I am informed by the Taoiseach that he proposes to make a statement which will be made under Standing Order No. 38, which will be strictly adhered to.
Luxembourg European Council Meeting: Statements.
Would you mind reading Standing Order No. 38?
Standing Order No. 38 states:
A member of the Government who has given prior notice to the Ceann Comhairle may make a statement in the House on any matter. No debate shall be permitted on any such statement but further statements may be allowed at the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle from a spokesman nominated by a Party in Opposition.
I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to make a statement on the European Council which I attended with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, on 2 and 3 December 1985 in Luxembourg. The Presidency conclusions have, as usual, been laid before the House. I hope that Deputies have a copy of my speech but, as the House will appreciate, the meeting ended after midnight, Brussels time, last night and there is a slight time constraint. Copies are on the way and I apologise to the House. I thought it better to report today rather than tomorrow, although there is a tightness in the timetable.
The Taoiseach will understand that we are at a considerable disadvantage because a lot of the stuff has not come through. However, I accept the exigencies of the situation.
I thank the Deputy, and I will endeavour to report as fully and clearly as possible.
Deputies will recall that at the Council, in Milan, last June, there was general discussion of the functioning of the Community market, of the working of the Community institutions and of ways of achieving the basic ideals of the Rome Treaty.
This is not simply a matter of political philosophy or ideology. It is a matter in which the future of Europe and the economic health of our countries are inextricably involved.
In preparation for the Luxembourg meeting, I had useful discussions in Paris with President Mitterand, Prime Minister Fabius and Foreign Minister Dumas. I also had meetings with the President in office of the Council, M. Santer of Luxembourg, and the President of the Commission, M. Delors.
The Luxembourg Council began with an analysis of the malaise which has affected Europe and has led to significantly lower growth rates there than in Japan or the United States in recent times. In the same period, total employment in the United States has risen while in Europe it has fallen, so that we now have more than 13 million without work in a Community which was set up and designed to encourage economic prosperity and political cohesion.
A presentation made to us in Luxembourg by the Commission, with which most of the Heads of State or Government there expressed agreement, was that Europe can achieve the sort of growth which was commonplace there when the Community started, bringing with it a reduction of unemployment.
Adoption of an appropriate strategy, involving among other things action to moderate wage increases, while sustaining demand by other measures could, the Commission estimate, reduce the rate of unemployment in the Community — at present 11 per cent — by one-third to around 7 per cent by 1990. In my own intervention I strongly supported this strategy, which is very much along the lines I have been advocating at recent meetings of the Council and in that respect pursuing the same line as did the Leader of the Opposition before me.
The Milan Council to which I have referred said that to achieve the full potential of the Community there must be:
(1) an improvement in the decisionmaking procedures of the Council of Ministers,
(2) an enlargement of the European Parliament's role,
(3) better administrative arrangements and powers for the Commission,
(4) the extension of Community activities into new areas, and
(5) the strengthening of political cooperation.
It was under these five headings that the Inter-governmental Conference was proposed in Milan with a view to achieving concrete progress on European Union.
Deputies will recall that Ireland was among the seven member states which supported the suggestion to convene this conference. Subsequently, the three member states which dissented rallied to the majority view and a formal decision to convene the conference was taken unanimously. The conference has met seven times at ministerial level. The Irish representative was Deputy Peter Barry, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and there have been numerous meetings of a high level preparatory group of officials.
These meetings produced a number of texts for a new or amended Treaty which were before the Luxembourg Council. Indeed, I have rarely seen a Council where Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers were so much concerned and spent so much time on textual work and drafting. The reasons are, of course, obvious: we were concerned not with a communiqué but with a new Treaty with legal effect on the way the Community works.
Among the profusion of issues before the Inter-governmental Conference, on which it reported to the Luxembourg Council, there were seven major themes. These were: first, the internal market. Under this heading, the Council was concerned to complete the common market in goods and services before 1993; second, the monetary capacity of the Community. Under this heading, the Council was concerned with providing in the Treaty for such a capacity; third, increasing the economic and social cohesion of the Community. This matter is, of course, of particular concern to the less developed regions of the Community, including Ireland, which require safeguards against the centripetal effects that can flow from greater integration; fourth, the powers of the European Parliament. As a directly elected body, the Parliament has considerable potential for development in the interests of European integration generally; fifth, the Commission's implementing powers. As a matter of basic principle, progress can be achieved only if the Commission, as a major engine for European development, has the executive powers it needs; sixth, research and technological development. In this area above all others Europe which once led the world has now fallen far behind the other great powers in the application of research and development in the market place; last, environment and social policy. I need hardly argue the point that it is in nobody's interest that economic development should lead to environmental or social deprivation.
As the Luxembourg Presidency pointed out in a presentation to the Council, a reform of the Treaty on these lines is an important event in the history of the Community. What is involved is the completion before 1993 of an internal market of more than 300 million people within which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the Rome Treaty.
Towards this end there was agreement that certain provisions of the Treaty should be altered so as to provide for action by the Council by a qualified majority rather than unanimously. The matters covered by this change include the common customs tariff, measures affecting the protection of savings, obstacles arising from different national standards, freedom to provide services, exchange policies in respect of the movement of capital and measures affecting sea and air transport.
Towards the same end, that is, the completion of the internal market, there was agreement that the Council — in this area acting unanimously — might adopt provisions on the harmonisation of legislation concerning indirect taxation to the extent that this is necessary to ensure the establishment and operation of the market. However, there was general recognition that it is quite unrealistic to expect rapid progress in this area in view of the wide differences that exist in relation both to overall levels of indirect taxation and individual tax levels.
There was also agreement that the powers of the Council under Article 100 of the Rome Treaty to issue directives for the approximation of laws, regulations or administrative actions in member states which directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Common Market might be exercised by qualified majority rather than by unanimity, but that a measure adopted under this provision would not stand in the way of national provisions which are justified on grounds of major needs as referred to in Article 36 of the Treaty or relating to protection of the working or natural environment.
