Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 5

European Council in Strasbourg: Statements.

I attended the European Council in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerard Collins. Minister of State, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, also attended.

I have arranged for a copy of the Presidency Conclusions to be placed in the Library in the usual way. As these record the outcome of the Council in some detail, I will confine myself here to commenting on what was discussed and to the programme for the Irish Presidency.

First, however, I should like to pay tribute to the courtesy, efficiency and decisiveness with which the Council was run by President Mitterrand and the French Presidency generally, aided by the Council Secretariat and the Commission. The general arrangement of the Council's business and the services provided could hardly have been bettered. That the Summit was a spectacular success is universally acknowledged. It represents a major move forward in the affairs of the Community. The conclusions document is a record of substantial achievements.

This is a time of historic change in the Community and in Europe as a whole. It is a time of new hope for all Europeans, East and West. Momentous events are taking place daily. The ideological walls that kept people apart are crumbling as surely as the Berlin Wall. Patterns which had been fixed for two generations since the Second World War are shifting and changing with almost unbelievable rapidity.

It was against this background that the Strasbourg Summit took place, and in reporting on it I will deal also with the work of the Irish Presidency commencing in January when we will have the responsibility for carrying forward the work of the Community, both internally and externally, for the next six months.

Essentially the work at Strasbourg was concentrated on three areas:

—First, we discussed the internal affairs of the Community. The main areas were the completion of the Internal Market, Economic and Monetary Union and the Social Charter. Other aspects were economic growth, research, audio visual capacity and the improvement of the quality of life of the people of Europe, generally.

—Second, the relationship of the Community with other European countries and in particular the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the European Free Trade Area and the Mediterranean States.

—Third, external relations and the Community's international obligations and its relationship with countries and regions for which it accepts a special responsibility.

The proceedings in Strasbourg opened with a statement by Mr. Baron, the President of the European Parliament, in which he set out the Parliament's position and priorities.

The Council then went on in formal session to consider progress towards the completion of the internal market. We noted the satisfactory pace of progress and that with the internal market beginning to assume final shape its positive effects are being felt throughout the Community. Important decisions have been taken during the French Presidency in the regulation of financial services, and significant progress has been made on the control of company mergers, on road cabotage and air transport guidelines.

The European Council also outlined where it would like to see decisive progress in the near future, such as the opening of public procurement in telecommunications and other essential services; the development and interconnection of trans-European transport, communications and energy networks; and measures to combat tax evasion following the liberalisation of capital movements, as well as a resolution of the problems connected with indirect tax harmonisation.

The Council discussed a number of associated policies aimed at ensuring that economic progress is shared throughout the Community through closer economic and social cohesion and through active policies on the environment. We noted with satisfaction the unanimous agreement on the arrangements for the setting up of the European Environment Agency in 1990. The General Affairs Council is to take an early decision on the location of the agency's headquarters.

Other matters dealt with under this heading included research, audio visual, the free movement of persons, and a People's Europe. Under this particular heading, we agreed on the progressive abolition of border formalities, noting the need at the same time for such measures as may be necessary to combat terrorism, crime, and the menace of traffic in drugs.

The single market has already led to a significant increase in investment throughout the Community and to the creation of new jobs — which are projected at about five million for the period 1988 to 1990.

A major advance at Strasbourg was the adoption of the "Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers" by 11 member states by way of political declaration. Ireland has always fully supported the concept of the Social Charter, and the thinking behind it, which is that the Single Market must be accompanied by a positive social dimension. At Strasbourg I gave Ireland's full support to the adoption of the Charter, which is an important declaration of fundamental rights and objectives.

The preamble explicitly recognises that the completion of the internal market is the most effective means of creating employment. The Charter is fully in line with what has been a cardinal principle of Government policy here since 1987, expressed in the Programme for National Recovery, that:

The social consensus contributes to the strengthening of the competitiveness of undertakings of the economy as a whole and to the creation of employment [and that] it is an essential condition for ensuring sustained economic development.

