I welcome the Tánaiste to the House.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Hopefully we will take all Stages of the Bill today so that we can allow the Tánaiste and others make their plans accordingly.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is a decision for the end of each Stage.
Thank you a Leas-Chathaoirleach and Members of the Seanad. The Bill before us today is straightforward. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has certain statutory functions under the European Communities Act with regard to the supervision of EU secondary legislation. The purpose of the Bill, following the establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, is to transfer the statutory functions in question exercised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. The transfer of these statutory functions necessitates a simple amendment to the European Communities Act.
The brief background is that after Ireland joined the European Community in 1973, the statutory function under the European Communities Act was initially exercised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. With the establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, the function was transferred to that committee. The new Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs is now the most appropriate committee to exercise this task. Secondary legislation plays an important role in the implementation of directives adopted by the EU and it is right that the Oireachtas should continue its constructive role in examining this legislation.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs is, of course, far from limited to the supervision of secondary legislation. It will, in conjunction with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, make a valuable and imaginative contribution across the range of issues arising from Irish membership of the EU. Yesterday, His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Hungary, Mr. Ápárd Golncz, was on a State visit to Ireland. He addressed the Members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It was an important and indeed historic occasion and it illustrated the important role of the two committees.
The decision to establish the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs is a reflection of the importance which the Government attaches to European issues and to the role of the Oireachtas in addressing those issues. I take this opportunity to wish the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs well in its future work. It will certainly be kept busy over the coming years and I look forward to working closely with it.
I do not intend today to dwell in any detail on the array of European issues which we will have many opportunities of discussing over the coming years. The importance of the issues for Ireland, and the European Union as a whole, is great and the range is impressive.
I would highlight some of the foremost priorities. First, the creation of employment must remain our top priority at both national and Union level. The White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment has identified a number of avenues for progress and these must be followed up imaginatively.
Second, the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference offers both a challenge and an opportunity for the Union to improve its effectiveness and to begin to equip itself for the challenges of a new century. Ireland will approach the Intergovernmental Conference imaginatively and constructively.
Third, the achievement of the economic and monetary union represents a central aim of the Union over the coming years. Ireland fully supports that aim and will be ready to participate in the third and final phase.
Fourth, the further enlargement of the European Union to include, among others, the countries of central and eastern Europe, will remain a major priority over the years ahead. The emergence of democracies with reforming economies in central and eastern Europe means that the political and economic context in which the European Union operates has fundamentally altered. The countries of central and eastern Europe actively aspire to European Union membership and that aspiration must be met. Working out the arrangements for this, in a way which preserves the Union's essential achievements and which permits the continuing process of European integration, will occupy much of the European Union's energies in the coming years. This list of priorities over the coming years is, of course, far from exhaustive.
Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 1996. We have held the Presidency on four previous occasions. However, the 1996 Presidency will pose an even greater challenge for the country in organisation and management terms. It is a challenge which we are glad to accept and confident that we will meet.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that Ireland has much to gain from Europe, and I do not mean in narrow financial terms, as well as much to contribute to Europe. It is vital that we work constantly to increase our knowledge and understanding of European issues. It is vital that an increase in knowledge and understanding should apply not only to the Government and the Oireachtas but also to the public generally. That is a priority of the Government. Only in that way can we reap the rewards while simultaneously making a valuable and informed contribution to the affairs of the European Union.
We support this legislation. We do not have any reservations about the fundamental principle behind it. It ensures that the function in respect of the examination of secondary legislation, hitherto exercised by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, will be transferred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs.
At the same time, there are some observations that should be made in relation to the practical and effective implementation of that principle. First, with the establishment of this committee, we now have 17 Oireachtas committees and each has a significant and specific role. In my experience, over the years and more recently as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is becoming increasingly evident that the capacity of the individual members to effectively attend, much less research and service, these various committees must be questioned. There is now such a growth in the number and range of activities within these committees that, while nobody is going to question the democratic accountability which is a welcome feature of committee work, there is, in fact, a serious issue to be addressed in relation to the capacity of members to do what we would want them to do in an ideal world.
In relation to my experience of committees in recent times, which was denied me for longer than I would have wished, I welcome the opportunity to be back on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. I have noticed, and I would not be discharging my responsibility to the House if I did not report, that attendances are much lower than Members would wish.
Yesterday we had the privilege of being addressed by the President of Hungary at a joint session of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The attendance was far below what we would wish to show due recognition to the status both of the speaker and the country he represents. That was not because people were not interested or showed a lack of respect; it is that we are at the limit of the numerical and other capacities of Members to service these committees. That point should be made because, if I have a reservation, that is it. I do not mean this as a point of dogma, much less theology, in respect of this committee because I support the idea behind it.
It is a pity it was not possible to have a degree of co-ordination between the two committees; perhaps it still may be possible. As the Tánaiste's introductory remarks have indicated, the range of activities to which we are linked through the European Union is broad. It extends every day along with the EU and will extend even further with the evolving international position on security and other issues, which changes each day before our eyes.
One assumes this committee will operate to examine secondary legislation, which is the law giving effect to the political decisions of the EU in so far as they require internal implementation in the member states. For that reason it will reflect political decisions. It follows that we need effective liaison between the Foreign Affairs and European Affairs Committees so that, even in discharging this function, the European Affairs Committee will be cognisant of the political implications of the issues it considers.
When we move closer to economic and monetary union, a long cherished but much delayed ambition, presumably it will be brought into effect through secondary legislation — some of the measures will be passed in statutory form by the Oireachtas but much secondary legislation will be involved. The implications of this are enormous.
This is only one case where we need to take due account of this at political level, which is the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee. That works with a degree of consensus, not just in a bipartisan but in a multi-partisan manner. The range of views is not based on party positions as much as individual views. That will help to inform our views both in the House and on the committees.
This week alone many issues have arisen in Europe. For instance, the EU fisheries dispute with Canada was settled, which is a major issue for all of us. In time that will involve a formal agreement which will be implemented by each member state. Each country will have rights and responsibilities in patrolling, in regard to total allowable catches, etc. That will probably feature in secondary legislation; it is not for me to specify in what sense. Again, this is a political decision being transformed into legislation, and co-ordination is necessary because one cannot operate in isolation from the other.
New developments are taking place across the spectrum. I am looking at This Week in Europe, issued by the European Commission, and I see a paragraph headed “European Union — Tunisia free trade deal concluded” and another headed “New chapter in European Union — China relations”. Many of these developments will impact here over time. Political decisions arising from these developments will in many cases require probable inclusion in secondary legislation. Although this new committee is taking responsibility for certain areas which were previously within the remit of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is essential that liaison between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Affairs Committee be maintained. I know the Tánaiste and his Department are conscious of this.
I wish to make some other points while I have the opportunity. It is not anticipated that this committee will incur cost for the State; it will not have financial or staffing implications. I am glad to hear that; I hope it can be demonstrated and that it will turn out to be the case. Where committees serve a useful function they must be staffed and financed, but we have noticed that there has been a steady growth in staffing in recent times, reflected, I would have thought, in the financial costs of servicing these committees and constituting a burden, if I may call it that, on the Departments directly involved. I welcome that this change does not appear to have either staffing or financial implications. If that were to be the case then we would be at risk of overwhelming not just the parliamentary system with this new committee system but also of adding to cost burdens at a time when everybody recognises that very strict and consistent control of public expenditure must be a feature of our economic management.