The grounds referred to in Article 36 are public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health or life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historical or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial or commercial property. This is important for us because of the freedom of our animals and plants from many diseases prevalent on the Continent. There is a procedure, of course, to ensure that these national provisions cannot be used as a means of arbitrary discrimination or as a disguised restriction in trade between member states.
The establishment, development and conduct of the European Monetary System has taken place essentially outside the framework of the Rome Treaty until now. At the Inter-governmental Conference the Commission put forward a proposal to endow the Community with a specific capacity in the monetary field which would have had the effect of bringing the EMS within the Treaty framework in the most general way, and among some other detailed provisions, would have included a reference to the establishment at an appropriate time of a European Monetary Fund, as foreshadowed by the European Council in Bremen in 1978. Subsequent proposals from the Commission, Belgium and the Luxembourg Presidency introduced some modifications but their general thrust was similar.
The Irish approach was that we favoured the idea of bringing a monetary capacity into the Treaty in a general way but without setting out provisions in such detail as to inhibit the organic development of the EMS which has been operating satisfactorily.
After prolonged discussion both in the Inter-governmental Conference and at the European Council in Luxembourg, there was a narrowing of differences and it was ultimately found possible to reach agreement. This involves including descriptive references to EMU and the EMS in the preamble to the text amending the Rome Treaty. The more substantive element in the agreement reached involves a proposed new article before the present Article 103. This provides that member states shall co-operate in accordance with the objectives of Article 104: these are the classic economic aims relating to the balance of payments, employment, prices and confidence in the currency. A reference to the EMS is brought into the Treaty but in the most general way and without changing the existing situation. This modest agreement in respect of the monetary area holds open the possibility of further, gradual development of the monetary dimension of the Community. The procedures to be followed ensure that further steps along this road will be taken with due deliberation.
As a totally integrated market could in principle adversely affect regions such as Ireland on the periphery of Europe, we urged that special attention should be given to regional policy and the necessity for measures to counter the centripetal effects of integration. Deputies will see that there will now be, for the first time, a specific Treaty article referring to the need to promote harmonious development and to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the Community and, in particular, to reduce disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.
Hitherto, this was an objective referred to only in the preamble to the Treaty and, as a result, the Community's regional policy has had to be developed on the basis of the residual powers under article 235 of the Treaty. We set out six months ago to get this commitment to economic convergence into the body of the Treaty. We were at the time by no means sanguine as to the outcome, but we pressed our case actively and submitted our own formal proposals to the Inter-Governmental Conference.
It is no mean achievement for this country to have been successful against much resistance in having this question included among the core issues before the Council. In this we were helped by a large measure of understanding and co-operation on the part of the Luxembourg Presidency which persevered in insisting that progress in the enlarged Community of 12 would be considerably hampered if the requirements of cohesion were not reflected in the Treaty. For their efforts in this regard — and indeed generally in the conduct of the Inter-Governmental Conference and of the Presidency — I wish to pay a very warm and sincere tribute to the Luxembourg Presidency, and, in particular, to Prime Minister Santer, who came to Dublin on 7 November to get our views at first hand.
Deputies can read the detailed provisions for themselves but I am happy to report to the House that on this issue of cohesion or convergence we have registered a success in an area which has been central to the approach of successive Governments of all parties to Ireland's participation in the Community and to the latter's further development. What had hitherto been only the Preamble to the Treaty is now in the Treaty itself, and the Regional Fund, which was developed under the general umbrella of the Treaty, is now incorporated in the Treaty itself.
In regard to the powers of the European Parliament, the formal position, as set out in the conclusion of the meeting, is that agreement in principle was reached on the institution of a new procedure for co-operation with the Parliament. The Council of Ministers have been given a brief to:
clarify the procedure in the event of the Parliament rejecting the common position of the Council at the second reading provided for in this new procedure; and to spell out the procedure to be followed, in the event of the Council not acting by the three month deadline laid down in regard to the closing stages of the procedure.
This spelling out is necessary in order to avoid any legal vacuum. It is being agreed that the Council will have the last say, this was a matter I had raised at the meeting.
In regard to the whole package agreed on the work of the IGC, Denmark has a blanket reservation, while Italy has made its final acceptance conditional upon examination by the Italian Parliament, with a link also to the attitude to be taken by the European Parliament. These reserves relate principally to the text about the powers of the European Parliament, with Italy concerned that it does not go far enough to ensure ratification by the Italian Parliament, while Denmark considers that it may go too far to be capable of ratification by their Parliament.
For our part, we accepted that the agreement represents the best balance between the various views that realistically can be worked out at this time. It has the potential greatly to enhance the influence of the Parliament while at the same time ensuring that the Council will have the last word.
I hope that the reserves by member states can be lifted and that the European Parliament can accept the agreement as a modest but worthwhile step forward in the evolution of the Community.
The European council's agreement to the inclusion of research and technological development in the Treaty marks an important step in the establishment of a European Technological Community to narrow the serious gap which has developed between the Community and its US and Japanese competitors. Our particular concern that the development of the Community's role in this area should not be prejudiced by the Eureka initiative — which we support and in which we are participating — as well as that the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises should be catered for, have been accepted. Our other concern regarding access to the results of research programmes in which the Community participate financially, will be pursued at a later stage when the Council decides on the rules governing these programmes.
The protection of the environment has hitherto lacked a specific basis in the Treaty and Community action has been taken pursuant to the residual powers in Article 235. Reflecting growing concern about environmental matters in the continental member states, the Commission, Denmark and Germany proposed specific Articles on this matter for inclusion in the Treaty.
We were happy to agree to making specific provision for the environment. We were concerned to ensure that the Articles should provide for taking into account the need for balanced regional development, the differing ecological conditions prevailing in member states and that measures to be taken would be justifiable on a scientific basis and by reference to the costs and benefits involved. The European Council agreed Articles that explicitly meet these concerns.
