Clearly, the most significant feature of a European summit that was otherwise very much a nonevent was the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and the subsequent joint statement issued by the two leaders. It may prove to be a very important development and the vast majority of people on this island will hope that it will come to be seen as a turning point in the search for peace and political progress in Northern Ireland. Coming only 48 hours after the Tánaiste's constructive speech in which he set out the principles on which he believed progress could be based, it has provided some cautious grounds for optimism in an otherwise very bleak scenario.
After the worst week for casualties in Northern Ireland for more than 17 years and after a period of months in which it seemed that the paramilitaries were dictating not only who would live and who would die but also setting the political agenda, the joint statement issued in Brussels on Friday, with its emphasis on the rejection of violence, the principle of consent and the repudiation of any secret agreement with those supporting violence, has helped to seize the initiative back from the paramilitaries and their supporters. I do not believe that the Reynolds-Major statement in itself offers any formula or instant solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, but it does provide a basis or a framework on which the search for a political settlement and the peace for which people are craving can be built.
Of course the success or failure of the initiative will be determined by the extent to which the democratic parties in Northern Ireland can be mobilised in support. We have always emphasised that a solution cannot be imposed by Dublin or London, acting separately or jointly, over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland. The involvement of the people of Northern Ireland and their democratic representatives is absolutely crucial.
It has to be said that the initial reaction to the Brussels statement from most of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland has been disappointing. Mr. Hume seemed peeved that the process he had initiated with Mr. Adams had been effectively sidelined. The initial reaction from the Unionist parties was negative and begrudging, but the latest comments by Mr. Molyneaux have been more positive. I hope that on reflection they will all recognise that the developments of the past week now offer the best prospect of breaking the political logjam and smashing the terrible cycle of death and destruction.
Mr. Hume will have to accept that he and Mr. Adams do not have any exclusive proprietorial rights to the search for peace and progress. The Unionist parties will have to accept that they cannot simply continue to say no to every initiative proposed. Here, I reiterate the exhortation of Deputy Bruton earlier to the Unionist parties.
The statement issued by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister properly emphasised the need for the involvement of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Immediate steps must be taken to secure their involvement in the process. Against the background of the current mayhem, time is a luxury that the people of Northern Ireland cannot afford.
The horrific events of the past few weeks have made the case for new political initiatives more compelling than ever. At times the paramilitaries have seemed to be engaged in a depraved competition to see who can inflict the worst suffering, as outrage has followed atrocity on almost a daily basis. All those who have died — in the Shankill slaughter and the sectarian murders which preceded and followed it and the Greysteel massacre on Saturday — must be foremost in our thoughts. Their families deserve our support and solidarity and indeed our admiration for the dignity with which they have borne their ordeal. The almost universal rejection by the relatives of the dead of any calls for revenge or counter killings reminds us once again that the paramilitaries, orange or green, represent only a tiny proportion of opinion in Northern Ireland and must not be allowed by ruthlessness and viciousness to inflict their will on the people of the North.
Also in our thoughts should be the family of one of the lesser publicised victims of the recent violence. A young RUC reserve constable, Brain Woods, died in hospital on Tuesday having been shot by an IRA sniper in Newry on Sunday evening as he directed traffic after an interdenominational peace service in the town. Like many of the other recent victims, he leaves a wife and young child.
What does this murder and the finding of a 150 pound Prove bomb in County Tyrone on the same day say about the validity of the public statements of Mr. Gerry Adams and the supposed endorsement of the Army Council for the peace process? How can these statements be regarded as anything other than a very sick joke when the same organisation continues to regard the blowing to pieces of innocent people and the calculated murder of a traffic policeman to be a legitimate means for furthering their cause?
When the Hume-Adams talks commenced my party strongly expressed the apprehension that far from leading to peace, there was a real danger the talks would lead to even greater violence. That fear, unfortunately, has been borne out by subsequent events. The Loyalist gangs reacted with predictable viciousness and all the time the talks were going on, the IRA showed no willingness to even scale down — never mind abandon — its campaign of murder and destruction.
Various Nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland and many commentators have told us that the Provisionals had changed, that there is now a new political realism in the organisation. Unfortunately, we have yet to see any signs of it. We have seen no evidence of it in its actions in Northern Ireland, and there is certainly no evidence of any new political thinking in the leaflet it was distributing on the streets of Dublin last weekend, headed "Towards a lasting peace in Ireland".