I wish to mention some matters which are topical at this point, as the Tánaiste has done. I wish to deal with enlargement. We will have another opportunity to discuss the major issues involved in enlargement, so it would be inappropriate for me today to use this opportunity to deal with this or any other issue in detail, but I wish to make one or two practical points in terms of administration. I regret that I did not have the opportunity of asking the Hungarian President about this when he was here. We are talking about embracing an extra 100 million people from Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania, peoples who are really at the core of Europe. We have never had the right and certainly do not have the right now to tell them that they are going to upset the cosy set-up in the European Union, in which we have been involved since 1972.
It is interesting that observations made yesterday suggested that Hungary is on the periphery of Europe. I found it quite amusing that a country right at the centre of Europe, in terms of its cultural role, its historical role and its geographical place, was described as being on the periphery. However, it did illustrate that the extension of Europe almost to the Urals is to be the reality of the European Union if the political direction now being pursued is achieved. Major practical economic and financial implications have to be addressed in that light. Yesterday I was conscious of one in particular while listening to the President of Hungary and the translation. At present there are nine official languages in the European Union. I know from my considerable experience that, in terms of internal negotiations in the Union, at least 60 per cent of the time is taken up waiting for translations or facilitating translations and interpretations of what is agreed at each stage.
The classic example is the Council of Agriculture Ministers. It is not that each of the 12 Ministers for Agriculture is at each other's throats all night but if agreement in principle is reached at 12 midnight or 1 a.m., there is a three or four hour lapse until that agreement is translated into documentary form to be put before each member state. It is a considerable achievement in itself to get the translation into the language of every member state. This is what causes the great delay at Council level.
I addressed this issue in my capacity as a European Commissioner in 1980-81, when I had responsibility for administration and personnel. Even then over 60 per cent of the staff of the European Commission were, in one way or another, involved in linguistic or interpretation activities. For example, there were people who were jurisprudence experts in law and language. The delays involved are enormous. This is an area to which we could make an effective and practical contribution in relation to the proposed enlargement.
The President of Hungary said yesterday that enlargement would involve approximately another 100 million people. This means a European Union involving 460-500 million people. This can be coped with if reasonable machinery is in place to give administrative effect to the political decisions which are reached. I do not have many reservations about reaching political consensus. As things change, one finds an extraordinary degree of determination to find political consensus. The best example of this was in the early fifties when the European Community was set up and people who hitherto were enemies found a degree of internal cohesion.
What I have seen in my experience of the European Union since the 1970s encourages me to think that there will be political cohesion if the Union is enlarged and extended to the east, north and south. There will be problems and differences but unless the entire EU administration is examined now, effective and efficient administration of an enlarged Union will not be achieved.
At present, the Union is creaking under the weight of administration. The linguistic requirements, as they currently stand, are such as to bring it almost to a standstill on occasion. In the light of the applicant countries, the Government could take an initiative in this regard; Ireland is uniquely placed to do this. We should approach our partners and suggest that if an enlarged Union is to become a reality we should determine now that there should be, say, four working languages in the European Union. We do not need to translate every single document into every language, otherwise it is interpreters or translators that we require, not political leaders or administrators. That reality has to be faced and the applicant countries should be made aware of that priority. I thought that I would mention those points at this stage. It is not appropriate on a Bill that we support to range any further than that, but when we look at the various laws and regulations that have to be translated into our own law, the issues that I have touched on may arise sooner rather than later.
I welcome and support this Bill, but I hope the Minister and his Department can take account of the points I made, particularly on the liaison with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the need to ensure that there is no overlapping or duplication.
I am pleased to see that this Bill will have all party support because it is only dealing with a practical administrative matter which must be put in order for the benefit of the procedures in the House.
It is essential, desirable and necessary that one would have a Joint Committee on European Affairs and a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. They may overlap to a large extent, but they are nevertheless separate and distinct committees. As Senator O'Kennedy has rightly pointed out, the volume of documents and amount of material obtained from the EU are such that only one committee could adequately manage to cope with it all. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the volume of materials I receive is such that it is difficult to keep abreast of what is happening in this sector alone. I spoke recently to a number of people at local authority level, such as county managers and county secretaries, and they are also having great difficulty in keeping abreast of the changes in the legislation that is affecting them.
If I was asked what issue poses the greatest challenge to Europe at the moment, I would, say it is the environmental issue. Today is the ninth anniversary of the Chernobyl incident and 125,000 lives were lost on that occasion. In fact, from what I read of the incident at the time, this figure could have been far greater. Reports of that explosion seemed to suggest that babies born after that incident have had serious problems. New diseases that were never heard of before and many types of cancers have come about because of this explosion. That nuclear power station is still in existence and a concerted effort should be made by members of the European Parliament to ensure that it is made safe immediately and that all practical efforts should be made to achieve that. A sizeable investment should be made by the European Union to try to remedy to some extent the worst excesses of this incident.
We have succeeded in getting freedom of movement among the member states of the European Union, but our air is being polluted and radiation is being spread across Europe and that needs no freedom of movement. It does not recognise borders, but it affects everybody. It will not only affect us now, but future generations.
I am pleased the Government is taking a strong line as regards Sellafield because of the damage it is doing to the Irish Sea and along the east coast. Nuclear power stations located along the British coast are closer to Ireland than the main population centres in Britain. A positive line needs to be taken on the areas of environment and energy and I hope this will be examined.
The Tánaiste spoke about employment, which is important. Efforts have been made and I congratulate the Government and the European Parliament on the Leader programme. Later this week the Minister of State is to launch initiatives in relation to the partnership areas and also employment, which is welcome. Those programmes are trying to keep people in the areas where they were brought up, which must be encouraged. These are an incentive to keep people there and are also of benefit to the cities, which are overcrowded. People are moving — and not only in Ireland — from rural areas to villages and small towns and then to larger towns. In 15 or 20 years time there will only be county towns or a number of major centres in larger counties like Cork, Galway and Mayo. Small villages will be completely denuded of people.
As regards the social structure in rural areas, the numbers involved in sport — for example, hurling and rugby — have declined. People who in the past married and lived in these areas are now moving to villages and towns. I do not know whether Europe can assist in solving that problem. The Leader and the partnership programmes are of benefit in this regard. What has happened in France and Italy, where villages are like ghost towns, shows how serious the situation is. Government policy involves decentralisation. It is equally important that an effort is made by Europe to ensure people move from cities to rural areas. It is important that facilities, services and offices are located in peripheral areas, which will benefit communities.
The Tánaiste believes the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs will be able to play a major role in economic and monetary affairs. It is important to achieve economic and monetary union, but we must be careful to get the balance right. We do not want one currency to take over the economic and monetary union or one country to have all the say.
Interest rates and the strength of different currencies will lead to serious problems and rivalry. One can see major problems arising with the Deutsche mark as against sterling, the French franc, the peseta, the lira, etc. If the currency problems we experienced two years ago when interest rates were in the region of 50 to 100 per cent recur, industries and economies will be wrecked. If interest rates continued at that level for three or four months, our economy would be devastated. This is a small nation and our strength lies in the economic and monetary union which would avoid the worst excesses of the currency markets. I listened with interest to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, when this happened. People said he should do something about interest rates. However, he made the point — and he was correct — that because the currency markets were so volatile, we could do nothing to save ourselves from what was happening. People at ministerial and other levels must make a serious effort to achieve monetary union as soon as possible.
I will not discuss this matter at length because everyone agrees with this Bill, which I welcome and support.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the legislation and I will comment briefly on the Tánaiste's speech, with a glance at what Senator O'Kennedy and Senator Enright said.
The Minister of State may remember the debate we had before Christmas when the first priority highlighted by the Tánaiste was that the creation of employment must remain our top priority and that the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment had identified a number of avenues for progress which must be followed up imaginatively. At that time some of us said the White Paper was strong on aspiration and relatively short on specific policies which might promise effective results. I am not sure that much has happened in the intervening months for us to revise that comment, but we hope for the best in European and national affairs on these matters. Perhaps the present international upturn will allow us to claim credit for development policies which might have occurred anyway.
