve, but it does not suit the Irish people that there should be a complete black-out in relation to this area, or that this House should not, on an ongoing basis, consider these issues carefully and develop positions in relation to them as they emerge.

One of the difficulties in yesterday's debate on that issue was that there was a number of views expressed which attracted public attention, not so much on the basis that they were a surprise to anybody — because everybody knew that the people who came here to contribute them held them at heart — but that they were given undue publicity, distorted out of their ordinary weight and context by the fact that they were expressed at all. Deputy Bree's remarks on Northern Ireland were entirely predictable——

Mr. Durkan

They were interesting.

Mr. M. McDowell

——and when the Labour Party recruited him it knew he held those views.

Mr. Durkan

Exactly.

Mr. M. McDowell

It thought he would get them a seat in County Sligo and it was right. Yet, its members looked slightly shocked and miffed when he had the elementary honesty to repeat his views in public. In that context the Tánaiste has said he is the spokesperson for his party on Northern Ireland. If Deputy Spring was unaware of Deputy Bree's views on these issues when he authorised him to be a Labour Party candidate I would be very surprised. If he expected him to remain silent because he was a member of the Labour Party he was expecting too much because, as I understand Deputy Bree's political psychology, and history, it was on that issue that he developed his appeal to the Sligo electorate and it seemed unlikely that he could be silenced on the issue.

Mr. Durkan

A ministry.

Mr. M. McDowell

The second point that needs to be made is that we have had to deal with similar comments from other quarters in this House which are looked on North of the Border as indicative of a regressive view. We have all known that these views exist in this House, and doubtless from time to time they might be expressed at a committee of this House. However, this does not mean that the rest of us who make up the great majority in this House, and who do not share the ultra-green philosophy which the Taoiseach, Deputy Noonan, Deputy Bree and Deputy Blaney enunciated here yesterday, should be cut out from expressing our views in a constructive way because other people are capable of embarrassing our Ministers in public by expressing contrary views.

One other point about the proposed Foreign Affairs Committee is that it suffers from the defect, like all the other proposed committees, that Ministers are hiding from ministerial accountability. I should say in that context there is no constitutional basis to the argument made by the Taoiseach to my party leader, Deputy O'Malley, when he asked if Ministers would be accountable to Dáil committees, to which he received the rather pat and ludicrous reply that Ministers were accountable only to Dáil Éireann and therefore would not be available to be questioned by these committees of the Dáil. If they are accountable to this House why should they not be accountable to a committee established by the House? This defies my somewhat jaded imagination politically and it is complete, utter drivel to suggest that one is accountable to a body sitting in plenary session but not to any of the committees. If this House has the power to examine Ministers and to ask them questions in plenary session, it certainly has the power to delegate that function to a committee which specialises in a particular sphere.

The lie is all the more obvious — I use that word without prejudice to the rules of the House — when one examines the fact that there is a ministerial Question Time in the Seanad. If Ministers are accountable to the Seanad by way of Question Time, not by means of constitutional design but as a matter of de facto practice, there is no reason they should not be accountable to the committees established by the House in respect of their functions. Therefore Deputy Spring wilfully is evading accountability to this House through the Foreign Affairs Committee and not on the basis of any legal prohibition.

The third point I want to make in relation to the proposed committee is that it is the former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities dressed up with a new fringe attached. There is no logical connection between an examination of regulations made under the European Communities Acts, which the former committee was entrusted with, and the foreign affairs function. It defies my understanding of the function of that committee how regulations on brucellosis testing or unit trust funds or any other aspect of EC policy fall to be considered and examined by a Foreign Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of Deputy Lenihan in particular. What specialist function could such a committee have which would enable it to deal with any regulations made in the European Community and translated into Irish law by means of regulations under the European Communities Acts?

The decision that was given by the High Court yesterday, which is subject to appeal, should not have come as a surprise as the view has been well ventilated in this House by many Deputies on many occasions in the past that the methods used by this State to implement European directives and regulations were inadequate and suffered from constitutional infirmity. Instead of establishing a committee to examine secondary legislation we should examine the issue thrown up by the High Court judgment and ask ourselves whether we are exercising any supervisory or superintending function in relation to the vast majority of secondary legislation of the European Communities made by regulation.

I remember when I was a Member of the House previously being given a large document, one inch thick, dealing with the European equivalent of unit trusts when it was presented to this House and, so far as I can recall, it received no attention at any stage even though it changed our law substantially. Yet no one in this House was asked to give it a cursory glance. There was no likelihood that it would ever be examined in detail or commented on or that any report would be made on its contents to the Members of this House before it became part of our law.

Like the High Court decision in the case involving the Office of Public Works, the High Court judgment is not another little obstacle to the smooth operation of the State machine but a timely reminder that this House is supposed to be a Legislature and to care about and supervise the legislation introduced nominally at our behest and on our authority and a timely reminder that we are not living up to our function as legislators. The draft terms of reference for the new committee, in so far as they purport to give this function to a Foreign Affairs Committee, show that the issue of secondary legislation of the European Communities is still not being taken seriously. This is a matter of serious regret.