The draft Treaty on which work has been going ahead for some time will formalise the arrangements for European political co-operation. On security, the text recognises that co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy will, in response to our concerns, continue to be limited to political and economic aspects of security. The text makes it clear that co-operation on security matters going beyond this is a matter for the member states who are members of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance. There is also provision for a continuing secretariat to act under the authority of the Presidency.
We thus achieved overall a modest degree of success at the Luxembourg Council. As an exporting nation whose prosperity depends on trade, we have a real and substantial interest in measures which counter protectionism and lead to the opening up of markets. For this reason, at least since the European Council in Stuttgart, we have urged and supported measures to develop the internal market with appropriate safeguards for our interests in regional development and in regard to particular sensitive areas like plant and animal health.
The Luxembourg Council fully reflected our concern and gave a further impetus to the development of the market. And, in relation to political co-operation, our particular concerns were also fully accepted and taken on board in the discussions and drafting sessions. Work is now going ahead on the final version of Treaties for the Community, both in its economic and political aspects, based on the Luxembourg conclusions. I hope that the House will join with me in wishing that work "God speed".
On Tuesday morning, I had a brief meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, at which we reviewed the position following the signature of the Anglo-Irish agreement. We both confirmed that the agreement would be implemented, as planned. At the same time, we recognised the concern about the agreement among the Unionist community. We hoped that that community would come to understand the reassurance on the status of Northern Ireland and other matters which the agreement offers.
To the Nationalist community, I repeat here what I said at Hillsborough: they can now raise their heads knowing their position is, and is seen to be, on an equal footing with that of the members of the majority community. For them also the agreement will have considerable benefits in peace and stability — peace and stability which can be brought about only by tackling, as this agreement does, the problem of their alienation from the system of government with which they have had to live for 65 years.
Moreover, to both communities our two Governments have affirmed their commitment to a society in Northern Ireland in which all may live in peace, free from discrimination and intolerance, and with the opportunity for both communities to participate fully in the structures and processes of government.
Later, in the evening, some considerable time after my meeting with the Prime Minister, I was told of certain remarks made in Brussels by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Tom King, which, inter alia, purported to represent what I think and believe about Northern Ireland. Nobody speaks for me on Northern Ireland unless he fully and accurately represents my views as an Irish Nationalist who all his life has believed and worked for the ideal of Irish unity achieved by agreement and in peace. That is and always has been my objective and the objective of the Government and people I represent.
I do not know how Mr. King came to believe that he could speak for me. His remarks were inaccurate and singularly inappropriate and are, in fact, as everyone knows, a complete distortion of my position.
I understand that at the press conference in Luxembourg, early this morning, the Prime Minister accepted that the remarks made in Brussels were not in accordance with the agreement. She reaffirmed that the position is as it is in the agreement that we signed and that it will remain that way. The position is that the two Governments agree that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority — and I stress the indefinite article — of the people of Northern Ireland and that if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, the two Governments will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish — no more and no less than that.
This formal and binding agreement between our two Governments is what matters. As recently as yesterday morning, in the Kirchberg in Luxembourg, the Prime Minister and I had, in fact, stated our intent that the agreement would be implemented, as planned.
Later, in the evening, Mr. King in a speech in Brussels brought his earlier remarks into the line with the agreement. Today, I understand, he expressed regret about the impression his remarks created and said that he wants to make it absolutely clear that he understands perfectly well that neither I nor my Government agree with the view he expressed about the political future of this island. I understand that Mr. King is, at the moment, making a statement in the House of Commons. If this statement is on the lines of Mr. King's latest remarks, I would regard the matter as having been resolved.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he heard the unrepentant tone of Mr. King in a broadcast at 12 o'clock today?
The report which the Taoiseach has just made on the Luxembourg Summit will, I hope, help to focus the minds of Deputies in this House and of the general public outside on the current situation in the Community, the direction in which it is heading and our position and prospects as a member state. There are many aspects of the situation which are far from reassuring. It is urgently necessary to review the whole situation, to assess current developments as accurately and as realistically as possible and to work out some sort of coherent strategy and approach.
When I had the privilege recently of talking to a special meeting of the IFA on the occasion of their 30th anniversary, I pointed out that when we joined the Community we had been prepared to incur losses and disadvantages in a number of areas in the knowledge and assurance that benefits from other areas, and in particular the benefits that would flow from the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community, would far outweigh any losses we might incur in the particular areas. I said that the time has now come to look very carefully and closely at what has happened in that regard since we joined. I believe that is absolutely necessary.
It is also necessary to recall that when we joined, a special Protocol, Protocol No. 30 governing Ireland's special position, was included in the Treaty of Accession. It is as well as to recall the words of Protocol 30. They are as follows:
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, desiring to settle certain special problems of concern to Ireland, and having agreed the following provisions, recall that the fundamental objectives of the European Economic Community include the steady improvement of the living standards and working conditions of the peoples of the Member States and the harmonious development of their economies by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions;
TAKE NOTE of the fact that the Irish Government has embarked upon the implementation of a policy of industrialisation and economic development designed to align the standards of living in Ireland with those of the other European nations and to eliminate under-employment while progressively evening out regional differences in levels of development;
RECOGNISE it to be in their common interest that the objectives of this policy be so attained;
AGREE to recommend to this end that the Community institutions implement all the means and procedures laid down by the Treaties, particularly by making adequate use of the Community resources intended for the realisation of the Community's above-mentioned objectives;
RECOGNISE in particular that, in the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, it will be necessary to take into account the objectives of economic expansion and improvement of the population's standard of living.
These are clear principles. It is legitimate at this stage to ask whether the principles outlined in that Protocol have been adhered to. I think any fair minded person would have to acknowledge that they have not. During the course of the past three or four years, there has been a steady and persistent erosion of the benefits accruing to this country and in many areas of policy, the whole trend is in a direction which is detrimental to our best interests.