The Intergovernmental Conference offers a challenge and an opportunity and Ireland will approach the conference imaginatively and constructively. Will the day ever come when we say we will approach things unimaginatively and destructively? I will move on rapidly, having made those unworthy observations.
A more serious issue is the achievement of Economic and Monetary Union. Senator Enright correctly highlighted the possible difficulties. I support our policy on economic and monetary union and I believe we should aim to participate fully in the third and final phase. However, we face a serious problem in terms of the United Kingdom's position. I will not speak derisively about the UK's European policy; it faces its own problems and if some of those are self-inflicted, we should not talk about them.
It seems we should — I presume and hope we are — working hard on contingency plans in case a sharp divergence of approach occurs between the UK and Ireland when approaches must finally be decided. The implications for us if the UK does not go the way we would wish it and ourselves to go are potentially serious. Everyone knows this, although I do not know what we can do about it or if we can take realistic steps in advance to try to limit the damage which might arise if we go in different directions. However, it seems to be one of the major issues confronting the formulation of our foreign policy in general and our economic policy in particular.
I hope there is close co-ordination between the relevant Departments contemplating that maligned scenario if it comes to that. I do not believe in expecting maligned scenarios until they happen because we do not know how many changes can occur politically and economically. However, that remains a simmering, underlying problem in terms of Ireland's relations with the EU and it could explode in our face at any time once serious negotiations begin. I hope we have more than aspiration to support our position if and when the crunch comes.
I listened with great interest to Senator O'Kennedy's warm welcome for the legitimate aspirations of the countries of central and eastern Europe to become members. I share his views because I do not believe that we, as Europeans, have a right to try to block or to slow down the pace of closer connection between eastern Europe and the EU. Even if we could, we should not.
We have a direct interest in trying to ensure that we do not suffer from the consequences of the changed regimes, particularly in agriculture, which will inevitably be necessary to accommodate those countries. I hope the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance and, when the time comes, the Cabinet are thinking of the most effective negotiating position which Ireland can adopt consonant with our commitment to the European Union and to supporting the legitimate aspirations of these countries. We must accept some changes in agricultural policy in particular hut, at the same time, it is not fair to expect our agricultural community to bear the burden of abrupt change.
How can one negotiate the most effective transitional arrangements for the eastern European countries and for those sectors of our own economy which will be affected? We are entitled to demand adequate compensation, although I do not like using that term because it tends to be linked with the begging bowl mentality. However, this is not a begging bowl position but a legitimate aspiration to ensure that a significant sector of our economy does not suffer from measures which must be taken.
It was also instructive to hear Senator O'Kennedy refer to the Hungarian President's image of the Hungarians as being on the periphery of Europe. It serves to remind us that for many years we used the argument of being on the periphery as an excuse for either demanding more or excusing our performance. Our peripheral geographic location is a disadvantage in some areas and we are legitimately entitled to claim recognition of that. However, "core" and "periphery" in a European context, as that comment by the Hungarian President reminded us, is at least as much psychological as geographical. As a successful member of the European Union for more than 20 years which is now contributing as much as it is taking in general, not financial terms, Ireland is entitled to indulge in a self-image as being central to the European Union and the ambition of moving towards an ever closer union rather than thinking of ourselves in a post-colonial sense as being peripheral, always at the end of the queue and deserving constant compensation. The psychological shift, which is already occurring, should be reinforced by the Government's position, attitudes and vocabulary. I welcome the fact that it is happening to some extent in this and other documents that the Tánaiste has laid before us.
Senator Enright referred movingly to the implications for environmental policy on this, the ninth anniversary of Chernobyl. The membership of central and eastern European countries will have major implications for environmental policy in the European Union. Anybody who heard Adi Roche on the Pat Kenny Show this morning reporting from Chernobyl on the continuing horrific consequences, including deformed babies, cannot but be moved by their plight and must take seriously the implications for environmental policy.
The question of language policy in the European Union is one which I disagree with Senator O'Kennedy on, at least in terms of the pace of change he was suggesting. From a purely administrative viewpoint one can see the advantage of having a limited number of official working languages; he suggested four. The European Union, however, is about much more than administrative efficiency or convenience, although that is important at its own level. In many respects it is about the way in which the identities of individual cultures can be reconciled with a move towards what is termed, in the fashionable rhetoric, an "ever closer union". Moving in that direction, without serious reflection on the implications and the message being given to citizens of the European Union, would be potentially dangerous and would add to the potential for backlash against the Union which now exists in a number of countries and regions.
Without wishing to be dogmatic, it is an area which we should be careful about, but I would be loath to see Ireland taking a lead in suggesting that. While we have a specific language situation which some of us would feel has not been adequately represented at European Union level over the years, I will not linger over that. In the wider European dimension, we must ensure that citizens of Europe feel they are full members of the Union. They should not feel, as many already do, that there is a growing distance between them and the centre, and we saw some of the backlash to this in the initial responses to Maastricht. An issue could be made by those who want to oppose the movement towards an ever closer union, which I support, that ill-considered steps were taken prematurely towards what I would call linguistic centralisation in the administration practices of the EU.
We have held the EU Presidency four times, and one accepts what the Tánaiste says about an even greater challenge facing us now. One of the components of that challenge is the fact that we have discharged the responsibility of the Presidency, and are perceived as having discharged it, so effectively. An Irish EU Presidency is now expected to be a good and effective one, but that was not necessarily the case on the first occasion nor on some subsequent occasions. There is now a burden of expectation on our politicians and officials that adds to the pressure on them to achieve an effective Presidency. It may be that an equally effective performance next time round will not receive the same degree of recognition as on earlier occasions.
I have some sympathy with those responsible for carrying that out. They are entitled to whatever organisational assistance and resources they need. The Government should keep that in mind, because the Presidency is now a showpiece for Irish diplomacy and one that we are well capable of discharging provided that we approach it in that manner.
Senator O'Kennedy made valid comments on the dangers of the emerging committee system. I am a strong supporter of the system, but if the committees are not effectively worked by the Members and if they are not effectively resourced, then they will discredit the committee system itself. I hesitate to think that there could be, but there may be, those in the political system — and, dare one say it, even the administrative system — who are prepared to stoically endure the discomfiture of committees from time to time. However, if we are to have the type of co-operation at all levels of decision making from ministerial through the Oireachtas to the public service, it is more important that they should wish to co-operate and see each other serviced properly than that they would try to snatch short term advantage over particular issues as one or other may feel tempted to do at various times.
If the Tánaiste — and I take his word for it — is aptly committed to trying to increase, as he says, "knowledge and understanding of European issues" not only in the Government and the Oireachtas but among the public generally, then this committee could play an important, constructive role in that respect if it so wishes, if it operates by consensus and if it feels that it has the full support of both the Government and the public servants. If, however, there is a fear of lack of support from the public service for Oireachtas committee work, many more members of these committees will be inclined to engage in solo runs and exploit them for short term purposes.
When one looks back at the degree of information that was provided to the public before the Maastricht referendum, one can see the opportunity that exists for enhancing public understanding and increasing knowledge. I do not doubt that from a purely short term party political point of view the then Government handled the Maastricht referendum issues quite skilfully. However, from a national point of view it was a missed opportunity. It was badly handled and there should be no repetition whatever of approaching the Intergovernmental Conference from the perspective of keeping the public, for practical purposes, in the dark as far as possible and of discussing issues only when one could not avoid discussing them.