The Charter covers rights and objectives in relation to freedom of movement, freedom of association, equitable pay, working time, the conditions of employment of part time and temporary workers, the development of vocational training, social security and social protection, safety and health at work, protection of young workers and the protection of the elderly and the disabled.

The Commission's Action Programme to implement the Charter will now be undertaken by governments, the Commission, employers and employees working together to guarantee the improvement of working conditions and, at the same time, maintaining efficient, competitive undertakings and a healthy economic environment for investment and growth, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Social Charter and Action Programme will not conflict with what is our prior social requirement, namely that of employment. The principle of sub-sidiarity has been accepted. Only those tasks that could be better achieved at Community level will be subject to Community action, with other aspects left to the member states for implementation through legislation and the procedures of free collective bargaining. Some account had necessarily to be taken of the enormous diversity of practices in the employer — employee relationship across the Community. The text which has emerged from the negotiations and which we have adopted represents a reasonable balance and a broad consensus.

Progress towards Economic and Monetary Union is now under way. The Council welcomed the agreements reached by the ECOFIN Council and the initiatives taken by the Central Bank Governors in order to strengthen the coordination of economic policies and to improve the co-operation between Central Banks. These decisions prepare the Community for the first stage of EMU to start on 1 July 1990. The Council decided by majority that an Intergovernmental Conference should be convened to prepare amendments of the Treaty for stages 2 and 3 of the programme. This Conference will meet, under the auspices of the Italian Presidency, before the end of 1990. It will draw up its own agenda and set the timetable for its proceedings.

The Commission will submit before 1 April a composite paper on all aspects of EMU. This paper will respond to the questions identified by the high level working group, established under the French Presidency. The Commission paper will deal, inter alia, with the economic and social cohesion dimension, and with the issue of democratic accountability. The General Affairs and ECOFIN Councils will use the period before the opening of the Conference to ensure the best possible preparation, and the proceedings, as a whole, will be examined by the General Affairs Council in preparation for the Dublin European Council, next June.

On the external relations of the Community, the Council indicated its hope that at the ministerial meeting on 19 December a decision will be taken to begin negotiations so that the Community and EFTA can, at the earliest opportunity, reach agreement on strengthening their co-operation in accordance with their multi-lateral commitments. The Council further indicated its hope that the negotiations to be opened in the first half of 1990 will produce arrangements for institutional co-operation which are fully in keeping with these principles.

In relation to Central and Eastern Europe, we said that the Community has taken and will take the necessary decisions to strengthen co-operation with the people of those countries seeking freedom, democracy and progress. The Strasbourg Council approved the creation of a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to promote productive and competitive investment in the States of Central and Eastern Europe so as to assist the transition towards a more market-orientated economy and to speed up the necessary structural adjustments.

We also confirmed the Community's readiness to participate in the creation of a Stabilisation Fund for Poland with combined contributions from the Twelve of more than half the resources of the Fund, which is to receive £1,000 million. The Council referred to the need to grant Hungary, after agreement with the IMF, an adjustment loan of the same amount.

Under the heading of Political Co-operation, the Council discussed: The Middle East, Lebanon, The Euro-Arab Conference, Southern Africa, Ethiopia, Chile and Central America. The Conclusions of the Council on these subjects are available to Deputies. I will, therefore, confine myself here to the more important elements of the discussion, so far as Ireland is concerned.

I have already mentioned the substantial steps taken or proposed by the Community to help in the historic movement in Eastern Europe towards democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. The Council acknowledged that "such a profound and rapid development would not have been possible without the policy of openness and reform led by Mr. Gorbachev".

The Council expressed its support for the German people to regain their unity through free self-determination, in conditions of peace and stability, in full respect of all relevant agreements and treaties, and respecting the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and in a context of dialogue and East-West co-operation. It was emphasised that this "has to be placed in the perspective of Community integration". On the occasion of the opening of the Berlin Wall, I sent a message to Chancellor Kohl conveying our support and best wishes on an historic occasion for all Germans.

With the prospects of progress on disarmament, and against the background of greater freedom of movement of persons and ideas, and respect for human rights, the whole climate in Europe is being transformed. The European Council was conscious of the tremendous responsibility placed on the Community in these circumstances to assist the process of change and to give support to the countries which are embarked on the road to democracy.