When speaking to the IFA meeting, I suggested also that we should prepare a balance sheet in regard to our position in the Community. Such a balance sheet would serve many purposes. The principal objective would be to set out clearly and accurately the positive advantages which flow from Community membership, side by side with the disadvantages and the losses which membership brings. In the wake of a number of major changes which have taken place in Community policies, it is necessary to know exactly where we stand and whether the gap between advantages and disadvantages is narrowing, and if so, to what extent. Such an assessment could also identify for us the areas in which we should concentrate our efforts. We would also be in a position to argue much more cogently and convincingly on matters affecting our national interests which arise for decision at Community level.
Agriculture, of course, would occupy a very central position on such a balance sheet because of the vital place it occupies in the national economy and also because it was through the development and prosperity of our agricultural industry that we had hoped to gain the principal benefit from membership of the Community.
I want to press very strongly that something in the nature of such a balance sheet be prepared and published so that we can all see what the situation is. We could then base a coherent strategy on such an assessment. At the moment there is no such strategy. There is only a series of isolated responses to developments, very often panic-stricken responses and ad hoc compromises.
One of the most interesting and immediately relevant documents before the Heads of Government was the Annual Economic Report of the Commission entitled "A Cooperative Growth Strategy for More Employment". In a nutshell the thesis of the report is that on the basis of current policies a 2½ per cent growth rate is all that can be expected in the Community, and that on that basis there will be no significant decline in unemployment for the rest of the decade. The report sets out a strategy for increasing the growth rate to 3½ per cent, the minimum necessary to achieve worthwhile reductions in unemployment, so far as the Commission's view is concerned. That is a key aspect of the report.
The Commission also pinpoints one of the basic weaknesses in Irish economic policy, policy pursued since the Coalition came into office. In what I can only describe as a dramatic confirmation of what I have been saying in this House in debate after debate, the Commission states that the budget should be restructured and I quote:
to increase public investment; particularly in respect of infrastructure, environmental protection and urban renewal, a considerable backlog of needs has build up in recent years, which could be met with the spare capacity in the construction industry. The realisation of major infrastructure projects in the transport, telecommunications and environmental fields, as well as exploitation of technological potential, would substantially improve the functioning of the internal market. The accelerated implementation of numerous projects, which are already available and have an adequate social rate of return, would reinforce economic dynamism and contribute to the success of the proposed strategy.
Is that not exactly what I have been advocating? We have constantly and consistently urged the importance of freeing more resources for capital investment on roads, on the natural gas network, on extensions to the public transport system in Dublin, and on developing our natural resources and developing the inner city while the Government, in accordance with Building on Reality have cut the capital budget in real terms every year they have been in office. Indeed, the Commission goes so far as to say that the decline in public investment is offsetting the increase in private investment in capital goods.
But the main thrust of the Commission document is to suggest that in certain Community countries there is scope for giving a boost to demand. Particularly in Germany with a balance of payments surplus, the Commission sees scope for steps to sustain growth. I hope the Taoiseach made a strong case for the cooperative action urged, albeit very cautiously, in the Commission document.
In the section on Ireland there is the interesting comment that the Building on Reality targets are stated to be a minimum, and that the deficit must be reduced by at least 1½ per cent as a halfway step to 1987. That means a deficit of less than £1,100 million or a reduction of up to £250 million compared with this year. They also envisage the second and final phase of the abolition of food subsidies, and add: “It is questionable in the context of overall budgetary targets, whether the real value of social transfers can be maintained.” Can we detect an Irish Department of Finance briefing undertone there, I wonder?
It is very disappointing that the council have not taken on board the recommendations of the Commission's report, which is merely to be examined. Instead a complacent tone is adopted in the Presidency Conclusions, which state that progress towards rationalisation and economic recovery and the increased convergence of economic policies have already made it possible to stabilise the level of unemployment in the Community and even to reduce it in some countries. That is rubbish.
What the Irish people wanted from this Summit was something positive in regard to employment. They are entitled to expect that the leaders of Europe, assembled at this meeting with all the trappings of power, served by the best trained and most sophisticated bureaucracy in the world, commanding all the vast human and material resources of the Continent of Europe would produce policies which would put people to work, restore their dignity and self-respect and not leave them loitering for ever in humiliating and degrading dole queues.
This Summit has been another non-event in that regard and the leaders of Europe have once again let their people down and condemned them to still more years of hopelessness, idleness and despair.
Deputies
Hear, Hear.
As usual the European Council pays lip service to increased economic and social cohesion and to reducing the disparaties between the regions. I use the term "lip service" advisedly. There is talk of clarifying and rationalising the tasks of the Regional and Social Funds, but no talk of increasing the resources available to them. Without specific mechanisms and in particular increased resources for the Regional and Social Funds, the Council's statements are nothing more than empty verbiage.
The only way to increase cohesion and reduce disparities is to give adequate resources to the Funds and in our case to strengthen the CAP, not to emasculate it. As we know, this year in the budget, the Regional Fund allocation for Ireland has been cut not increased.
The centrepiece of this Summit has been proposals for completing the internal market. It would not be sensible for us to adopt a simplistic view either for or against that proposal. Obviously, a single market of 320 billion with no barriers of a non-tariff kind would offer us, in theory at least, better export opportunities, provided we knew how to take advantage of them. However, the third objective of completing the internal market as set out in the Commission White Paper must give us pause for thought.
This objective is to ensure, and I quote, "that resources, both of people and materials, and of capital and investment, flow into areas of greatest economic advantage". As we know, areas of greatest economic advantage tend to be concentrated in the south-east of England, northern Germany and northern France. It is only with the help of regional support funds and low corporate taxation that we can hope to provide some countervailing attractions to industry and services to locate in Ireland. There is also a danger if we are not careful that such defences as we have will be dismantled far quicker than the more elaborate and sophisticated defences of our larger partners. What have the effects of economic integration been to date, and have we good reason for believing that a bigger dose of the same interpretation would be much more beneficial than our experience to date?