I hope that the circumstances this time will not be such as either to tempt or oblige the Government to proceed along those paths. I hope that this Oireachtas committee will play a constructive role in ensuring that if anybody were tempted to pursue that path, it will not happen.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, to the Seanad. I support this Bill because the formation of a Joint Committee on European Affairs is necessary. In the past, before the expansion of the European Union to its current size, matters relating to Europe were dealt with by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. At one stage the EC had six members. When we joined it went up to nine, and was later enlarged to 12 in the 1980s. Now, under the new name of the European Union, it has 15 members.
With the Maastricht Treaty, European issues are becoming of the utmost importance for us, and thus a Joint Committee on European Affairs is a necessity. The Members of this committee, of which I am one, will do their work properly, getting us more involved in European affairs.
There is a great need for communication between, on the one side, Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg — or, if you want to put it another way, the London-Paris-Brussels triangle — and the man in the street. What is happening in Europe is not translating down to the man in the street, the field, the factory or the unemployed, not to mention our educational facilities. Local authorities need more information from Europe to disseminate to the local electorate. The European Affairs Committee can play a big role in the diffusion of knowledge about European affairs to the people and to the local and regional authorities.
Further expansion of the EU will take place. The President of Hungary was here yesterday and countries such as his in central and eastern Europe are looking for membership of the EU. This will be important for the role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.
The advent of democracy in eastern and central Europe has not been without great hardship due to economic and political upheavals. Some countries disappeared; new powers emerged in some countries such as Poland, Hungary and Romania; there was a peaceful division of Czechoslovakia and a violent division of Yugoslavia. A ten year old atlas is now of little use with regard to eastern Europe — Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic did not exist then. With the expansion into eastern Europe of the EU and the complex difficulties that may be encountered there, we need a committee to deal solely with European affairs.
An increasing number of our people are going to Europe for employment. We have always had emigration, mainly to English speaking areas such as Britain, North America and Australia, but more people are now going to EU countries for employment. We need to keep in close contact with them, especially people in this House as they may have votes for the next Seanad election. Those working in Europe need somebody to speak for them and the European Affairs Committee may provide a voice for them.
Europe has a long complex history involving political, religious, ethnic and national turmoil through the years. The EU is removing a great deal of the conflict and perhaps, as somebody said earlier, a Europe stretching to the Urals as one political entity will remove the conflicts between racial groups which were the cause of many wars in the past. The Joint Committee on European Affairs can play a big role in dealing with European matters.
As regards the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference a lot of work can be done by this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, to deal with matters of particular importance to Ireland.
When there were 12 member states of the EU somebody worked out that if a person left Dublin with £100 and just changed it in the EU capitals to the relevant currency, by the time he arrived back in Dublin he would have £47. Given that there now another three member states, that sum would be even less, and if we included some of the eastern European countries we might have nothing left. An economic and monetary union is a necessity. It is difficult for those trading with foreign countries to counteract the effect of currency changes. Monetary union should and will take place.
It is important to give people information about the Commission initiatives, such as PETRA or Leader. It is our duty to inform people about such schemes and the operational programmes and EU funds. I welcome this Bill.
I welcome this amending legislation to allow the Joint Committee on European Affairs to be structured to allow the transfer of some of the remit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am a member of the European Affairs Committee and I am pleased that I will have a contribution to make in my field.
I am concerned, however, that we may be getting too fond of committees. If we cannot resolve a matter we set up another committee to discuss it — I admit to being guilty of this approach myself. If we keep forming committees to discuss issues it may cause problems in the future. That said, this committee is important at this time. We are approaching the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and many EU policies will have to be reviewed and analysed.
I will be anxious to make an input in education and occupational mobility in Europe. The Single Market has enormous potential for all of us, particularly the many EU programmes. We are removing barriers to allow young people to move around Europe more easily than in the past. The Single Market has given us many opportunities to look at our education structure to see how best the various programmes can complement each other.
We now no longer have planning at local level with regard to job opportunities or recruitment of candidates for Europe. We are now dealing with this on an international basis. Many programmes have come on stream, particularly the network of programmes under the umbrella of the Socrates Group which embraces ERASMUS, COMET, TEMPUS and PETRA. I would want to make a contribution in the area of student exchange and the opportunities available for young people not alone before they have completed their second level education but in the transition stages between second and third level and between third level and obtaining a job.
As some speakers have said, the problem is that information is not processed down to the man in the street and to educational and vocational institutions. We do not even understand the jargon as to what information is available and who we can contact. Very few people know about the COMET programme for vocational training. People are now only familiarising themselves with the PETRA programme, which is another opportunity to get involved in vocational training.
I understand the TEMPUS programme is being extended to the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. Many Irish people are setting up offices in the eastern bloc to see if we can take part in exchange training programmes. We are now embracing eastern Europe and looking at how we can help in the development of new democracies and to develop market economies there. We have a huge role to play in this area.
I am glad I will be a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. I will do my best to ensure we hold our pivotal role and power in the European Commission and the Council of Ministers in case it is eroded, that there will be associated membership of the EU for eastern European countries, that we will open our doors to them and that there will be trading possibilities for them. Ireland is one of the key members of the EU. I would like to think that we would not only enhance our own position but would also make a contribution to the eastern bloc so that we would not be vulnerable at the end of the day.
I am particularly anxious about educational and vocational mobility. With regard to the programmes which are now set up, a delegation from the Department of Education will represent our position. The Socrates umbrella group hopes it will be the key group to monitor programmes designed to enhance mobility and to make sure that people who are skilled professionals will have opportunities not alone to move from one country to another but to take up positions in other countries and not be faced with barriers because their educational qualifications may not be accepted.
If we are to open up the EU market we must make sure there is harmonisation of qualifications. This is very important. There is no point acquiring a third level education here if other member states question it. We must move quickly to ensure harmonisation of all third level qualifications and allow people to avail of exchanges with equivalent universities or institutions in other countries. This matter needs to be tightened up.
I hope the necessary legislation will be discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, which will have an opportunity to discuss EU secondary legislation. We must not be loose on such issues, particularly in the light of next year's Intergovernmental Conference. Our young people must have the opportunity to move from one country to another and have easy access to information, perhaps in the form of a handbook, about where they are going, and they must not be inhibited by the fact that we are not part of mainland Europe. Because we are disadvantaged by not being part of the European mainland, we will be vulnerable if we do not have information and a computer data base on learning programmes, in-service programmes and all aspects of aids to movement between Ireland and Europe to help people who wish to work in Europe.
I welcome this Bill and hope it will have teeth. I hate talking but I like action.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important legislation. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell. It is important that this legislation was initiated in the Seanad because it makes the House more relevant. This is something to which we are constantly aspiring and on which this Government is very positive.
This Bill provides the necessary statutory base for the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. It is extremely important that matters relating to the functioning of the EU, proposals put forward by the European Commission, drafts of legislative proposals and legislation which has been passed are given proper parliamentary scrutiny and examination by the committee system in the Oireachtas.
Two areas in particular deserve attention by the committee. Attention must be devoted to directives, proposed legislation and proposals emanating from the Commission and being considered by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The pace at which EU legislation is transposed into national legislation deserves close examination and special attention. It is true to say that we have been found extremely wanting in the recent past on transferring EU legislation into national law. The Government will have to pay particular attention to this and the committee can assist the Government and the Oireachtas in ensuring that this is done.
The Government should allow a completely open debate on the Commission's proposals. In the past interest groups frequently made their submissions on proposals long before any parliamentary debate or scrutiny took place. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Proposals have usually reached such an advanced stage by the time the parliamentary system gets to examine them that there is very little opportunity to introduce amendments. This needs to be rectified quickly. Earlier political debate would be desirable in order to identify possible drawbacks from an Irish point of view and to improve the legislation.