In relation to Central America, Ireland has demonstrated its full willingness to play its part in the peace process as a country which understands the immense political and socio-economic difficulties of the region, by contributing troops to the UN Force ONUCA. We are making preparations for a meeting within the San Jose framework here in Dublin during our Presidency involving the Foreign Ministers of the Central American countries, the four Contadora States, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, and our EC partners. The purpose of this meeting will be to help the Central American countries concerned to strengthen democracy and political stability, so that they can lessen the economic and social deprivation which forms the basis of most of their problems.

At the conclusion of the Strasbourg Council, I had a meeting lasting about half-an-hour with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. At the meeting I conveyed our concern over the case of the Birmingham Six, where, in my view, the arguments for reopening the case are unanswerable. We also discussed bilateral issues and welcomed the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Group. We considered the situation in relation to Northern Ireland and the prospects for political progress there. As the communiqué issued after the meeting notes, we were agreed in our condemnation of violence and on the constant need to improve security co-operation. We emphasised, in particular, the possibilities that would open up if violence were to end.

We discussed the current state of affairs in the Community and reviewed at some length many of the major issues the developments.

It is already clear that the changes both within the Community and in Eastern Europe will have a profound effect not alone on the whole of Europe but throughout the world. The Community's response to these developments will be of crucial importance. New policies and structures are required to deal with them. The Irish Presidency will be called on to guide and shape the Community's response in the coming months.

Great care and maturity are called for. If the events of the past months have shown us anything, it is that history will not fit neatly into the constructions of politicians, diplomats, and administrators. Who could have foreseen last summer the emergence of non-Communist governments in Poland or Hungary, or the radical changes that the power of the people have brought in East Germany and Czechoslovakia? These events require new thinking, to use Gorbachev's phrase, by all European states, but in particular by the members of the Community.

Some have seen the developments in Eastern Europe as presenting the Community with a dilemma; that it would have to choose between proceeding with its own policies or greater unity and integration or supporting the heroic efforts of the peoples of Eastern Europe. But in reality no such choice is necessary. On the contrary, both developments are interdependent and, I believe, reinforce one another in a powerful and dynamic way, and this was confirmed at Strasbourg.

The Community of Twelve is built on solid principles of democracy, individual freedom, respect for human rights, the rule of law — values which we sometimes lose sight of in the minutiae of Community legislation and the complexity of negotiations. But it is important to recall that the Twelve can pool their economic interests and can build common European institutions, precisely because we share these basic values. For the past 30 years, the Community has given to Western Europe a period of peace, stability, and prosperity never before seen in modern European history. The values on which the Community is constructed are values that the peoples of Eastern Europe are now demanding for themselves; and they look to the Community to help them achieve them and to rebuild their economies. It would be more than ironic, it would be a betrayal of the hopes of all Europeans if, at the very moment when the success of the Community is so manifest, the member states were to falter, or change course, and fail to move on steadily to a more coherent unity.

The Community really has no alternative but to strengthen its own integration and at the same time reach out to the other countries of Europe with whom we share a common civilisation and help them to realise their hopes.

These will be the key tasks of the Community under the Irish Presidency in coming months.

I have already had extensive discussions with Community partners and with President Delors on these questions. Ministers have been fully involved with their opposite numbers in member states and in the Commission in developing their work programmes. In early January, the Government will meet with the full Commission in Dublin to co-ordinate the Presidency's and the Commission's efforts and to focus on priorities for the next six months. This meeting arises from our wish to work closely with our Commission colleagues in expediting progress in every sector.

While it is difficult in these volatile times in European politics to predict what may happen in coming months, I feel I can outline where the primary focus of the Presidency activity is likely to fall.