Let me now turn to deal with European Community affairs. There is a number of issues which normally arise in the minds of the average Joe or Josephine Soap walking the streets of this city when they consider Europe. They consider the financial implications for this country, its economic effects on this country, what sums of money we can hope to be given from the collective funds of the European Community and how the European Community is likely to develop in the future. Apart from the financial issue, where figures such as £6 billion are floated before their eyes in order to attract their attention on a monetary basis, there is a marked disinclination on the part of the Government, indeed successive Governments, to put before the people an Irish strategy for the development of the European Community.

As political parties we compete with each other in public to parade our pro-European credentials, but on the other hand we do not ever attempt to articulate in public what we hope for as a medium or long term end in relation to the process of European integration and union. It is all very well to speak about an ever closer union of the member states, as if this was a mathematical graph which is asymptotic to some line; but on the other hand I have to suggest we do not ever express what we see as the ultimate end point of the process.

For instance, we do not seriously debate the difference between federalism and confederalism on a European model or discuss in public the implications for Ireland, except in financial terms, of wider European Community membership. We do not address honestly, without sloganising at each other, the issues that arise from the Maastricht Treaty and post-Maastricht Treaty European security policy developments. We do not do this because it does not really suit us; the concepts are too complex to grapple with politically and in any event we have a perception that there are not many votes in addressing these political issues. For my part I note a growing tendency in Irish society to say that something must be done on issues such as the current atrocities in Bosnia. The Irish position on Bosnia is that somebody should do something but we do not say who should do what. We perceive ourselves to be in a moral pulpit and that we can lecture others about what they should do; we do not at any stage feel that we ourselves have obligations in this area. We certainly do not think, if there is any dirty work to be done and any risk to be taken, that this country should be in any sense involved in it. We will send, and very honourably, members of the Garda Síochána to work in the trouble spots. Quite frankly, that gesture belies the reality of the risks we are urging others to take. I think we have to address the future development of the European Communities with more honesty and vigour than we have had in the past. I want to see a Government White Paper on the development of the European Communities from an Irish perspective, dealing with the democratic deficit, the future role of the European Parliament and the question of the veto and majority voting in the Council of Ministers. I want also to see a Government White Paper dealing with Ireland's approach to the emerging debate on European security provisions before we react to the proposals of others. Of course, it will take a referendum to enact into Irish law any new obligations to European security qualitatively different from those which exist at present, but I want to see our democracy playing its part in developing the policies which are put to the people in that referendum. I want to see it done on the basis of a clean, open and accountable political process in which ordinary Irish people and their elected representatives to this Chamber can participate.

I see precious little sign that such a process is being contemplated. Although today's series of statements may be of some use in eliciting and explaining the attitude of some Members, it does very little in the long run in the development of a coherent public debate on issues which, as time goes by, will be seen to be more and more central not merely to our political and foreign policy aims and welfare but to our economic wellbeing

Mr. Leonard

In the course of his speech the Minister questioned how well informed Irish people were on EC matters and came to the conclusion that much more needs to be done to ensure that people are better informed on the key issues. There are very few Members who would not agree with him. It was very obvious that this was the case before the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.

I must take issue with the type of language that is used in EC directives. I believe that Government Departments should summarise in clear and simple language the EC directives in their area of responsibility and this should be made available to the local authorities and other interested bodies. In my view the local authorities should set aside one person to deal with EC directives. I know that when the local authorities carried out an indepth study of the funding from INTERREG, from the Structural Fund and the International Fund for Ireland, it was time well spent. I hope the Minister will ensure that all public bodies and agencies do this because we can benefit greatly from it. I hope also that he will ensure that the directives are redrafted in simple language.

I am very concerned about the influx of agricultural produce from eastern Europe — Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries — into the EC and the effect this will have on us as exporters of agricultural produce. There is the added danger that with the relaxation of border controls live animals will be imported into this country. I believe there has been a substantial increase in the number of breeding animals that has been imported over the past number of years. We need to put in place strict measures to stop this. We have a good record of disease free animals and we must protect and exploit it. The poultry industry in some countries is bedevilled by disease and we should be careful to ensure we safeguard our disease free status. There have also been recent reported outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and we have to be especially careful because of the relaxation of custom and quarantine regulations.

We have received substantial funding from the EC down through the years. We were told that this would lead to a levelling of the economies across the Community as well as in the regions of the various countries. Ten years ago, in 1983, a social and economic committee visited the Border regions and subsequently published a very fine report. Indeed I travelled with members of that committee and they were very satisfied with their impressions of the Border regions. However, very few of the recommendations of the report were implemented. In later years I endeavoured to get in contact with the members of that committee but I came up against a blank wall.