I am glad to acknowledge that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has shown a disposition to be more open by having widespread public debate on the preparation of the White Paper on foreign policy. This is a welcome development. He and his Cabinet colleagues should adopt the same approach to the more tedious and less glamorous but no less important task of scrutinising EU legislation and proposals for such legislation.
I am glad the Tánaiste's disposition to openness extends to preparations for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. I hope that both the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, our representatives on the reflection group, will have extensive and open discussions with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on the matters to be discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference.
I wish the Minister of State every success because I know he has particular responsibility for the management and co-ordination of the Irish Presidency in 1996, which is very important not just for Ireland but for Europe. I have every confidence he will do an excellent job and that we will be proud of our Presidency as we were in the past.
The Tánaiste has shown a welcome and refreshing willingness to think in new and creative ways about security and defence issues. His speech at a recent seminar in UCD and his article in the current issue of the newspaper Signal show a willingness to ensure that Ireland plays a full role in identifying appropriate policies in this crucial area in the new post-Cold War situation. That same freshness of approach is called for in relation to the enlargement of the European Union and the specification of the institutional arrangements necessary to deal with this enlargement and with the democratic deficit which became so glaringly obvious during the Maastricht referendum debate.
Ireland needs a cohesive European Union with a genuine commitment to social and economic equity for all its regions. Neither we nor other peripheral member states, nor future member states, need a European Union that opts for the easy, two speed answer. That course would run the serious risk of accentuating and perpetuating disparities between the regions and between member states. It would run counter to the principle of cohesion which we fought so hard and so successfully to have included in the Single European Act and which was specifically and deliberately included in the Maastricht Treaty.
These and other issues must be fully debated even if, in some cases, they give rise to differences of views in the Houses of the Oireachtas. These differences, if properly explored and debated, will provide a far better basis for policy than a superficially cosy consensus which ignores the real issues. Opting for the easy way out is not the responsible position to adopt for the long-term national interest. All these matters can be successfully discussed in the Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs. It is important that both committees are used to their full potential over the coming months and years.
I was delighted to hear the Tánaiste say that he looks forward to working closely with the committees. It is important that there is interaction between the committees, the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs in this sensitive political area. Equally, there is a need for a constructive and open discussion in which all aspects are properly and closely examined. The issue should be debated everywhere and whatever final conclusions are arrived at should be in the best interests of Ireland and of Europe. That must be our primary consideration. We must also remember that we have always been committed Europeans and we must not shirk our responsibilities as Europeans. If the Irish people are given the proper leadership on this issue we can arrive at a successful conclusion. The committees, the Minister and the Oireachtas have a role in that respect.
I welcome this Bill and I welcome the Minister. The Bill will lead to more and better discussion about the fundamental issues regarding our relationship with the European Union as it evolves in the next few years.
I will take this opportunity to highlight a matter that is not getting the attention and discussion it deserves — economic and monetary union. The recent turbulence in the currency markets should remind us that the question of whether we join the economic and monetary union, if and when it emerges, is a crunch issue for Ireland. If we do not address the issue now and take whatever action is necessary, we will find ourselves controlled by other events and we will find ourselves unable to exercise any real choice in the way we should proceed. That is not how we should let the future of our country be determined.
Realistically, the next stage of economic and monetary union will not happen until the year 1999. The original date of 1997 is out the window. However, as 1999 is the new key date, there is a big temptation — and we have been suckers for this temptation in the past — to think that we need not make any decisions at this stage or that we need not take any action until nearer that date. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Until now discussion on economic and monetary union has been divorced from reality in one important sense. The official line has been that we are in favour of economic and monetary union, that we are committed to participate in it if we qualify and that we should continue working hard to ensure that we do qualify by meeting all the convergent criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty. The implication is that the only issue is whether we can get in and whether we can meet those criteria. The reality, however, is quite different. The real issue is not whether we can meet the Maastricht criteria; it is about how we will cope with the challenges of the relationship between the Irish punt and sterling. The currency crisis of two years ago and the renewed turbulence in the past few months in the currency markets should leave us in no doubt that this is the real issue facing us.
The UK is our main trading partner both in imports and exports. It is a particularly important market for Irish owned companies. We now realise that Irish owned companies are the key to our future and that over 40 per cent of their exports go to the UK compared with less than 30 per cent of our exports overall. The present commercial reality is that when sterling fluctuates we must follow or we cause enormous problems for Irish exporters. Over the past few months our currency has been devalued against the German mark. We have devalued even against the French franc, the EMS currency supposed to be in trouble at present. These devaluations have happened because, to all practical purposes, we are tied to sterling. That is the present reality.
Let us think of what happens under economic and monetary union. If we join the economic and monetary union — which we are committed to do and for which we are working hard to qualify — we will be tied irrevocably to the EMS currencies. In effect, we will be tied to the German mark in a stranglehold grip. However, if we join and the UK does not we will have lost the freedom to track the currency of our main trading partner, a partner of the utmost importance to indigenous industries. The UK has the option, under the Maastricht Treaty, of not joining the economic and monetary union and it looks increasingly as if the UK will not join. If we are locked within the economic and monetary union and the UK is outside, we will lose the ability to keep our costs in line with the UK through keeping our currencies in step.
I spoke recently about central European time and said that we should be willing to leave the nursery even if nanny does not come with us. I am not sure that we are quite as willing to leave the nursery of our link with sterling if nanny does not come with us unless we have thought it out carefully. If sterling goes down our goods and services will become less competitive in the UK market. That happens now but in the economic and monetary union we will have lost the ability to maintain our competitiveness by adjusting the exchange rate.
We have two choices and the time to examine them is now. Our first choice is to stay outside the economic and monetary union and tie our currency to sterling. Our second choice is to turn our backs on sterling and join the economic and monetary union if we qualify. We could stay out of the economic and monetary union. Unlike the British we do not have an opt-out under the Treaty but we could stay out by simply failing deliberately to meet some of the criteria. That is a practical option. However, I am more concerned about what happens if we choose the second option and join the economic and monetary union. Until now we have focused our attention on joining and on whether we will meet the necessary criteria. As it appears that we might broadly meet those criteria, there is a feeling that this is not an issue. We have ignored what would happen if we join, if the UK does not and if sterling takes one of those dives it seems to take regularly. Joining the economic and monetary union will not take away the circumstances which created the 1992 currency crisis or the recent turbulence in the market. On the contrary, it will actually aggravate those very circumstances.
We have to plan for that now and not in four years time. We have to accept that if we want to join the economic and monetary union we will have to tie our economy to those of the economic and monetary union and break the ties which now exist between our economy and that of the UK. If we simply concentrate on meeting the Maastricht criteria and ignore this more fundamental problem, the economic and monetary union could turn out to be a national disaster for Ireland in the years following 1999. If we decide in favour of the economic and monetary union we will have to do much more than just qualify for it — we will have to shift the whole direction of our economy away from the UK and towards our other partners.
There are two main elements to that task and they are not easy ones. First, we would have to keep our inflation and whole range of costs well below that of the UK. There is no way that we can do that if we lose our grip on public sector spending, which is precisely what we seem to have done. The current spending targets themselves are too lax even if we are going to meet them, and all the signs are that we are going to miss them by a kilometre, to use the European phrase. Second, we will have to shift further and faster away from our dependence on the British market than we have being doing up to now. Once again, I stress that it is the importance of the UK market to our indigenous exports — not to the exports overall — that is the key factor here. We will have to mount a massive campaign to shift that dependence away from the UK.