I would like to recommend to the House the Thomas Davis lecture given last Sunday by Dr. Kieran Kennedy. He points out that many of the expected gains from new industry were thwarted by the two oil crises. Industrial recovery, such as it is since 1983, has been concentrated in a few "sunrise" industries, notably electronics and pharmaceuticals, which employ relatively few people in relation to their sales. He points out that £940 million was taken out of the country last year in profits as part of the "in-famous" black hole.
If the situation in respect of new industries is far from satisfactory, Dr. Kennedy points out that the situation in the traditional sector is even worse. Employment in many of the larger firms has been wiped out or much reduced. He concludes — I quote —"the belief that competition would whip native industries into shape has not been sustained. Instead, it snuffed them out". With over 17 per cent of the work force unemployed, by far the highest unemployment rate in the Community, we must surely have some concern about the effects of even stronger winds of competition.
It seems to us on this side of the House that the larger countries want all the benefits of a single homogeneous internal market without being prepared to pay any price for it, in terms of compensatory payments to the less developed regions.
The situation with regard to the regional and social funds in the budget for next year is an illustration of this. For a start the budget is only equivalent to 1.25 per cent of VAT instead of the 1.4 per cent the Council recognised would be necessary in the context of enlargement. It at present appears that there will be a substantial reduction in the amount Ireland receives from the Regional Fund next year. Our quota under the fund ranged up until now from 5.6 per cent to 6.8 per cent of the total. The Commission has proposed that our share be reduced to between 3.8 per cent and 4.6 per cent but in the context of substantial increases in the fund.
Our 1985 allocation is in the range 123 million to 149 million ECUs. Under the Commission's proposals for 1986 this will be reduced to 115 million to 138 million ECUS, and this reduction is even greater in real terms if the rate of inflation is taken into account. However, the Council has not of course accepted the Commission's proposals but decided on an even lower figure. On the best estimates available, and given that the budget procedure has yet to be completed, there could be up to a 25 per cent drop in allocations for Ireland in 1986.
I would have to point out that Ireland has obtained no compensation of any kind following the process of enlargement. France, Italy and Greece have all obtained increased funding under the integrated Mediterranean programmes, while Germany and Britain have the increased markets for their goods in the Iberian Peninsula. Ireland has negotiated nothing, and faces a decrease in funds, in particular the Regional Fund, and of course from the CAP where no provision has been made in the budget for any increase in agricultural prices in 1986.
I do not need to remind Deputies that in recent years, the Social Fund has played an important part in our economic and social structures. As far as the Social Fund is concerned, I understand an entirely inadequate provision has been made for the commitment agreed to by the Council, and that the funds will not be adequate to meet the commitments. I am told by those with experience that employment training and experience schemes will not be able to continue at present levels next year. If this is so it will be a near disastrous situation. What have the Government been doing about that situation? They appear at this stage to have been inadequate and ineffective in protecting and promoting our interests in that vital area.
As far as concrete decisions on the internal market are concerned, I presume that detailed clarification of what is involved will be given by the Government at an early date. From a cursory examination it would appear that the common external tariff, recognition of professional qualifications, exchange controls relative to third countries and transport will no longer require unamimity, but I understand that de facto at least the so-called Luxembourg compromise, the veto will continue to operate, where vital national interests are concerned. There is a commitment to harmonise indirect taxation as far as necessary, but this is subject to the unanimity rule. But in relation to health, safety, environmental and consumer protection there is provision for national exceptions provided they are not a disguised form of protectionism. Article 1 of the section of the internal market is not to be interpreted, according to a statement in the minutes, as creating a legal obligation, it is merely an expression of political will that the internal market will be completed by the beginning of 1993.
I see in all that many dangers. We would very definitely have to discuss this whole situation further in this House. No matter how enthusiastic we are for European Union and for improvements and progress in that direction, we have to see the veto as the final defence mechanism for a small country like ours which at this stage has suffered a great deal in many areas from membership of the Community.
While the EMS is now to be written into the Treaty, any further developments require not merely unanimity, but a full scale inter-governmental conference and treaty amendments to be ratified in all Parliaments. As the Financial Times point out this morning, these changes could make future development of the EMS even more difficult than it is already, while making no real difference to the current situation.
I listened to the Taoiseach being interviewed this morning by RTE and it seemed to me that he was seeking to convey the impression that this Summit was a good one from our point of view and that its outcome will be beneficial. I think that is very misleading. The whole trend in Community policies over recent years has been contrary to our best interests under practically every heading. We must recognise and acknowledge that trend, face up to it and try to cope with it and not engage in self-deception, pretending to see benefits and progress when, in fact, the opposite is the case.
In regard to agriculture, fisheries, the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the budget, the whole trend and movement is against our interests and constantly narrowing the gap between the advantages and disadvantages of membership. It was to be expected that the outcome of the debate on European Union would be a good deal more modest than the enthusiasts would have wished. The Spinelli Treaty and even the Dooge report were very ambitious in the institutional area, while being far from ambitious enough in terms of proposals to increase the economic and social cohesion of the Community. We believe that a pragmatic approach, concentrating on the real problems, is the only realistic course for the Community to take, and any attempt to effect a wholesale transfer of sovereignty to the EC institutions would have left a small country like Ireland in a dangerously exposed and vulnerable situation, apart altogether from its implications for our neutrality.
The Draft Treaty on European Political Co-operation which essentially formalises the political co-operation process, is one about which we would have considerable reservations. It will have the definite effect of making the operation of an independent foreign policy by a small country like Ireland more difficult, and it does not provide any permanent safeguards for our neutrality. I doubt if the Taoiseach could contradict either of those statements. It will certainly be more difficult for us to pursue any sort of independent foreign policy on the basis of our neutrality.
With regard to the first point, there is now a formal obligation to consult before taking up positions, and to take into account the views of partners. This would tend inevitably to inhibit independent initiatives by Ireland particularly in relation to general disarmament and especially nuclear disarmament, an area where the policies and priorities of our partners will often differ from ours. The practical effect could be to water down our neutrality to a minimalist policy level with little practical content.