I am concerned about our approach to EC funding. I think much better use could be made of this money if we took a co-ordinated approach to administering these funds.

In the course of his speech the Minister mentioned unemployment, which is a key problem, and initiatives for growth. I believe the issue of unemployment will have to be tackled at the local rather than at international level. Not only will it have to be tackled at national level but also at regional and county levels, which is where jobs will be provided at the end of the day. Governments do not provide jobs; they create the environment for the provision of jobs. In the last five years we have created a friendly environment in terms of the balance of payments, bank rates and so on, but jobs were not provided. I doubt whether jobs are available in Europe because I know of young people who went to France and Germany but were very disappointed that they could not find jobs there. At present, countries expect immigrants to do as much work as possible for the least possible reward. While the problem of unemployment must be tackled in Europe, at the end of the day funding that is made available must be directed locally to provide for job creation.

About six months ago problems arose as a result of devaluation and the British withdrawal from the ERM. Regulations must be put in place to ensure that in future the actions of one member state in, for example, withdrawing from the ERM, do not damage the economy of another. No area was affected more from British withdrawal than was my area along the Border which depends on the British market for exports of mushrooms and meat products such as poultry and turkeymeat. Fortunately, the Government stepped in and provided £50 million to overcome this problem. When problems such as this arose previously, Governments did not intervene for perhaps a month, but in this case the problem was tackled almost immediately, resulting in very little damage being done. The EC did very little to help us in this matter. There should be some mechanism in the EC to ensure that countries who create problems, as did Britain in withdrawing from the ERM, are disciplined.

The High Court in a case heard yesterday found that regulations to control the illegal use of angel dust are unconstitutional. I urge the Minister to introduce legislation in this regard immediately. It is regrettable that yesterday's case in the High Court was the ninth such case and there are 56 cases pending. Most responsible people are concerned at the use of angel dust as a growth promoter, which has greatly damaged the meat industry. It is our hope that the people involved will be taken to task and made realise that their actions in this regard are reckless. Untold damage has been done in terms of reduced meat consumption. This matter was given unnecessary publicity in this House. We never miss an opportunity to make matters such as these public, thereby causing problems for manufacturers and the economy. There was so much talk about the use of angel dust that there was a big fall-off in the consumption of meat. I hope this problem will be resolved quickly. There was scare-mongering here today about many other matters, which could result in similar problems, and that is regrettable. It is very difficult to legislate for all circumstances.

I will conclude by wishing the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, well in the future. He is doing a good job.

Mr. Durkan

Like the last speaker, I congratulate the Minister of State on his work and wish him well in the future. I hope he is successful in helping to resolve some of the problems brought to our attention through the media in recent times. I cannot let this occasion pass without commenting on the shrill screams that emanated from that side of the House a little more than an hour ago when the Government, which has the largest majority in the history of the State — a majority almost twice that required for a quorum — objected to the calling of a quorum. It reminded me very much of the losing team manager going to the winning team's dressing rooms after a bad season and blaming that team for having scored goals while the goalkeeper was out having a smoke.

In an issue such as this which involves the biggest single matter pertaining to this country, that is, the EC and Community funding, it is an indictment of the two Government parties that they do not see fit to be present for this entire discussion, which relates primarily to the programme for Government about which we have heard so much. Despite the fact that the Minister of State is in the Chamber it is sad that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was not here to hear the views, some of which were very interesting and some dispirit, from both sides of the House, which I am sure will provide for considerable discussion and perusal at a later stage.

In the last couple of days disparate views have been expressed from within each of the two Government parties——

Mr. Leonard

And over there also.

Mr. Durkan

——on every issue relating to international or foreign affairs. In the area of foreign affairs one matter that most impresses our colleagues in the EC, and worldwide, is an indication of solidarity or consensus emanating from a House of Parliament. Obviously that is not the case in this Parliament. Not alone has the Opposition presented the opposite view — it is our business to do so — but opposing views have come from one side of the Fianna Fáil Party and from the Labour Party. I fail to see how they can achieve a consensus which would benefit the nation in terms of impressing our European colleagues and others.

I am worried about the seriousness with which we as a Parliament address the subject under discussion. We remember the £8 billion we all heard about. It amounted to £3 million per day. Some Members could not see their way to maintaining a quorum here to police some of that £3 million per day. It is sad that a Government which has put so much emphasis on the benefits accruing from Europe and on working longer hours could not see fit to have Members here to police this discussion. I hope in future we see more enthusiasm from the Government side of the House.