This is a leaflet produced by people trapped in a time warp, couched in the language of the 1930s. There is hardly a token nod in the direction of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The solution as Sinn Féín sees it in this leaflet is simply one of "decolonisation" and it states "the Dublin Government should assume its responsibility to gain the reunification of the country either in co-operation with the British Government or, if necessary, independently".
John Hume is a politician whose personal courage and integrity have been widely acknowledged at home and abroad. However, the evidence to date is that he has failed to convince Sinn Féín and the IRA to reject violence and take the democratic road. I would like him to put his considerable authority behind the new efforts of the two Governments to find a solution.
He continues to insist that the agreement he made with Mr. Adams is a viable runner, but we still do not know what is in it. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been briefed by Mr. Hume and various US politicians. We read that the IRA Army Council, Provo prisoners in the Maze and Sinn Féin councillors, North and South, have all been briefed, but Members of this House and the majority of people on this island are unaware of the proposals. Various media reports claiming to be accounts of the agreement have been published, but these have been challenged, largely by Mr. Adams.
If Mr. Hume believes, as he said in Westminster on Monday, that his agreement with Mr. Adams is the best opportunity he has seen in 20 years, then surely he should make it public and allow the public to be the judge. Any rational assessment must lead to the conclusion that proposals from the two Governments, capable of winning the support of all democratic parties in Northern Ireland, offers far better hope for progress than a secret deal negotiated solely between the constitutional and armed wings of nationalism.
There is a need, as Deputy De Rossa said last week, for much more plain speaking on the North. We have to stop speaking in riddles and spell out exactly what we mean. In this context the Tánaiste needs to spell out much more explicitly what he meant in his six principles.
For instance, where he said that "no agreement can be reached in respect of any change in the present status of Northern Ireland without the freely expressed consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland...", does he mean, as Deputy De Rossa urged in the Democratic Agenda for Peace, "recognition that Northern Ireland has a right to continue to exist within the United Kingdom"? If this is the case why does he not say so?
Where the Tánaiste talked about the need to recognise in our fundamental law the principle of consent in regard to Northern Ireland, is he promising to hold a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? If he is, why will he not say so and go one step further by spelling out what sort of amendment the Government has in mind?
A prerequisite for political progress must be a willingness from all sides, North and South, to compromise, to set aside cherished aspirations in the pursuit of the greater objective of peace. Despite the awful events of the past few weeks, many of the elements required for a move forward now seem to be falling in place. If this effort fails the people of Northern Ireland may be condemned to countless more years of violence. It is an opportunity that cannot be missed.
The EC Extraordinary Summit was a damp squib and I am sure if the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was on this side of the House that is the way he would describe it. Even in the share-out of agencies Ireland came bottom of the pile with the office for veterinary and plant health inspection and control, accepting the failure to secure the medicines agency. The European Environmental Agency, for example, which went to Copenhagen would have been a logical expansion of an existing European institution dealing with living and working conditions at Loughlinstown.
Given that this Extraordinary Summit was the culmination of years of work to achieve a European Union, and was held on the eve of our all becoming citizens of the European union, it was far from being a great jamboree or a joyous occasion as far as Ireland is concerned.
As we face up to the problems of rising unemployment, growing poverty, homelessness and increased emigration, I hope we will heed the words of Jacques Delors, "that we will draw lessons from the public debate on the Maastricht Treaty," and recognise that "it is no miracle remedy, but could help in resolving a certain number of problems."
I hope we will now adjust the figures in the national plan to equate more to the reality of European funding, and find ways to ensure that the profit-takers in the private sector who have benefited so much from the neo-liberal market regime of the EC make a larger contribution to economic development between now and 1999.
We urgently need more reality and less mythology about that plan. I would suggest some serious thinking on the question of Economic and Monetary Union and the convergence criteria which have contributed in no small measure to the downward spiral throughout the European economy, with simultaneous downward pressure on public spending as the dole queues grow.
Our uncritical acceptance of that whole baggage has left us with no scope for individual action, and little credibility in the wider European context. The débácle of the EMS should by now have alerted us to the tyranny of the capital markets which are no respecters of national policy or monetary stability. That cannot be allowed to continue, and a small country like Ireland needs action in that area more than most.