It is necessary to direct the attention of Deputies and the public to Article 8 of the Treaty which states in paragraphs 1 and 2 the following:
The High Contracting Parties consider that closer cooperation on questions of European Security would contribute in an essential way to the development of a European external policy identity. They are ready to coordinate their positions more closely on the political and economic aspects of security.
Paragraph 2 states:
The High Contracting Parties are determined to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security. They shall work to that end both at national level, and, where appropriate, on the framework of the relevant institutions and bodies.
These are very important paragraphs and reading these two paragraphs together could bring us a long way away from neutrality in practice. To agree that closer co-operation on questions of European security is essential, and I emphasise the use of the word essential, even if for the time being the member states are only ready to co-operate more closely on the political and economic aspects of security, could and no doubt will be interpreted as a formal abdication in principle of our neutrality. Acceptance of that paragraph is formal acceptance of the principle that military and defence matters are essential to the development of a European external policy identity. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach can counter that proposal I will be interested to hear from them.
If the Deputy reads paragraph 8.3 he can counter it himself.
For that reason, unless it can be shown that our view and interpretation is erroneous or exaggerated, I must give notice that we will find it difficult to support this draft Treaty, when it comes before the Dáil.
Paragraph 2 also clearly opens the way for collaboration on weapons production within an EC framework, something that every Irish Government up to now have opposed, and that Fianna Fáil have opposed consistently in the European Parliament.
Deputies in this House who are concerned about the principle of neutrality must examine whether they can support the wording of Article 8 as it stands, or whether when the draft Treaty is next discussed by the Foreign Ministers Ireland must make formal objections to this part of the text.
Speaking at a Fianna Fáil function in the Burlington Hotel. On Wednesday, 20 November I said that because we were anxious to secure any possible improvement in the situation and the circumstances of the Nationalist section of the community in the North of Ireland, we did not wish to engage in any activity that would impede or obstruct anything this new Conference might undertake for that purpose. I went on to say that though we had deep concerns about the Conference, if those who were committed to it would use it to ameliorate the condition of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland, we would not put any difficulties in their way because we fully understood and sympathised with the need of both Nationalists and Unionists in the North of Ireland to see some progress in the appalling state of affairs that prevails there.
Since the conclusion of the Dáil debate, during the course of which we put our position on the unity and the sovereignty of the Irish nation firmly on the record, we have not made any further comment. This restraint on our part was deliberate. We are deeply conscious of the need for us to act with the utmost sensitivity and responsibility. We were fully conscious of the sensitive and dangerous nature of the situation the agreement had created. We were quite clear in our determination that no action or statement on our part would heighten tension, cause difficulties, or obstruct any progress that might possibly be made. We maintained that attitude in spite of a great deal of provocation and criticism. We have, in fact, been compelled to have to listen to a number of statements and comments from people who on the one hand, abjured us to be supportive and responsible, while at the same time, losing no opportunity to condemn and vilify us.
Fianna Fáil will maintain this dignified and responsible role in regard to the agreement and it is entirely in that spirit and context I find myself compelled to comment on the recent developments which have taken place though I would much prefer not to have the obligation to do so.
In the Dáil debate, it was an essential part of our case against the agreement, that it undermined our national position in regard to unity and our rejection of British sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland. We also stated that the signing of the agreement would enable any British Government to turn to the outside world, and in particular to our friends abroad, and claim that there was no longer any problem in regard to Northern Ireland between the Irish and British Governments, that they were in agreement about it, that the integrity of Northern Ireland as part of the UK was fully accepted by the Irish Government and that no further action of any kind was called for on their part. It is unfortunate and regrettable that that is precisely what has happened.
What Mr. King, the British Chairman of the Inter-governmental Conference that will be established has said, clearly constitutes his understanding of the agreement. What he said was:
In Northern Ireland now we have signed an Agreement in which the Prime Minister of Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that he faces and has to live with a Constitution which has aspirations of sovereignty over Northern Ireland, has in fact accepted that for all practical purposes and into perpetuity there will not be a united Ireland, because he has accepted the principle of consent that the will of the majority in Northern Ireland must predominate and that Northern Ireland, which is our fervent wish, remains part of the United Kingdom.
He went on to elaborate at a press conference:
What has been widely misunderstood is that it marks the acceptance in a formal agreement which will be lodged as a Treaty at the United Nations by the Government of the Republic of the principle of consent, that is, in fact, therefore the legitimacy of the Unionist position based on the majority view in Northern Ireland is accepted, and that therefore means that, as you put it, for all practical purposes there is no prospect of a united Ireland.
Mr. King's remarks have not been rejected or repudiated by the British Prime Minister. He has repeated and reinforced them in several interviews since. The reality is that Mr. King's remarks are exactly the way the British are presenting the Hillsborough Agreement internationally.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I wish to repeat that we will favour anything which will help to improve the position of the Nationalist community, end discrimination and eliminate the many grievances and instances of oppression they suffer from. Obviously, the way the British Government interpret and implement the agreement is crucial. I can only say that what was said yesterday by the British representative on the Conference does not give grounds for confidence.
I feared and gave expression to the fear that the whole purpose of the agreement from the British point of view was to secure the full backing of the Irish Government for their security policies and to legitimise the RUC, the UDR, the courts and varous controversial security practices. That suspicion has, I regret to say, been greatly strengthened not lessened by these developments.
I would also draw the attention of Deputies to another element in this situation — a new element which has been imported into the situation. The British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the course of his speech in Brussels, stated that it was his fervent wish that Northern Ireland would always remain a part of the United Kingdon. The same sentiment was expressed by the British Prime Minister who said: "Tom King and I both hope and expect that there will continue to be a majority". The Taoiseach must acknowledge that the combination——
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
The Taoiseach must acknowledge that the combination of——
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
——these two powerful statements makes a total nonsense of his claim in regard to the third paragraph of article 1 of the Hillsborough Agreement. Speaking in the Dáil debate on the agreement, he said:
The commitment in this clause to introduce such legislation is the first clear affirmation in any binding Anglo-Irish Agreement since 1921 that Britain has no interest in the continuing division of this island and that its presence in this island, undertaking the responsibility of government in Northern Ireland, continues solely because this is the wish of a majority of the people of that area and will not continue beyond the point when that consent is changed into consent to Irish unity.