Deputy McDowell posed some questions about European integration. What influence does this Government have on European convergence or integration? How much emphasis does the Government place on that issue which is fundamental to our future? I suggest it is very little, because once the information came from Europe that the £8 billion would be forthcoming over seven years the Government parties withdrew into their respective bunkers to decide how they would handle the money over the next three or four years. They were not involved or interested in the speed with which Europe converged. What will be the European response? Our European partners will, obviously, be impressed by the degree to which the member states are prepared to influence European convergence. The countries which have benefited most from European integration should surely be to the fore in formulating plans and policies to allow us to move closer and achieve political and financial unity. Why are we not doing that? Why did the Government in the past two months not make repeated demands on the Danes and the British to ensure that we did not lose sight of the objective of European convergence and integration? Why is there less emphasis now on European integration than there was a few years ago? Why is it less realistic to expect to achieve this within a reasonable time? Where are all the buzz words referred to by Deputy Briscoe, formulated by the Americans with regard to "fortress" Europe in an attempt to destroy the European concept a few years ago? They have gone because Europe is no longer a threat. The convergence of Europe is not what it was a few years ago. This is very serious.

Why is Europe no longer a threat? That is simply because of the British Presidency. One expects the nation that holds the Presidency to be committed to the ideals and objectives, or the concept, as in this case, of European integration. That must surely be reflected in the speed with which they go about their business. Other European countries must recognise the seriousness of pursuing the objective. While on the one hand the rest of Europe agreed to proceed towards economic and political union, the people who held the Presidency were not too sure. I do not blame the British, but there simply was not unanimity in Britain. They could not deliver the goods. That applies here now when one examines the many and varied statements made by the Government side during the past few days.

The Presidency then passed to the Danes. I do not know what the other European members must have felt, but it was hardly reassuring when the Presidency passed to the Danes, the country that failed to ratify the Maastricht Treaty at the first attempt, a Treaty which is fundamental to this issue. It was not surprising that in the past 12 months the process of European integration has slowed considerably and with that the impact that Europe is likely to have on world affairs, and in particular, on eastern European affairs. Those developments are indications of a recognition outside of the Twelve that Europe is not as it was a few years ago. I know people will point to German reunification and the disintegration of the former USSR. They are factors but Europe was converging, it was supposed to be united, it had a big and free market economy and was supposed to be the most powerful economic and trading bloc on earth. Europe now shows an inability to move because of various ethnic stresses or tensions, many of them going back many years, and most of which should surely have been resolved or have been overtaken by developments in the past ten or 12 years.

The Government should have spent more time emphasising to their European colleagues the desirability of bringing Europe back on course with the utmost urgency. The Government, on taking office, had a duty to impress that on our European colleagues without delay, but it did not do so. The Government should have capitalised on its neutrality position to impress on our European partners the importance of the continuation of the policy of convergence.

Today and yesterday we heard much rhetoric similar to that trotted out in the past. It sounds good and I am sure the script writer who produces all the scripts would have difficulty producing any variation. Those who have listened to the repetition over the years recognise the speeches as rhetoric. I am sure our European colleagues are equally unimpressed.

The strength of Europe should be in its size and influence as a trading bloc and in its ability to look after the less developed regions with a view to providing each citizen with equal opportunities with regard to access to jobs, social equality and so on. We have not that strength and we are not doing anything about achieving it.

Last week I tabled a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the relocation by multinationals in other countries of the EC or outside to the detriment of this country. I was told there was no such problem. There is a problem. A few years ago we espoused the theory that we got great prestigious benefit if a company from outside Europe located in Europe, with particular reference to Ireland. That policy seems to have evaporated. What tended to happen over the past few years, notwithstanding GATT and Common Agricultural Policy reforms, is that companies that had established a market in Europe could uproot and go off to South East Asia while maintaining their markets in Europe. It has been suggested that there is no way of countering this. The procedures already exist and are encompassed within the Common Agricultural Policy and GATT. I cannot understand the reason a Government such as ours which is dependent on external trade does not recognise and impress on its European counterparts the need to deal with that problem. The weaknesses in the EC have been shown up more especially in the whole question of the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties which have arisen there recently.

I know the Minister of State sitting opposite has done his best but it is a case of one's best not being good enough. I am not aware of a single person who watches television, listens to the radio or reads newspapers in this country who is not horrified at the atrocities which have taken place on our European doorstep at a time when we claim to be the greatest political and economic bloc in the world. We depend on others to attempt to resolve our problems. The Government and other Europeans would probably say that these are very involved technical problems involving ethnic origins and that they are too difficult to resolve in the course of a debate on EC integration. We all know where their origins are but that is no excuse for the atrocities which are taking place unabated at present. The European Community has failed to deal with that matter in a resolute manner. The people in the areas of conflict are fully aware of Europe's weaknesses in that area and are happy to continue on. The most sad sight I have seen on television for a long time was that of an elderly person attempting to board an overloaded army truck. It must surely strike a chord in the hearts of everybody in every part of the world that in a so-called civilised society such atrocities should go on unabated at the very doorstep of what purports to be the most civilised political and economic bloc in the world. It is sad that we have to look elsewhere for people to resolve such a situation.