This all underlines my basic point that there are questions to be looked at and decisions to be taken in the short term rather than in the long term. Getting out from under sterling will not be achieved overnight. Perhaps, it can be achieved in the four years which remain before the economic and monetary union takes off. However, it certainly cannot and will not be achieved if we leave things until the last moment. The time for decisions on the economic and monetary union is now, and I welcome the increased focus on Europe which this Bill will facilitate as a means to address these issues and move towards those decisions.
The Minister of State will not be aware that gardening is one of my hobbies. For years I could not grow celery until one day I picked up a gardening book which said that in order to grow good celery it should be planted in ground which was prepared two years previously. Only then did I realise what I was doing wrong — I was not allocating enough time to my celery. I now grow very good celery.
We have to prepare the ground now — not two years but four years previously — for the likely event of an economic and monetary union. We have to make decisions and start discussions now, which I fear has not been done. I welcome this Bill and the opportunity for more in-depth discussion on Europe. I believe that we will avail of this and benefit from it by allocating time, attention and a concentration of energy to it.
I welcome the Bill, although I have reservations about the fact that there may be overlapping and duplication of some of the work. I am sure that it will not be written about me that when I was a Minister I was against overlapping and duplication, but we seem be to be referring to this in regard to almost every piece of legislation which comes before the House.
I was a member of the old committee on secondary legislation and I am a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I can see that there are areas in which both committees would have a very deep involvement and would wish to discuss. I note that there was a joint meeting of both committees with the President of Hungary. Nevertheless, there is a risk of duplication of effort in the detailed work of both committees at a time when there is extreme pressure on Members of both Houses to service the various committees.
There are 17 committees now, which is too many, in my view. They will become increasingly more difficult to service as time goes on. Only this afternoon a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was delayed by 15 minutes because Members were discussing matters in this House. The chairmen have already experienced difficulties in obtaining quora and getting people to attend. These committees put pressure on Members, especially where much of the work is of a related nature.
On the other hand, I am fully aware of the huge volume of work which has to be dealt with by the Joint Committee on European Affairs. When I was secretary of the committee on European secondary legislation there was such an amount of documentation in my office at home that I had to get a wheelbarrow to remove it as it was piled up to the ceiling. It was almost impossible to keep abreast of the amount of material which came from the Community.
I am probably contradicting myself in saying that a second committee dealing with related matters will lead to duplication. However, I presume that the work of this committee will be mainly looking at statutory instruments, secondary legislation and the necessity to keep abreast of developments, new directives and so on coming from the European Union.
We are entering into a very important time from Ireland's point of view in that detailed arrangements are being made at present for our Presidency of the EU. This will offer a large opportunity for Ireland and also pose a great challenge to the Government in dealing with the enormous issues which will arise. Some of the issues which are important in Europe today are very relevant to us.
I wish to avail of this opportunity to raise with the Minister of State the operation of the committee of the regions which was established with a huge fanfare quite a while ago and from which we have heard very little in terms of an agenda of its work, its activities and how it is dealing with some of the problems which it was set up to deal with. There are many regional disparities and imbalances which need to be addressed, both in the EU and nationally. The committee of the regions is an excellent one with a clearly defined mandate. Nevertheless, very little information is coming from the committee on its activities.
In recent times there has been a backtracking from the strong regional dimension to our policies. I am afraid that we are beginning to centralise again and that the major political initiative of a few years ago towards decentralisation and strengthening the regions is being watered down. That would be a very backward step and one about which the Government should take some action. It is vitally necessary for Ireland, which has such regional imbalances, to have a very dynamic regional policy. We can strengthen and build up the regions by a number of initiatives, few of which are coming from Europe.
When we joined the European Community I anticipated that some of its major institutions and organisations might be established here. I do not believe the regions, in particular, are getting their fair share of European Union activities connected with the various institutions of the Union. Other than the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in Loughlinstown, we have little else by way of European institutions here. We heard so much about how important it was that the isolated regions of the Community, and the most attractive ones, would be protected and safeguarded in the lead up to the Maastricht decision. If the EU is serious about the regions, we still find the extreme regions of the Community, the western ones in particular, are suffering from the same disadvantages, if not worse, than they had when we joined the Community. It is very difficult to explain this to people in western areas who suffer from some of the handicaps we have mentioned in various debates this year.
In Gort, south Galway and north Clare, no assistance of any significance, other than a few pounds given to the Irish Red Cross, was available to deal with the people who were flooded out of house and home since Christmas. They are still affected by the floods. I acknowledge the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins. He was down there last Monday night where he met people who have been flooded out of their houses and who are feeling very frustrated because of the lack of action to deal with their problem. These people sought assistance from the European Union by way of funding and support to enable them to deal with the crisis but little was forthcoming.
Dare I mention the state of the county roads? At a time when millions of pounds are being pumped into bringing our national highways into line with the EU standards, people in isolated rural areas cannot go to church or bring their children to school because of the appalling state of our roads. Every time I go to Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg I see more investment in new buildings, offices and accommodation for the institutions and the European Union. Meanwhile, we see a declining population in western areas. These areas are suffering from the same regional imbalances we have suffered from since the foundation of the State. The feeling there, particularly along the west coast, is that the emphasis now will be more on Dublin and the large centres of population. Admittedly, there are huge problems there but they are of a different kind and, in the view of the people of the west of Ireland, they are taking precedence over the situation in which they find themselves.
The committee being set up under this legislation will offer an excellent opportunity for Members of the European Parliament to address the issues of the day here. Under present arrangements we do not have a forum where MEPs can express their views. This is a disadvantage. When we were discussing the establishment of the committees I suggested a mechanism might be found to enable Irish MEPs to come here and speak on a regular basis, even if it were only on a three monthly or six monthly basis, so that they could bring Members up to date with developments in the European Union.
I also suggested arrangements might be made to provide a platform for EU Commissioners to outline Commission policies on some of the major issues of the day. I have no doubt that one Commissioner, Pádraig Flynn, will be more than willing to come before either the Seanad or the Dáil to outline the Commission's view in relation to social affairs issues, for which he has responsibility, in so far as they refer to Europe and Ireland in particular. These committees may be a forum which would provide a platform for distinguished people from the Commission, MEPs and other institutions to give us the benefit of their experience from a European dimension.
Overall, this is will be a useful committee and I take this opportunity to wish it well. There is a huge amount of work to be undertaken and I hope it will be possible to devise a mechanism to avoid any overlapping or duplication of the workload so that we can get the best possible results. I give a guarded welcome to the legislation and I wish the members of the committee well.
It is the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to accept the general principle behind the setting up of this committee but I would be dishonest if I did not express concern about the number of committees which have been set up — about 15. It is essential to tell the Government and the Minister that it is time we looked at the effectiveness of the committee system and what the committees are doing. It is not a case of setting up another committee to satisfy a few people who were not made members of the last committee.
The public, who are tuned in to what is happening, are capable of assessing the current situation. They do not see the effectiveness or the value of these committees. This is a duplication of what is happening in rural Ireland today; local authorities have established a number of subcommittees, the regional authorities have no money and no plan and they are going nowhere. As regards regional tourism, there is no money, no power and no help; regional tourism has not £1 to deliver. They could not put up a sign "To the Beach".
I am making the point that we have a plethora of committees to the point where the general public are asking what they are doing and where they are going". Elected representatives find themselves in a whirlpool; they do not know which committee to attend. You can be on as many committees as you like, especially at this time when we are examining what section of industry can be funded from the International Fund for Ireland, the Delors package, INTERREG and Leader. There are advisory sections to advise the public and all they want to do is get on the bandwagon. They say they will put the plan together if a contribution of a few thousand pounds is made.