I have to emphasise at this point that the content of the agreement itself represents those things to which both Governments can give their assent; of its very nature it contains no unilateral statements.
It is, unfortunately, the position that both the British Prime Minister and Secretary of State have unequivocally stated that the British Government have a continued interest in the partition of Ireland, and that indeed they both wish to see Ireland divided in perpetuity and a majority in Northern Ireland supporting the union. They see the agreement as a bulwark of partition. Mr. King has said that he believes that this is what the agreement will prove to have established. The cause of constitutional nationalism in Ireland is not lost, but no one who is committed to that cause can be encouraged or made optimistic by these far-reaching recent developments.
The summit which has just taken place was, as I understand it, the make-up-your-mind time on many major structural issues which faced the European Community, but from the Taoiseach's statement here today and from press coverage this morning it is clear that, while a number of modest changes have been made, the major structural issues have not been dealt with. At the Milan summit about six months ago it was agreed, despite strong opposition from Britain, Denmark and Greece, to establish an inter-governmental conference to produce a package of proposals to revitalise and streamline the Community, especially in view of the imminent entry of Spain and Portugal. This summit was intended to deal with the recommendations of the inter-governmental conference in relation to those major items, but the conference produced very little in the way of agreement. The conference considered the Dooge report and proposals from the European Parliament for a revised treaty, but there were so many objections by different Governments to different aspects of the proposals that little progress was made. EC Commissioner Jacques Delors summed up the efforts of member governments as "a Texas chain saw massacre on the well-intentioned proposals for European development".
Ireland raised as many objections as other countries, and many of the objections were well justified. The Taoiseach indicated today in his speech that agreement in principle was reached on revisions of the Treaty of Rome which are intended to speed up decision making and to give the European Parliament an enhanced role. There is to be a new treaty formalising foreign policy co-operation of the member states along with strengthened policies on environmental protection and technological research.
The most significant change for Ireland seems to be the decision to introduce the concept of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers for many areas. This has enormous implications for a small country such as Ireland. We are still relatively underdeveloped compared to other EC members and very often our interests will not coincide with the interests of the bigger, more developed industrial nations, particularly France, Germany and the UK. The Taoiseach indicated that there is to be a new article in relation to cohesion. He said:
Deputies will see that there will now be, for the first time, a specific Treaty article referring to the need to promote harmonious development and to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the Community, and in particular, to reduce disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.
That is a welcome development; but I for one, cannot see how that in reality will improve the situation which exists already. It may strengthen ministerial hands in negotiations but it is little enough to come away with in terms of the kind of assistance which underdeveloped regions of the EC require.
One area where majority voting has been introduced is the question of financial services, banking, insurance etc. Surprisingly, the Taoiseach has withdrawn his reservation about majority voting in this area. According to press reports, he indicated that he hoped for a sympathetic hearing at a later stage if Ireland sought an exemption. However, there must be serious doubt now about the ability of any Irish Government to mount a rescue operation similar to the PMPA and ICI operations which we saw recently, or there may be a question relating to how these existing rescue operations can be maintained. People would be naive if they believed that free trade in the financial area will result, even in the long term, in cheaper insurance for the people here and, indeed, for Irish businesses. For instance, much of the public liability area for insurance is done already with Lloyds of London and there is reason to suspect that this is one of the reasons for major problems faced by companies and bodies securing public liability insurance at an affordable price.
Another area which must be of major concern to us as a neutral country is the reference to the formalisation of the foreign policy co-operation of the member states. The Taoiseach referred to this in his speech. There has been a trend in recent years to subsume our foreign policy under the Community's foreign policy approach. It is normal now, if a question is placed here in the House asking the Government what their attitude is or what they have done in relation to Central America or South Africa or anywhere else, for us to be told that the Community has a particular position, that this is what they have said and done.
It is difficult to get an expression of a view of what the Irish position on certain areas of foreign policy. We are gradually losing our independent voice on foreign policy matters. I do not believe it has got to a critical stage as yet but the trend is there. This new formalisation of foreign policy co-operation is a hardening of that process. In effect, we are being asked to accept that our foreign policy interests are the same as those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, the same as nuclear powers such as France and the UK. One of the worrying aspects of the EC membership has been the gradual but presistent erosion of the perception of Ireland abroad as a genuinely neutral country. We have accepted without much demur the role of the EC as in effect the political wing of NATO. I am sure the Taoiseach will be anxious to deny that but the effect on the ground of the position we take indicates that we are quite soft in relation to the areas of policy which might impinge on the interests of NATO countries.
Our Government have never taken any initiative to develop an alliance of non-aligned or neutral countries. We have not taken any initiative to provide an alternative which would encourage the Danish, the Greek or the Irish Governments to co-operate in opposition to the military build-up which is now such a feature of modern Europe. We have never initiated dialogue with the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Switzerland or Finland, on mutual co-operation for demilitarisation and world peace.
We have largely been inactive promoting detente in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Agreement, an agreement which provides a framework based on respect for sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and political independence. It is based on ten principles which are in effect the Charter of the United Nations. I should like to ask the Taoiseach why such an approach has never been placed on the European agenda. It is no wonder people ask what we mean when we say that we have a national policy of neutrality when we seem to cut corners on it in many areas of our foreign policy.
I read with interest reports of the Summit and listened to the Taoiseach's speech today in the hope of finding something concrete that would have in some way or another shortened the dole queues. I regret to say that there was not anything substantial in the reports of the Summit that will in the short term lead to a shortening of the dole queues. I am not only referring to the dole queues in Ireland but to the 13 million who are unemployed in the EC. In 1973 we pointed out that we considered the EC to be a rich man's club and nothing has happened so far to encourage us to change that perception of what is involved.