By the same token one has to revert to a few weeks ago when the currency crisis took place. Various speakers from the Government side said that interest rates were falling and that everything in the garden was rosy. Any changes for the better which took place were not due to any measure adopted by the Government but rather to other factors. If one compares the reaction to the Danish problems when the interest rates began to bite with the Irish reaction or if one compares the European reaction with the Irish Government's reaction, one begins to recognise that somebody somewhere does not carry the influence they should. That must have been obvious recently to every man, woman and child in Ireland. Despite weeks of agonising, groaning, gnashing of teeth, chasing to and from Brussels and making statements, not to the people who mattered but to the press and coming home telling us we were on the right course, that there would not be a need to devalue. Ultimately, we had to devalue at great sacrifice and trauma. Contrast that with what happened when there was pressure on the Danish currency. Within 24 hours there was a reaction and a recognition within the European Community that these people meant business. There was a reaction; that is the acid test. We did not pass the acid test.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I note you are watching the clock. I am afraid time does not permit me to continue on this subject but it is one about which I learned a little as a member of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I wish I had more time to deal with it.

My memory of this debate, which should reflect the biggest interest issue we are likely to discuss in the course of the year, is the fact that the combined parties in Government, whose majority is almost twice that required for a quorum in the House, could not rise to the occasion, despite allegedly being entitled to receive £8 billion during the next seven years, or is it £3 million per day? Whatever it is, it is the figure that motivates the people at the Fianna Fáil cumann meetings and the Labour branch meetings whenever the issue of Cohesion, Structural or ESF funds arise. I am sad to say that a Government with such a large majority — I do not know what our European colleagues would think — could not rise to a quorum on a day when business on such a serious issue was being conducted.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I thank Deputies for their contributions today and Deputy Durkan, in particular, with whom I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities when I first came to this House. I am conscious of the contribution he made to that Committee. With regard to both his opening and closing remarks regarding the calling of quorums I should say I find this an infantile mode of behaviour, especially if we accept reality as politicians. It is a Friday. Today I made arrangements that two other Ministers of State would sit in for me and take note of the contributions while I met with a visiting delegation of Tanzanians. As it happened I had to leave that meeting and come back because Deputy Dukes was in bad humour today and wanted to play some games. There are other ways of making useful contributions. We are not afraid of the Deputy's criticisms.

With regard to Deputy Durkan's constituency colleague, Deputy Dukes, I understand he had some harsh things to say about me in my absence. I will reply briefly. I have had a close interest in European developments and foreign policy in general since my involvement in the Dáil. He was very critical of the fact that in my 20-minute contribution I informed the Dáil about my visits, among other things, to El Salvador and to the Horn of Africa. I make no apology for doing so. In the past as a backbench Deputy, I have been critical that Members of the Dáil were not fully informed of what was going on. Deputy Dukes criticised the Government in general for not telling him what we are doing. I suggest there is a degree of inconsistency in his contribution. I do not think Deputy Dukes listened to his own leader yesterday who asked for a broader debate in which he referred to the former Yugoslavia. I was in the House when that request was made and I strongly supported the broadening of the debate. In my 20-minute contribution I made reference to my recent visit to Africa and also to an EC Central American meeting. I thought that was appropriate and that it was my duty to do so. I make no apology whatsoever for doing that. Even though Deputy Dukes is not present I want to put that on the record.

Mr. M. McDowell

Call a quorum.

Mr. T. Kitt

I do not think the same Deputy is aware that Ireland continues to lead the western world in its active involvement in developing countries and in the famine stricken nations. I was pleased to give my personal experience of my visit to Somalia. I think he described the account of my visit there as insipid pap and propaganda. That is unworthy of the Deputy. He criticised me also for not telling him what we are doing. I outlined this morning exactly what we are doing and I thought he might appreciate that. Some of Deputy Dukes' contributions, particularly in this session, have been somewhat bad-tempered and bitter. I have been here on two occasions when he described some of my colleagues, both in Fianna Fáil and Labour, as gurriers. Many criticisms and comments have been thrown around this Chamber but such comment is most unusual from Deputy Dukes. I have stated both publicly and in this Chamber that Deputy Dukes has played a positive role in the past, but his behaviour today was rather infantile and it is a bad reflection on him and his party when he descends to that type of an approach. It appears that his party are redundant in policies but, perhaps, they have another agenda.

I will endeavour to deal with the points raised during the debate. I would first like to make a general point in regard to foreign policy. I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks in regard to the importance of countries in the European Community acting together to bring a constructive influence to bear on different situations. That is the objective of the Maastricht provisions in regard to a common foreign and security policy and Deputy Lenihan and others made that point. Ireland accepts those provisions and will contribute to their implementation in accordance with our long-standing priorities in the international sphere.