The proposed European Monetary Institute in Frankfurt, due to come into operation on 1 January, has neither the power nor the policy to address the fundamental problem of who will control our economy, the capital markets or democratically elected and accountable institutions in the European Community and the member states. It is clearly an inadequate structure for the task of dealing with the monetary crisis. Democratic Left rejects the view that we should have the politics of non-Government in such a critical area as the capital markets. We believe that a minimum regulatory mechanism would be a transaction tax applied in all member states and used to discourage blatant speculative currency transactions and to slow down the pace of such capital movements which are not related to normal trade, commerce and industry. We also believe that the EC requires regulatory mechanisms at least as powerful as the combined financial regulatory mechanisms of the member states.
The revenue from a transaction tax could also be used to build up the currency reserves of the central banks, helping them to become more of a match for the speculative financial institutions and trans-national corporations engaged in market manipulations. But, most importantly, it would require accountability and transparency in money dealings.
I believe we must become much more actively involved in the full and frank reappraisal of the whole European Monetary Union proposal and avoid the sterile, no-questions-asked approach adopted by this country when we were in Minister Bertie Ahern's "fast track" to nowhere during the EMS débácle. I believe that a bit more of the Euro-sceptic role might serve this country a lot better in future than the role of the pliant mendicant.
I note also that "our ties with the Western European Union" were confirmed in a report from the General Affairs Council which set out five common actions on the Middle East, South East, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia, elections in Russia and peace and security in Europe. Given that the ties of Ireland with the Western European Union are supposed to be very tentative indeed, I would welcome some clarification on that question from the Taoiseach. Where are we going in European defence and common actions with the members of the Western European Union?
There were other important issues dealt with at the summit, such as the plan of action for the December Summit on EUROPOL and the fight against drugs, which is an urgent problem in this city, in particular, and other cities. In that regard I would like to hear, in addition to the Taoiseach's formal report this morning, our proposals for combating the growth in the drug tracfficking area and what measures Ireland is proposing for EUROPOL to achieve some more effective police action at European level. I hope that action is more effective than the more local responses which appear increasingly impotent in dealing with the drug barons.
I note also that the Committee of the Regions will have its first constituent meeting on 1 January 1994. The Taoiseach might now inform the House how we are going to achieve democratic legitimacy for that body and how accountable its representatives will be to the people of their region. I hope that the Dublin region is acknowledged as being part of the Irish region and not some poor relation as hitherto. Given that we are one of the last countries to actually name our representatives to this committee, we must have had a lot of time to engage in consultation and partnership in respect of this decision.
The most important subject of the summit for us here in Ireland is, of course, the EC initiative on growth and employment. If the press releases of Commissioner Flynn are to be taken as the distilled wisdom of the Commission's proposals for tackling the unemployment problem, I am afraid we will have mass unemployment for a long time. They do not even match the innovative approach of Jacques Delors, nor the aspirations and approach behind most EC handouts. Commissioner Flynn's constant harping on reducing wage costs, on job-sharing and reduced working time are OK for after dinner speeches but mean very little for people out of work with no money or for those at work with no money struggling to meet their family commitments in tough economic circumstances. We need less of the "share-it-among-the-poor" approach and more of the "share-it-among-all" strategy.
We need far more radical proposals than regurgitation of the old employer arguments for suppressing wage increases while massively increasing labour productivity, profit margins and increasing repatriation of profits to third countries. We need to look at new concepts of growth, income redistribution and a sustainable economy if we are to make progress. Money paid in wages in this economy at least has the merit of stimulating demand and of course attracting enhanced Government revenues from PAYE and PRSI payments. Profits left with individual employers under the present regime rarely result, as we have seen, in increased employment here.
I await publication of the EC White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. I would suggest that we seek the development of a common industrial strategy for the EC, which would redistribute industrial investment, decentralise European industry from the European centre to the periphery and act as a powerful counterweight to the tendency of capital to concentrate in the most developed regions of the Community. Such a common industrial strategy in our era is as vital as the Common Agricultural Policy was in earlier days and should be funded and developed accordingly. But that of course would require a departure also from the Irish approach to the EC and the development of a more pro-active and innovative approach to future economic development.
However, such a radical departure is now clearly necessary if we are seriously to deal with outflows of capital in repatriated profits, huge profit-taking by financial institutions and the growing concentration of capital, technology and investment in the golden triangle of the EC. It is also a vital mechanism for a single currency area, if that is ever to become a reality, because we would then need automatic capital transfers to compensate for our own concentration in the centre of Europe. To date our recommendations in that area have been particularly lacking in either vision or urgency. It is vital that at the December summit such proposals be urgently formulated.