While progress has been made on the elimination of tariff barriers to facilitate the free movement of labour and capital, the inequalities within the Community are still largely there and appear to have a very low priority. While capital and labour had great expectations when we joined the EC it is fair to say that capital is the only area which has benefited to any great extent.
It is desirable that there should be a move towards reform following the operation of the Treaty for the last 25 years. I hope that when the amendments to the Treaty have been agreed by the Council of Ministers adequate time will be given in the House to debate them. I hope every opportunity is given to all Members, not just those with an interest in the area, to contribute to such a debate. The suggestion made by Deputy Haughey in relation to a balance sheet as to the benefits and disadvantages of membership is long overdue. While I do not believe that there is any realistic possibility that we could withdraw from the EC at this stage a debate on the advantages and disadvantages of membership would clarify for many in the House, and perhaps for the Government, the direction in which our negotiators should be moving in regard to gaining some benefit for our people.
I should like to make a point in regard to the Taoiseach's statement on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. I was disappointed that the Taoiseach stated merely that there was hope expressed that those in Northern Ireland who opposed the agreement would see the benefit of it. I was hoping that the Taoiseach would be announcing today some concrete steps to encourage that development to take place. It is unfortunate that Mr. Tom King, the Northern Ireland Secretary, made a statement last night. I cannot believe that it was by way of a slip of the tongue or was made inadvertently. It would be an extraordinary thing for a person in his position, given the crucial role he has to play in the Inter-Governmental Conference to be so unguarded in his remarks. I can only assume that he was genuinely expressing his view of the agreement. Whether he has the right or not to interpret the mind of the Taoiseach is a matter for the Taoiseach to say but it is my view to say that the interpretation he has put on the agreement does not appear to be accurate.
However, the remarks by Mr. King are an indication of the dangers that arise from the agreement such as this, which in many ways is pitched to be vague on certain things so that different shades of interpretation can be allowed in order to reach the compromise that is needed for a working relationshop. All Members of the House should take that into account when responding to the position Mr. King has adopted. To argue that Mrs. Thatcher or Mr. King were anything other than Unionists when they signed the agreement is foolish. I do not think there was anything in the communique or in the agreement which indicated that Mrs. Thatcher or Mr. King, or anybody else who previously was Unionist, were anything other than Unionists after they had signed the agreement.
If this agreement is to be of any benefit, it must encourage the development of political dialogue between the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. For that reason I hope that no opportunity will be lost by any of the parties there to sit down around the table without preconditions and discuss their differences. I and other members of The Working Party inside and outside this House believe that the greatest gesture which the SDLP could make at this time would be to enter the Assembly. This would reduce considerably the fears and anger of the Unionists — not with a large "U". I am talking about the people of Northern Ireland who consider themselves to be unionists and feel anger and fear at this time. I accept that this would be a fairly difficult gesture for the SDLP to make. However, they would certainly lose nothing in the eyes of the people of the Republic of Ireland and I have no doubt that they would not lose face among those in Northern Ireland either. I urge that they should be encouraged by whoever has influence over them to enter the Assembly. It is a gesture of that kind which is needed now.
That concludes the debate on the Taoiseach's statement.
Could I say a few words, please?
I am sorry, but I heard the Ceann Comhairle on the monitor indicating to you Standing Order No. 38.
He read it out.
He read that no debate shall be permitted on any such statement, but further statements may be allowed at the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle from a spokesman nominated by a party in Opposition.
He did not mention that he was not using his discretion.
As far as my discretion is concerned, the practice is quite clear. The Chair permits a statement only from a party which has at least two elected members.
Since when did the two come in?
That has been a ruling of the Chair.
Since when?
I should like to advise the Deputy that——
The number used had been seven, then was five and it is now two.
It has been in operation since the Standing Order was adopted in 1974.
For two?
Yes, for two.
I am talking for Deputy Gregory and myself.
Deputy, you are not in order. I cannot allow you to speak on this statement, I am sorry.
May I then correct the record with regard to something that I said earlier on which the Chair should have corrected me? I want to withdraw an appendage that I used in relation to Deputy FitzGerald when talking about his agreement with the self-professed Unionist Loyalist, Mrs. Thatcher.
You are proceeding now to make a statement, Deputy.
I am not going to make a statement. I have a right in this House——
I cannot allow you to make a statement.
——to withdraw a statement that I made.
Deputy Blaney, in accordance with Standing Orders, you are not entitled to speak on this statement by the Taoiseach.
If I have in my magnanimity agreed with you, I totally disagree with your ruling.
This is not the first time that you disagreed with me, Deputy.
I want to withdraw an appendage I used earlier in relation to the Taoiseach's office.
Is it a personal explanation?
Call it what you will. The Chair may not have heard but I know that the people recording did hear and I do not want this to go on the record because, despite my lack of regard for Deputy FitzGerald as Taoiseach, I have the greatest regard for the position of Taoiseach in this House and outside it. That is what keeps me from saying many other things or having said them over the past number of years. In the heat of the moment earlier today I spoke in relation to the signing and negotiation of this agreement as being between the professed Unionist Loyalist. Mrs. Thatcher and our clown. I want to withdraw that, Sir, and to have it stricken from the record as not being subscribed to by me in relation to this or any other Taoiseach, whether he has sold out this country or not, which I profess he has. I thank Tom King for elucidating their view of this agreement. That is what I have been telling you, but nobody wants to listen. I am sorry for the Minister, Deputy Barry, who has to go and sit beside him in the Conference.
Do not be a bit worried about me. I can look after myself.
I call Item 17, Air Transport Bill, 1984, section 5, as amended.
I could say something else about the European Council in Luxembourg about which I know a little, but this House is not interested in somebody who might know what he is talking about. If it is two for the party now, I have Deputy Gregory and myself.
Deputy O'Malley was in possession.
I want to give the House due notice of that. If two are enough, we are the two. If I had seen Deputy O'Malley coming in, I would have made him the second.