I wish to refer to what has been said to me outside the House regarding the process which has given rise to this Bill and to the controls that will be put on the economy, now and in the future. At a recent public meeting a councillor colleague of mine, a Minister of State, said that the resources and allocations that may in the future be expected or be at the discretion of the Government would in many ways be controlled more centrally than at present. For example, at budget time we would have to take into account stricter controls on the Department of Education and, by implication, other Departments.
On the issue of economic and monetary union, I asked the Minister for Finance yesterday if the Government would be regulated by monetary union to the extent that allocations of national financial resources to different Departments would be controlled from a European base. In his reply the Minister said that there was no provision for regulation under economic and monetary union. However, in reply to supplementary questions he referred to the criteria set out in paragraph 104 of the Maastricht Treaty and its associated protocol, with which we are all familiar, which defines the levels of deficit and debt in terms of overall Government spending as a proportion of GDP. It was said that these do not seek to impose any constraint on the means taken by member states to meet these obligations.
I hope the Government would not expect people to think that there is not a problem simply by it saying that there are no rules to state how we should meet our obligations. While I would not like to carry the analogy further than the minimum, it is worth pointing out that the same argument is often heard from some of the more unscrupulous drug dealers when they say they are not asking people to rob money or carry syringes to make attacks to feed their habit but that they want the money and they do not care how it is obtained. This is essentially what is being said here: we are not being told from which Departments to cut funds but we are told that we will have to be stringent. This must be realised and faced up to.
This Bill is being introduced as part of a prelude to economic and monetary union. I hope the debate on economic and monetary union will be broadened so that we see the bigger picture and not simply each Bill, item by item, as if it is part of the Government's everyday legislative programme. It is something much bigger and this Bill is part of something far more significant.
At the EU Council of Ministers meeting yesterday there was unanimous agreement that money would be provided to Korea to help with its nuclear programme. Korea wants to build nuclear plants, ostensibly to generate electricity. We are part of the EU some of whose member states have a well known interest in the proliferation of nuclear plants around the world. We must courageously address the issue of principle which challenges us.
This issue is a warning. If it is possible for us to be corralled or cajoled into supporting the nuclear industry in Korea without economic and monetary union, I shudder to think what our approach will be when we are part of economic and monetary union. It will probably be a resignation to the reality that there is little we can do. People need to know this; it must be debated.
Not too long ago mortgage and interest rates made matters very difficult and people felt helpless. The Central Bank then acted in some way as a buffer against the vagaries of European monetary trends. I hope when we take on board all that economic and monetary union involves we will ensure that there are adequate safeguards.
Some people consider that it is better that we be controlled more centrally from Europe than centrally from Dublin. I do not agree with this. Such people have a jaundiced view of the famous phrase regarding openness, transparency and accountability. There is much secrecy. For example, while written rules and regulations supposedly govern the tendering process in Departments it is often difficult to ascertain what is going on and to obtain information on who is accountable and who is making decisions. I am not talking about elected representatives. I am talking about other people who make decisions. I hope this begrudging factor does not inform the debate.
I do not believe central European activities or decision-making will be less secretive than decision-making at a national level. If the Bundesbank decide monetary policy, it may be even more difficult to get information about the motivation behind those decisions. It will certainly be much more expensive to make telephone calls to obtain such information. This is in stark contrast with what happens in many other Governments. In Canada anybody who submits a tender at official government level is invited to attend when the boxes are being opened. It is similar to a polling day here. They know to whom the tenders are awarded and why they were awarded to them. This highlights some of the progress that remains to be made here in regard to accountability, a problem that will not be resolved by economic and monetary union.
The Green Party canvassed against acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty and there are still grounds for opposing it. The decision to accept Maastricht was democratically taken and we will have to live with it. The Central Bank may control the monetary life of the country although, as Deputy McCreevy stated, this Bill may mean a diminution of that control. Some aspects of Central Bank control, economic and monetary union and this Bill need to be debated in a broader manner. Our European neighbours have allowed us benefit significantly from Structural and Cohesion funding, which has improved the lot of our people. How many of us ask why Germany, France and Britain, the main benefactors of European funding, want to give money to peripheral regions and countries with a low GDP. We are not given a clear answer in that regard, we are told it is in the interests of greater brotherly or sisterly business. It is a matter of selling more products in a wider area, with restricted barriers. Do the countries which have contributed money to our economy really hope we benefit and that it will create local employment? Do they hope production will thrive in our towns, cities and villages to meet their needs? Do they hope their location here will enable us sell locally and cut down on vast transport costs which involves a great deal of air and sea travel? I do not believe they have those interests at heart. They want free access to markets and they want to control local finance.
Much lip service is paid to the term "subsidiarity" in European structures, but there is not much subsidiarity in the economic and monetary union process. I understand producers are no longer allowed to state the country in which their products are made. They may only state they are made in the EU. We are facing a rough ride with economic and monetary union, but I hope I am proven wrong. We must keep our eyes open.
The Government frequently claims the economy is doing well and boasts about job creation. If genuine jobs were created, they would be worth boasting about. I asked the Taoiseach recently if the statistics for job creation can be broken down into part-time jobs, contract work or any type of sustainable employment. There is no measure of the quality of jobs being created, many of which are low paid. I recently spoke to an economist and former German Minister in Helmut Kohl's Government who told me that, while German companies were doing well, they locate here to avail of a lower cost base. They are not coming here for the love of the people, even though that perception is often mooted. It would be nice if that were true. While I am sure some German companies are interested in what we have to offer from a tourism point of view, essentially they locate here to maximise profits.
Will the process on which we are embarking ensure a more secure future for this and future generations or do we have a choice? The Maastricht Treaty has ensured we do not have a choice. We can learn from countries that have worked alongside a twin track — I am not talking about Northern Ireland — where local economies work alongside the macroeconomic climate. France has managed to do this with locally produced bread, wine, cheese and so on. Some people have been able to do this here, but not with official support. I am talking about the phenomenon which started in Canada and is known as the local exchange trading systems. The Central Bank would not have control over them, although they could be dealt with under Part V of the Bill which deals with bureaux de change. However, the reference in the Bill relates more to airports and high street banks than locally created currencies. This position is a reality in many towns and villages where a large proportion of skilled people have time on their hands because they cannot find paid work in the formal economy. They are effectively benefiting their local area by keeping wealth in it and benefiting each other by serving people's needs through a Golden Pages type directory of services and skills on which they put a value and which they agree will be their unit of currency.