First, we must get on with completing the internal market. The Community is now at the halfway point in the creation of the single market — a market of 320 million people without barriers or restrictions to trade and with a combined purchasing power of over £3,300 billion. This great enterprise, which has the objective of removing all the frontiers between the 12 countries so that there will be complete freedom of competition in the supply of goods and services throughout the Community on equal terms, has breathed new life and vigour into a Community which for some years has lacked direction and purpose. Already, European industry has responded to the challenge and the project has evoked widespread interest around the world. It is imperative for the future of the Community, for the welfare of its citizens, and for the prosperity of its industry that the momentum of this work be maintained and target dates adhered to.

This will be the basic work of the Irish Presidency. Much has been achieved in the three years since the adoption of the Single European Act, but it was only natural that the more difficult issues would be left to the last. Tax harmonisation, animal and plant health controls, the free movement of people, public purchasing, energy, and financial services are among the issues that the Irish Presidency must address. On some of these, such as tax harmonisation, Ireland has very definite concerns which we wish to have resolved.

Our objective is clear. We wish to see borders come down within the Community, and we will work closely with our partners and the Commission to this end. We want to see substantial achievements over the coming months on the further liberalisation of air transport and of telecommunications services. Transport and communications are at the heart of a modern economy, and we have seen already the benefits that flowed from the first phase of the air transport package in the form of cheaper fares, market access, and wider choices. The Irish Presidency will give high priority to proposals in these areas and will make every effort to ensure their early adoption.

Second, we will take up the preparations for economic and monetary union. The logic of the internal market in which there will be a free flow of people, goods, capital and services requires the closest co-ordination of national economic and monetary policies. Furthermore, the very success of the single market and of the European Monetary System established ten years ago has encouraged member states to opt decisively for further policies, which will create the conditions of stability and coherence in which satisfactory economic growth and increased employment opportunities can be achieved.

Ireland fully subscribes to this view. At Madrid in June and again in Strasbourg last weekend, we supported the objective of progressive movement towards economic and monetary union. The first phase is scheduled to come into operation on 1 July next year, and it will fall to the Irish Presidency to ensure that the necessary decisions and preparations have been made by that date. The Commission will produce before 1 April next year a composite paper, which will cover all the different aspects of EMU and include a comprehensive analysis of the issues that will arise. At that stage, there will be four principal documents on the table; the main Delors report, the report of the high level working party established by the French Presidency, the British document and the Commission paper. On the basis of these four documents, the preparatory work from the IGC can proceed.

It is no overstatement to say that economic and monetary union will involve the most fundamental changes in economic relationships between member states since the original Treaties. No one underestimates the enormous importance and gravity of the task. Member states will have many national interests to concern them and the implications for particular sectors of their economies to worry about. The negotiations will be complex and will have to deal with issues of substance and with far-reaching implications.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, it should be understood that Britain, in fact, accepts the overall objective of progress toward economic and monetary union. Britain does not, however, believe that the process set out in the Delors report is the only way to achieve it. Their main difficulty with the Delors report is that it does not envisage a proper system of democratic accountability for economic and fiscal policy in the integrated Community. Britain, however, is fully committed to the single market and also to stage one of the Delors Programme.

Third, we will concentrate on the environment and make a major effort to formulate a comprehensive coherent Community policy for the environment. As the threat of military confrontation recedes, the presistent pervasive danger to the natural environment of our planet emerges as the real common enemy.

The warming of the earth's atmosphere, and its implications for the world's low-lying areas and for food production; the destruction of the tropical forests, and the spread of desertification through drought and soil erosion; the depletion of marine life and the effects of acid rain on lakes, rivers and forests, all contribute to the grave threat of an irreversible deterioration in the conditions necessary to sustain life on this planet.

It is no longer simply a question of seeking cleaner air and water for the sake of the beneficial effects on public health and the quality of life important though these are. The challenge is greater than that. The very atmosphere of our planet is threatened by our activities. Pollution knows no frontiers, recognises no walls, respects no particular political ideology. What is required is a new, enlightened approach to global management, which recognises the interdependence of all forms of life on this planet. Much of the knowledge, the resources and the skills needed to meet the challenge are available, if effectively utilised in an informed and scientific manner. This is an issue which demands effective international action and where the European Community is uniquely placed to act and to take initiatives.