Last week, the private sector in Letterkenny called a meeting and had senior advisers from the Department there setting up another committee. I was talking to one of the lecturers and he was pleased with the attendance but, although the hall was full, there was not an accountable body there. I attended another meeting in Belfast where the Commissioner for Regional Development stated that accountability would be the bottom line, that accountability was an important part of any structure setting up as a committee, making a submission or applying for grant aid. It was spelt out clearly.
The Government should rationalise, and I do not mean this in a political sense; I have no point to score. I have nothing to gain whatsoever, and I am not on a crusade to knock anybody. The committee system did not start today or after the Minister's appointment. The Minister and the Government have inherited a committee structure that seems to have no end.
Local authorities have the same problem. The last few items on the agenda of every council meeting are invitations to conferences and European committees. This has become totally out of hand. There is no funding to support this and the structure will destroy itself. Donegal County Council is affiliated to a number of European committees. One of those is the CPMR — the Community of Peripheral Maritime Regions — which is holding a conference in Donegal next October. This will be an opportunity for all local authorities to assess the value of participating in the CPMR.
In principle no one is against this. That is as strongly as I can put it. However, I cannot see the value or purpose of forming another committee. I do not possess all the wisdom, but the Minister and the Cabinet must work out where the committee system is going. If someone sets up a committee he must give it a function and funding; rural Ireland has been obliterated by committees without either. The regions believe they have a contribution to make, as does the committee of the regions. All these bodies are organising seminars and expectations are being built up. There should be rationalisation. Every committee must have a purpose and a time within which to deliver a report.
The present Government has set up 15 committees. How will public representatives have enough time for them? I hope rural representatives are featured on the committees. The Seanad was not well represented on many of them. Senators were only involved as an afterthought; when someone highlighted that we were excluded, token representation was given. We have almost become complacent about that.
My confidence in committees is not high. I base that on information from my area. The Minister should look at the regional tourism organisation committee structure. It only has enough money to pay the salaries and pensions of its office staff. The previous Government passed legislation to set up five more bureaucratic structures to administer tourism. This has become ridiculous. People set up a committee because it is a way of doing nothing.
Someone must have the courage to do something about this. I ask the Minister to use his clout in the Cabinet to examine the function of the committees because they cause confusion. People laugh at anyone who sets up a committee. Today expectations are high in rural Ireland; people are led to believe money will fall off the back of a train, especially in the Border counties. I know that is not the case. I ask the Government to think about the function of any committee it sets up.
It should also rationalise the number of committees around Ireland. They are not allowed to make any contribution. Many good ones were scrapped, such as county committees or agriculture and local health advisory committees. The country has been obliterated by committees which achieve nothing and discourage many good people who would like to make a contribution. Someone must rationalise this.
I thank those Senators who contributed in such an interesting way. I noted the comments made. I thank them also for their welcome and their good wishes for the reflection group and for the Irish Presidency of the EU. Before replying to some of the points raised I will make some points of my own.
I have undertaken to raise at every possible opportunity one serious matter which needs to be addressed. I hope Senators, especially those who are Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs, will consider it also. A major task which will face next year's Intergovernmental Conference is to devise procedures and methods of making the European Union more relevant and visible to its citizens. This is an ongoing objective which should be a key influence on all decisions taken at European level.
One area with great potential in this regard is that of justice and home affairs, but regrettably there has been slow progress on this front. The benefits in terms of public goodwill of a successful European wide attack on organised crime are obvious. In particular I want to see the European Union playing a more active and co-ordinated role in the war against drugs. The scourge of drugs is destroying the lives of countless European Union citizens. We have seen in Ireland all too often the tragic consequences of this vile infernal trade.
How can Europe's drug problem be tackled? On first glance there are two options available. The first is the oftcited option of legalising drugs. This to my mind is a horrendous prospect and would be an irresponsible step for any democratic Government to take. One only needs to have the most superficial knowledge of the physical and mental effects of drug addiction to realise that no responsible Government could seriously consider legalisation. The other option, in reality the only option, is an unrelenting war against the illegal drug trade. If we are to win that war it is essential that there be increased co-operation with European partners.
There is scope for the member states to co-operate in this area within the framework of co-operation under the justice and home affairs section of the Maastricht Treaty and this must be availed of fully. I should say that at every bilateral meeting I have had with European colleagues I have raised this issue. I have been impressed with the consensus that something must be done.
Europe now must put a concrete form on this aspiration. I can assure Senators I will bring whatever pressure I can to bear to ensure action is taken. We must be innovative in our war against drug pushing. The Taoiseach has already raised the possibility of a European coastguard. Another step which we must take is to pursue the drug barons to the source of their supply.
In terms of GNP some countries in Latin America produce more in illegal drugs than they do in all of their legal products added together. The result of this production is everywhere to be seen. The corrupt practice of laundering the profits from these drugs is distorting national and international trade. Our inner cities especially are being preyed on to a horrendous extent. We already have a drugs epidemic. A constituent of mine recently lost her fourth child from a drug related illness.
National Governments have a major role to play in dealing with this problem, but the EU as an entity also has a role. The EU should use a mixture of the stick and the carrot to pursue this problem to source. Why not trade sanctions against, or economic aid to those producing countries as an incentive to stop drug production? Distribution countries within the EU must also be brought to heel.
I will use every opportunity to put this matter on the European agenda and I have already raised it with the President of the EU Commission and with a number of my fellow members on the reflection group which is preparing for next year's Intergovernmental Conference. Ireland will hold the Presidency of the EU next year. We have held the Presidency in the past, but this is the first occasion on which we will hold the Presidency of the Union. If the EU remains a union of 15 member states, it will be some considerable time — seven and a half years — before we hold the Presidency again, if it is ever held again in this form.
The EU is also a union with three pillars and we hold the Presidency at a crucial time in European history, in the second part of the year in which the Intergovernmental Conference on the future of the Union will consider all the institutions, the Maastricht Treaty and the whole question of enlargement. We will have the chairmanship of the Intergovernmental Conference, because of our Presidency of the Union, at a most crucial moment in European history. This in itself should make us proud to be Irish in Europe, given what we have brought and can bring to the EU.
As Ireland's member of the reflection group, I am anxious to hear the views of Senators, Deputies and the public. The reflection group meets for the first time at the beginning of June in Messina and will spend the second six months of this year preparing for the Intergovernmental Conference next year. It is important that we hear people's views, as next year presents an opportunity for us to influence European history for some time to come.
We may be looking at a Europe with up to 30 member states. There are those of us who have seen this country change dramatically because of its membership of the EU. I grew up in Inchicore, where the best road in the country was located nearby, the road from Newlands Cross to Naas. It was the pride and joy of the country. We did not get these motorways by accident; they were largely funded by EU contributions. Before EU membership one could not get a phone and if one did. an operator was needed in order to be put through to Naas. However, now we have one of the most advanced communications systems in the world. In addition, the money we have used to train and educate our young people has largely come from Europe.
A sum of £18.5 billion has been transferred to this country from the EU since we joined in 1973. We are not merely in Europe to get what we can out of it; we are there to participate. We are there because Europe is primarily about peace. There cannot be prosperity without peace and the EU has brought peace to western Europe in the second part of this century and, through peace, prosperity. We must now extend that peace and prosperity to the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe. Now that we have our good roads and telecommunications system, we cannot pull up the ladder for selfish reasons, nor for altruistic reasons. If we want a Europe that remains at peace, we cannot allow those emerging democracies to return, nor can we ourselves return to the kind of selfish nationalism that caused two wars in the early part of this century.