A number of Deputies raised the problems in the Horn of Africa and spoke of the suffering of the peoples there. As I said earlier, I visited the Horn of Africa a few days ago and I agree that it will be a long haul for those countries over the next few years to feed their people and work towards reconstruction. The civil war in southern Sudan will create particular difficulties in that regard. We are contributing to the relief effort in various ways, both in Somalia and southern Sudan where a large percentage of the workers there are Irish. We have made a significant contribution to famine relief in those areas and I am glad that we could contribute £500,000 towards emergency relief in southern Sudan. We contributed actively to discussions in the Community and in the international, fora with a view to encouraging an international aid effort. I assure Deputies that countries in the Horn of Africa, Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia also figured prominently in the aid effort of the Community in the past year. Those countries are, respectively, first, second, third and fourth as recipients of EC food aid worldwide and this pattern should be maintained in the coming years.

Deputy Durkan and others correctly referred to the horrific situation in the former Yugoslavia. It was right that in our debate today considerable emphasis should have been placed on the current situation in former Yugoslavia and, in particular in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The dissolution of Yugoslavia has been accompanied by tragic consequences for all concerned. The crisis there has confronted Europe with its greatest challenge in the post-cold war era. The violence, destruction and brutality which we have witnessed demonstrates how the process of change can also unleash hidden forces, bringing to the surface old animosities.

I must again emphasise that the Government has been activelty involved in the search for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Yugoslav conflict since the outbreak of the crisis two years ago. The principal elements of our policy involve support for the international conference on the former Yugoslavia chaired jointly by David Owen and Cyrus Vance; involvement in efforts in the region by the UN and the EC to establish the conditions necessary for a settlement; sustained international pressure, including sanctions, against Serbia and Montenegro; support for efforts to prevent a spill-over of the conflict; assistance to refugees and displaced persons and assistance for the victims of rape and support for the efforts to bring those responsible to justice.

I fully share the Deputies' feelings of outrage and frustration at the carnage and sheer brutality which we have witnessed in recent weeks, at Srebrenica and other Muslim towns in eastern Bosnia. It is almost beyond belief that whole communities of innocent people can be shelled, starved and held hostage in the pursuit of military and political objectives. The Government here utterly condemns these atrocities.

The European Community, acting in close liaison with the UNHCR, which is the lead international aid agency, has demanded that the leadership in Belgrade make the Bosnian Serbs halt their offensive towards Srebrenica, allow the UNHCR to evacuate all wounded persons and vulnerable groups by land and by helicopter, and allow UNHCR aid convoys to pass through the blockades. I pay tribute to General Morillon of the UN Protection Force for his determined efforts to end the tragedy in Srebrenica. We fully support his efforts. Aid, blocked again today by Bosnian Serbs, must be allowed to pass. Those who wish to leave Srebrenica must be allowed to do so, with security and dignity.

The international community is determined to bring justice to those who have perpetrated or ordered war crimes. To this end, Ireland advocated the establishment of an international tribunal. We therefore warmly welcomed the recent decision of the UN Security Council to this end. Work is proceeding in New York on the drafting of statutes for the tribunal. The Secretary General will submit to the Security Council, before 20 April, specific proposals in this regard.

Ireland is continuing to play its part fully with its European Community partners, at the CSCE and at the United Nations, in the search for a comprehensive settlement to the Yugoslav conflict. The violence and destruction in Bosnia is on such a scale that our objectives will be achieved only through the determined resolve of the international community. The overriding priority must therefore be to continue to work together with our EC partners and the international community generally to maximise our collective weight in order to bring to an end the horrors which we are witnessing in Bosnia.

In this regard, the European Community has played a leading role in the search for a comprehensive settlement for the whole of former Yugoslavia. Initially, these efforts were channelled through the mechanism of the Conference on Yugoslavia, chaired by Lord Carrington. The conference was enlarged in August 1992 with the establishment of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia, co-chaired by Lord Owen, on behalf of the European Community, and by Mr. Cyrus Vance for the United Nations.

As I said this morning, a solution for Bosnia is the key to a comprehensive settlement to the Yugoslav conflict. The international conference, of which Ireland is a member, is spearheading the effort, with very wide international support. Conference co-chairmen, Lord Owen and Mr. Vance, have against a backdrop of the most bitter inter-ethnic violence, made very considerable progress with the Bosnian parties in recent weeks.

They have secured agreement on most of the essential elements in their plan for a settlement in Bosnia; all have agreed the constitutional principles and to the arrangements for a cessation of hostilities and follow-up monitoring. The Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats have accepted the interim arrangements which are to apply in Bosnia, pending the holding of free and fair elections in that republic under international supervision. Only the Bosnian Serbs are witholding their assent on two points — the proposals which delineate the provincial boundaries, and the interim arrangements.