Within the Community we must press ahead with effective action on immediate issues like vehicle emissions, water standards, waste disposal, and the protection of wildlife. At the international level, we can use the unrivalled expertise of the member states and the stature of the Community in international affairs to press for international action on global issues. In this connection, we will work to have a strong Community position for the review next June of the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer, which in our view did not go far enough in limiting the production of chlorofluorocarbons. The conservation of tropical forests is at the top of the international environmental agenda and must be a major item on the agenda of the Environment Council during the next six months. We intend also to take up the linked question of climate change with a view to developing a common approach on key policy issues in international fora, and in particular at the World Climate Conference to be held in November next year.

The Community must create a new framework of relations with our European neighbours. This development is the subject of animated and continuing discussion these days throughout the Community. Everyone is aware of the enormous challenge which the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe present. There is also the need for a new relationship with EFTA and to develop the Community's relations with the Mediterranean countries. Further afield there lies the difficult terrain of the Community's dialogue with the US and Japan. The GATT negotiations offer an opportunity to strengthen the world's multilateral trading system. The Community's relations with its partners in Latin America, ASEAN, the Lomé countries and the Arab World all demand continuing attention.

The Community calmly faces the dramatic changes taking place in Eastern Europe. It accepts its historic responsibility to adopt forward looking policies and measures to support the peoples of Eastern Europe in their efforts to achieve democratic freedom. The very existence of a successful Community of democratic countries freely co-operating with each other must surely have been a shining light to the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe in recent decades. We have clearly demonstrated our desire to help them change over to democratic political structures and sensible economic régimes. The Community's role has been recognised by the other OECD countries, and the Commission acts as co-ordinator of aid to Poland and Hungary from all 24 OECD members. The 24 are meeting in Brussels at ministerial level today to consider their overall approach, the adequacy of what has been done so far, and what further measures are necessary.

The Irish Presidency has been requested by the European Council to ensure the commencement of negotiations in January 1990 on the setting up of a European Bank for reconstruction and development. The States of Central and Eastern Europe will be able to participate in the capital and management of the bank, in which the member states, the Community and the European Investment Bank will have a majority holding. Other countries, and in particular the other member countries of the OECD, will be invited to participate. The Community will encourage and support economic reform in these countries. It has concluded trade agreements and, for the most part, co-operation agreements with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, and the agreement with the USSR should be signed by the end of the year. Other measures under consideration, in this area, are approval in principle to the granting of observer status to the USSR in the GATT, and proposals to allow nationals of Central and Eastern Europe to take part in a number of educational and training programmes similar to Community programmes. Of particular importance also was the request to the Council to take the requisite decision at the beginning of 1990 for the establishment of a European training foundation, the purpose of which is to provide managerial and technical skills where these are needed.

The Twelve's relations with the other democratic countries of Europe are of great importance at a time when the overall picture of Europe is changing from day to day. The six EFTA countries are the nearest to the Twelve, geographically, politically, economically and as trading partners. They are all fellow members of the Council of Europe, where the democratic European States which respect human rights meet together. The Community has embarked on an effort to find new structures to deal with this important relationship. A ministerial level meeting between the Community and EFTA takes place on 19 December and this will lay the groundwork for future relations between the Twelve and the Six. The conclusions of the European Council include an expression of the hope

that the negotiations to be opened in the first half of 1990 will produce appropriate pragmatic arrangements for institutional co-operation ...

Mr. Gorbachev has at different times made proposals for a meeting of the Heads of Government of the 35 participating States in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe before the end of next year and for the scheduled 1992 Helsinki CSCE follow-up meeting to be brought forward. Developments in Europe and in the CSCE as a whole will make it necessary to look very carefully at these and other proposals aimed at ensuring that the CSCE process continues to play its indispensable part in the affairs of Europe, with the full participation of the United States and Canada.

The changes we are seeing in Eastern Europe are all, fortunately, taking place peacefully. It is, nevertheless, a time of turmoil that must be carefully managed. Both President Bush and President Gorbachev have shown their sensitivity to the requirements of the situation. This was one of the notable outcomes of their meeting off Malta ten days ago. I have already noted the central importance of the Community in these developments, both as an example of what is possible and an anchor of stability during the transition. A strong Community, in close co-operation with the other European democracies in EFTA, will play an essential role in ensuring the stable evolution of the new Europe which we all welcome. The decisions taken at Strasbourg are a good beginning. We are determined to continue along this path during the next six months.