There will be difficulties and long transition periods ahead. In addition, there will be problems for countries like ours in terms of Structural Funds and the CAP. However, while enlarging the Union and as these countries are ready to join and as it is practicable to allow them join, we must build coalitions within the Union to defend at the same time our national interest. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am not for taking lectures from anybody about the transfers we have received. For example, it was believed of Austria — which I cite not as a country which lectures anybody — after the second world war that it was a country which could not succeed without almost perpetual Marshall aid. This did not happen and Austria joined the EU on 1 January 1995 as a net contributor. Could this be the Ireland of the future? Let us not forget that many of the countries which are now net contributors were countries which received Marshall aid when they needed it and have built on that. We are, therefore, not in the business of taking lectures from anybody on this issue. We are good Europeans; we are in the club and we have paid the price. In my own constituency, for example, the motor assembly industry was devastated by our membership of the EU, and that was part of the price. In time to come we may be the Austria of the EU with, hopefully, employment and economic opportunities at the level which Austria enjoys.
Will we always be on the periphery? What about the suggestion by the German Foreign Minister for a European free trade agreement and an American free trade agreement? If there was an American and European free trade area we would not be on the periphery; we would be in the middle of it, ideally suited to exploit it. We need not always be on the periphery.
It is time we showed our good European credentials. An issue raised by Senators was the need to communicate Europe. Europe is not a Bundesstat, a fully fledged federal system, nor is it a Statanbund, an intergovernmental association. It is an evolving, quadripartite system, where the Council of Ministers, the EU Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice have central and important roles, and an adjustment in the role of one can have serious implications for the roles of the others. There are, therefore, serious problems and serious matters to be considered in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, and no simple solutions.
The founding fathers of the EU — the original Six — made a major contribution to history and to the success of the Union by the unique role they choose for the EU Commission. The position whereby member states have a member on the EU Commission is sacrosanct and we must ensure that interests of that kind are protected when the time comes — not just on our own behalf, but on behalf of all the other small member states, who are not members simply to take but to participate and make a contribution.
Senator Enright spoke of the major importance of the environment, and this is an important point which needs to be considered and will be borne in mind. With regard to programmes such as Leader, since I am also Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for local development, I suggest that the House might interest itself in the local development programme, learn about it and learn what it can contribute to the community by empowering people to do things for themselves. This is translated in one magazine, to which I do not contribute, as lecturing and hectoring local people. It does no such thing. I am one of those local people and I do not need to patronise them from on high. Local development is about empowering people to do a job for themselves; and I put down this marker to those magazines with their hidden agendas, that if this is the way they do their business they are not going to be taken seriously or assisted by me.
With regard to the points made by Senator Lee, we must support the entry of central and eastern European countries. The question of the entry of Cyprus and Malta will also arise in the near future.
Turkey?
The issue of central and eastern European countries will be addressed for the reasons I have stated when it is practicable to do so. In the meantime, through the White Paper on the Internal Market, we will try to assist these people to prepare their economies and to bring their laws up to the acquis communitaire so that they will be able to make the transition with the minimum disadvantage. But, in the long term, and for some in the not so long term, and in the interests of peace and prosperity in Europe, we, as good Europeans, must grasp this nettle and welcome these emerging democracies into the European Union at the earliest practicable time. I repeat, there may have to be long lead-in periods; we had to wait for some time.
Senator Lee pointed out that the White Paper contains a number of aspirations. He is right, they are aspirations but it is important that we translate them as far as possible into reality and the Government is setting out to achieve this. I noted the points made by Senator O'Kennedy, particularly those regarding the cost and staffing implications of the work of the different Oireachtas committees. This is a difficulty but if we áre serious about having a Parliament which oversees the Executive, which has transparency and openness as one of its central objectives, we have to meet the cost. We should also be concerned about the value of these committees. I also note the points the Senator made about the number of languages into which EU documents must be translated.
Senator Calnan raised some interesting points. It is necessary that information goes to local authorities and then to the people. I recently published the report of the task force on communicating Europe and I have set up a small task force under my own chairmanship to see that its recommendations are implemented. We may not continue to receive the rate of transfer we have received from the European Union. It is easy to be good Europeans when we are receiving this sort of transfer but it is important that people understand exactly what the European Union is about. People want to be able to sleep at night and to feel secure in their homes. A secure and safe Europe is a product of being in the European Union. It is important that we communicate to people the relevance of Europe to their daily lives. Senator Ormonde raised a similar point. Many programmes are funded and run by the European Union, some of which I do not understand because they are not directly related to my Department — different Departments are involved — but it is important that we communicate this. Oireachtas committees have a role in extracting that information and translating it to the general public.
Senator Taylor-Quinn raised the role of the Committee on European Affairs; it will have an important role, including overseeing the implementation of directives and the speed of transposition as well as the examination of Commission proposals. They will also have a general look at the important issues which will face us next year.
Economic and monetary union is a very sensitive area and I note the points made by Senator Quinn and others. A number of countries are not very enthusiastic about joining the economic and monetary union but they do, however, meet the qualifying criteria; their fiscal disciplines are aimed at meeting those criteria. Thirty per cent of our exports go to the UK. I have heard the argument that much of this is related to indigenous industry and more study needs to be done there, but 70 per cent of our exports go to other areas — 42 per cent to other European countries. We should not get too carried away about the anxieties which have been expressed.
It is an interesting statistic to note that in the United States, which has a single currency, unemployment runs at 6 per cent. Unemployment in the European Union is running at 11 per cent, almost twice the US figure. It is not possible to simply attribute that discrepancy to the presence of a single currency in the US, but I believe research would show it is a contributing factor. Senator Calnan pointed out what would happen if IR £100 was exchanged for the currencies of each of the existing 15 member states of the European Union in turn. If there were 30 member States, you would probably end up owing them money.
We should be very careful about this because sometimes we can rush into simplistic arguments. European monetary union is to Maastricht what the Single Market was to the Single European Act: it was the central part of the Maastricht Treaty debate. I note what Senator Quinn said and I am delighted that he is so good at developing celery. He might send us some so that we could see if it is as good as he says; and I know he is as much in favour of salary growth as he is of celery growth. All these points are interesting but a number of arguments must be considered.
Senator Daly mentioned the committee of the regions and I will consider the points he has made in the context of my membership of the reflection group. Perhaps it is time to find a greater role for the committee of the regions, because we organise our European elections on regional basis whereas in other countries the list system is used. I would like to see a greater role for the regions.
Senator Daly asked whether MEPs will have the right to participate in the committee. Under Standing Orders, Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland, including Northern Ireland, as well as members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may attend meetings of the committee and its subcommittees. Other Members of the European Parliament may, at the invitation of the joint committee or a subcommittee, attend particular meetings. This is an endeavour to involve MEPs in the important role of these committees and I hope the committees will avail of this opportunity.
I note the points made in a non-party political way by Senator McGowan about the need for more rationalisation; he said there are too many groups and much confusion. There is ring of truth to the point the Senator makes in the broad sense. We have to get the information across while, at the same time, allowing for democratic participation. In the past in the Houses of the Oireachtas there has been the suggestion that foreign policy was made solely by Iveagh House, yet we have taken this process to the people by way of seminars and preparation for the White Paper. The suggestion has been made that the Oireachtas does not have a role, we only rubber stamp legislation. Yet here is a role for committees. Too many cooks might spoil the broth but before the system is condemned it should be given an opportunity to operate. However, I see the points the Senator has made.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity to sit in on this debate and to listen to the contributions. It has been an informative and useful debate and I would return from time to time and meet members of both committees so that they can help me in my work. I thank all who participated.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.