The plan for Bosnia is, as the UN Secretary General has said, just and viable. It is vital at this critical stage that we should stand frimly behind Lord Owen and Mr. Vance in their efforts to obtain the agreement of all Bosnian parties to their plan. When this has been secured, we hope that the Security Council will act speedily and with determination to ensure its implementation. The alternative to this is likely to be further violence and the break-up of Bosnia.

The European Community has also exerted its influence on the parties in the region to bring them to co-operate in the peace process. In particular, a comprehensive set of economic sanctions was applied against Serbia and Montenegro, and the European Community urged similar action by the United Nations. We, with our EC partners, are continuing to work both in the framework of the UN and of the CSCE to make these sanctions more effective. More stringent measures to isolate Serbia and Montenegro completely, should the peace talks fail, are being further developed.

The Bosnian Serb Assembly is meeting today to consider its attitude to the proposals developed by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. I profoundly hope that the Serbs in Bosnia and in Belgrade will reflect on the consequences of refusal. By co-operating with the UN and the European Community, they can obviate the need for the consideration of additional meaures by the Security Council.

I earnestly hope that the Serbs will agree to the plan for Bosnia. If not, we and our EC partners fully support the early adoption by the Security Council of additional measures. A stark choice now rests with the Serbs.

I have spoken at some length about the situation in Bosnia, not only because of the challenge that it represents to us, but also because of the far-reaching implications of a further escalation of the conflict in the Balkans. We must also remember that many in the East as well as the West are looking at events in former Yugoslavia with trepidation. We must ensure that there is no repetition of the nightmare in other parts of central and Eastern Europe.

Deputies referred to the judgment delivered in the High Court yesterday which found unconstitutional portions of section 3 (2) of the European Communities Act, 1972, which purport to entitle the Minister, by regulation, to repeal, amend or apply, with or without modification, primary legislation. The Attorney General has advised that the judgment be appealed and the Government is urgently considering the full implications of the judgment for the implementation of Community legislation in Ireland. As Deputies correctly pointed out, the implications in regard to Ireland's ability to ensure prompt and effective transposition of Community legislation into our domestic law are very serious. Clearly the judgment requires careful consideration, which is already underway. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of this consideration, but I agree with Deputies that its implications are very significant and the Government is fully conscious of this.

Deputy Broughan referred to the need for closer co-operation between the committees of the European Parliament and the committees of the Oireachtas when they are set up. Account will be taken of this in the setting-up of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where there will be provision to allow for the presence of members of the European Parliament. I empathise totally with the views expressed by the Deputy. He also referred to the need for Ireland to adopt a more proactive approach in so far as Europe is concerned. As I said earlier in the debate. I chair an interdepartmental committee on European affairs. This is one of the issues I have raised in the committee. The committee is a very low key, background Civil Service-type committee.

Some Deputies have referred to civil servants. I have attended, together with the Taoiseach and two different Ministers for Foreign Affairs, a number of meetings and summits, and it is most unfair for people who have been in Government previously to criticise civil servants for the manner in which they have written our speeches, etc. It is rather disingenuous of people to do this; it is old hat. If people do not like what Ministers say they should criticise the Minister concerned and not the civil servants, who are there to serve the Government and Ministers of the day. If Deputies from other parties were in Government they would be given the same service by civil servants. Politicians are there to accept criticism, and we will stand over what we say. Naturally, we are assisted by our civil servants on specific matters.

As Deputy Broughan will be aware, I referred earlier to the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which will provide an extremely valuable forum for national debate on Community issues. I envisage that this committee will be both pro-active and reactive in nature.

Deputy Cox made a number of valuable points, with which I will try to deal. He pointed out that the final ratification process in Germany is subject to an appeal to the constitutional court. This is correct, but the parliamentary process has been completed, and Germany differs from Denmark and Britain in that vital respect. Nevertheless, I accept the point made by the Deputy.

Deputy Cox focused generally on the question of what will happen if the Treaty is not ratified. Clearly our hope is that ratification will be completed. If it is not, then the Community will face the greatest challenge it has ever faced, with implications not just for its monetary policy but for its fundamental existence.

Such a situation would require immediate action by those member States which continue to be committed to the objectives of Maastricht. However, their action would have to be in a Community context, and here I agree with Deputy Cox. I do not think that a monetary Schengen is the answer. Our attitude, which is that of the Maastricht Treaty, is to act together according to an agreed Treaty approach. Our aim will be to maintain this approach. While there has been talk of a fast track to European Monetary Union, there is strong opposition to this even in countries like Germany where the Bundesbank is opposed to a departure from the Maastricht timetable. As Deputy Cox recommends, our position is anchored in the Maastricht Treaty. We are monitoring the situation on ratification. The countries concerned are confident that ratification will take place. If it does not, then we will be ready to act in a Community context.

Deputy Cox raised various points on the second stage of European Monetary Union, especially as regards deficits. Our priority is to see the Treaty ratified. When it is ratified the Community will be in a position to look at the implementation of the Treaty in the light of current developments and current economic events, such as those referred to by Deputy De Rossa. That is why ratification is absolutely fundamental.