The issues I have just outlined will constitute the major focus for action in the next six months, but they are not the only matters with which our Presidency will have to deal. Other priorities on which Ministers will be actively engaged during the Presidency include the fixing of agriculture prices for 1990-91, a key issue for Ireland and for the Community; there will be new Commission proposals to promote rural development. At our recent meeting in Brussels President Delors and I discussed the need to develop policies to emphasise the importance of the countryside and to offer country dwellers a viable alternative to rural exodus. This is an important issue for our Presidency, and we intend to pursue these proposals vigorously in coming months; in the health area, we will promote Community programmes on cancer, AIDS, drugs and alcohol abuse. In this connection the Presidency will lay particular stress on actions in favour of young people; in relation to budgetary policy, it will be necessary to conduct an examination of the financial perspectives of the Community up to 1992, to ensure that the necessary resources are available to fund Community programmes in coming years; Ireland has a particular interest in policies to promote economic and social cohesion, and the recent decisions on the Structural funds are a major contribution in this area. This is a central element of Community policy as set out in the Single Act. Economic and social cohesion is essential to underpin the internal market and EMU integration; the internal market must be complemented by the development of the Community's social dimension. Europe will mean little, if it does not bring real and tangible benefits to our peoples and improvements in their living and working conditions. Some of these will flow from the internal market itself and from structural, agricultural and other policies. But we cannot leave it at that. Positive measures are needed to ensure that all share in the benefits of European integration. Following the adoption of the Charter by 11 member states, the follow-up action programme for its practical implementation will now be taken up by the Social Affairs Council and the Commission.

It is clear that the next year will be one of great challenge for the Community and its member states. The issues I have touched on are at the core of the Community's development and of European integration and they have a great relevance for broader international politics. In many respects the Community has now the economic and political attributes of a super power. The policies that the Twelve have pursued through European Political Co-operation have ensured it international respect and leave it well placed to discharge its responsibilities in the uncertain period ahead.

We can also see how, over the last five years, the European Community has become much more meaningful and significant to the Irish people. It has become a reality which can be seen to affect their daily lives, not something distant and remote, of interest only to politicians.

There is an increasing awareness of ourselves as Europeans, of belonging; a familiarity with the towns and cities, the languages and customs of the Community countries. This outlook and these feelings will deepen as we move steadily towards European Union. One of the conclusions of the Strasbourg Summit states:

All Community policies in the economic and social spheres contribute directly and indirectly to consolidating a common sense of belonging. This movement must be broadened and accelerated by the adoption of concrete measures which will enable European citizens to recognise in their daily lives that they belong to a single entity.

A practical objective that we must set about during the Irish Presidency is to achieve the greatest possible degree of progress in eliminating border restrictions on the free movement of the people of the Community throughout the 12 countries.

We must work to bring the Community closer to the day when it will be possible to buy a ticket at a reasonable price at any Irish seaport or airport and travel freely to any part of the Community with no restrictions, formalities or bureaucratic interference of any kind.

We take over the Presidency from France, a nation that has given much to European politics and civilisation and to the Community, as evidenced by the success of the past six months and the Strasbourg European Council. We hope to build on that success so that, when we hand over to our Italian colleagues in July of next year, we will be able to record substantive progress towards a more united Europe.

I believe too that it would be desirable during our Presidency to arrange an opportunity to look ahead to the future beyond the single market and the present process of integration. We must find time at some stage to lift our eyes from the immediate and pressing concerns of the Community and seek to perceive, be it only in outline, the Europe that is likely to emerge during the remaining years of this century.

Europe is clearly coming to a new sense of unity. The unmistakable trend of events in Eastern Europe and the manifest desire of the six countries of the European Free Trade Area for closer links with the Community demand that we look again at the vision of Europe of the founding fathers of the Community.