Deputies Hogan, De Rossa and Broughan raised the question of information on the EC. I wish to make a few points on this issue. The new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs must be given every opportunity to develop a constructive role in the consideration of foreign policy. I have always been a supporter of the concept of a Foreign Affairs Committee and I remain of the same opinion. I hope that this committee will lead to much more detailed and constructive contributions — which, I should say, we have had during this debate — on foreign affairs issues. I have benefited from today's debate and I can assure the Deputies that I have taken note of the points they have made. The Government will co-operate fully with the committee in its work. I propose to look at the format of the half yearly report so as to increase its usefulness for Members of the Oireachtas and to examine ways and means of ensuring its rapid publication after the period it covers. As it stands, the report is a very valuable document, a concise work of referrence. Without detracting from it in any way, I propose to incorporate an overview chapter which will comment on the developments in the period under review. This will have the additional advantage of providing the House with a starting point for its discussion.

Deputy De Rossa suggested that there should be a European Affairs Committee as well as a Foreign Affairs Committee. He also suggested that in the absence of such a committee the Houses of the Oireachtas would be denied the opportunity to voice their positions on inter-parliamentary co-operation. I would be very surprised if this was the case. Surely the basic principle of subsidiary would apply to national Parliaments. Issues of foreign policy and European affairs are totally intertwined. Hopefully, I demonstrated this in my remarks about areas such as Somalia. Thus, the role of a European Affairs Committee would of necessity, cut across that of a Foreign Affairs Committee and cause a considerable degree of confusion. The resources of the House are limited and it is important that members of committees should be able to focus directly on issues. By bringing foreign affairs and EC issues together in one committee we will achieve the maximum effect. I am sure that a Foreign Affairs Committee will add an important new dimension to the decision-making process. I supported this concept as a backbench Deputy, and I look forward to the setting-up of this committee.

I wish to refer briefly to the Common Agricultural Policy reform agreement referred to earlier. This agreement, which was concluded last year, represents the most important change in the general direction of agricultural policy in the Community since the inception of the Common Agricultural Policy some 30 years ago. It involves a partial, but nevertheless significant, switch in the method of agricultural assistance from price support to direct income payments to producers.

The scale of this switch should not be exaggerated. Farmers' incomes will continue to be underpinned mainly by market support measures. Nevertheless, the proportion of income derived from direct payments will increase substantially. This will help to ensure that the benefit of EC agricultural expenditure accrues more directly to farmers and that such assistance is better targeted to those who need it most. The price reductions will make Community agriculture produce more competitive. This will benefit consumers and lessen dependence on intervention without affecting farmers' incomes, which will be compensated by the direct payments.

The need to adapt the Common Agricultural Policy to changing circumstances has become increasingly evident in recent years. The costs of financing the existing system were becoming unsustainable. The reform restructures the Common Agricultural Policy on a sound footing for the future. Moreover, it has been agreed that adequate Community funding will be made available to implement the reformed agricultural support arrangements.

The overall impact of the reform on the incomes of Irish farmers should be broadly positive. Nevertheless the Government is very conscious that certain problems remain in relation to the implementation of the reform, particuarly in the beef sector. We have and will continue to press strongly for proper protection of the legitimate interests of Irish producers in any measures taken to give effect to the reform.

With regard to GATT, we want a settlement of the Uruguay Round negotiations as it should help world trade, and we are a highly trade dependent nation. The agriculture part of the negotiations deserves the closest scrutiny and we have always been determined not to pay twice, in Common Agricultural Policy reform and then in the Round. That is why we have insisted, as have France and others, on the Commission analysing in depth the implications of the Commission-US text on agriculture, particularly where its consistency with Common Agricultural Policy reform is concerned. That process is still under way.

The trade and investment flows between the EC and the US are enormous. When disputes arise, as they are bound to in a relationship of this breadth, the important thing is that they be addressed quickly through the bilateral or multilateral channels available to reach a fair settlement. The danger to be avoided is of a spiralling series of retaliations and counter-retaliations, amounting to a trade war, which benefit no one and may indeed do serious injury to countries not involved in the original matter in dispute. This is not caving-in. It is a rational self-interested approach to preserving and improving the world trading envioronment.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald referred to the position in France. It is not for me to speculate here on the position of the newly formed French Government on GATT or other issues. I would expect France to continue to promote its interests in a determined way in the context of an agreement on the Uruguay Round. We have frequent contacts with France at political and official level on the entire European agenda. I can assure the House that issues such as GATT, in which we have a common interest, will continue to be prominent in those exchanges. In my capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs I had detailed discussions with the former Minister for European Affairs, Madam Juigou.

In conclusion, I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate which I found very useful. I look forward to working closely with the new Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which will deal with European affairs, ODA and other issues in which I have an interest.

The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 April 1993.