Swift said "Vision is the ability to see that which is invisible". The words of the Treaties of Paris and Rome can now be seen to have been prophetic. The founding fathers resolved to "create the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts". They were determined "to lay the foundation of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" and were resolved "to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe". Thus were the banners of unity, progress and friendship unfurled for us by those who had the will to turn their dream of European unity and peace into practical achievements. Their vision brought economic and social progress which now unites 320 million Europeans.

Those who proposed the original treaties had no limited vision of Europe. Has the time come for us in the same spirit to look beyond a Europe of Twleve? I hope, therefore, that during the Irish Presidency we will be able to devote some time to seeing how the Community of Twelve might, again in the words of the Treaty of Paris, "lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforward shared" among all the peoples of Europe.

The European Council meeting of 8 and 9 December was not, in fact, the success it has been claimed to be. On the two central issues before the European Council, an inter-governmental conference to plan the next stage of economic and monetary union and the Social Charter for the Community, 11 of the member states failed to bring the 12th with them. While 11 to one is undoubtedly a resounding majority and while there is usually no longer a requirement for unanimity since the passing of the Single European Act, the fact that one member state has withheld its agreement on two issues of the highest importance means the Community faces serious difficulties in these two fields over the months and years ahead. Instead of congratulating themselves on a cosmetic victory, the Heads of State and Government, including the Taoiseach, should be giving very serious consideration to what they might do in the short term to get the 12th member state on board with the rest of them.

Tension is set to continue in the European Council and the Taoiseach's attempts in his speech this afternoon to play this down by saying the UK really does agree with economic and monetary union and all the rest just will not wash. There are fundamental differences of approach between the UK and other member states. They are going to cause great difficulties for all the member states and it behoves the Heads of State and Government to address those difficulties.

The Council made no progress whatever on the vital issue of indirect tax harmonisation. The Taoiseach referred to it briefly in the course of his remarks, but I think it is very clear for all to see that this Government will have to take a far more active approach on this issue than we have seen up to now.

There has been no progress on bringing sterling into the European monetary system, and this would be an essential and indispensible part of the construction of an economic and monetary union. The first stage comes into operation in the middle of next year. A conference is taking place in the autumn of next year to plan the second stage and further stages, yet one of the member states which is important in itself by its economic weight, as a major economic and financial centre and which has a currency of world importance, still is not in the system with the rest of the currencies of the Community. That is going to create, and will continue to create, major problems for as long as that situation remains unresolved. While the greatest part of the responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs clearly rests with one recalcitrant Prime Minister, the other Heads of State and Government must bear their share of responsibility for their collective failure so far to live up to the opportunities envisaged and created by the SEA. These problems, and indeed others, remain to be dealt with not only by the next Presidency but by the other Presidencies that will succeed it in the normal and long established rotation of this duty among member states.

What of the next Presidency, the Irish Presidency in the first half of next year? In one of his recent and increasingly frequent flights of fancy the Taoiseach claimed that the Presidency will be "historic". When I heard that I was reminded of a film that enjoyed some vogue recently.

I never said that.

It was called "Back to the Future." I heard the Taoiseach saying it.

I said it would take place in its good time.

I thought, what foresight; the Taoiseach is now projecting himself forward and looking back to a historic Presidency.

What a silly way to treat the business.

We are witnessing now an attempt to invent a new fable, an effort on the Taoiseach's part to create the illusion of a new legend. To do that he is prepared to spend £0.5 million of Irish taxpayers' money on the employment of two journalists and a public relations expert to tell an unsuspecting and, he hopes, credulous public about the doings and sayings of the Council Presidency for the next six months.

(Limerick East): It is like the Indian rope trick.

Is the Taoiseach not aware that the Council already has a well equipped spokesmen's unit? Is he not aware that the Commission has a directorate-general for press and information? Has he not noticed that the European Press corps is on the whole well versed in Euro-speak and skilled in the art of separating the wheat from the chaff in the immense volume of material that comes pouring out of the Council and the Commission day after day?

The Taoiseach, it seems, intends to appoint a representative for the Irish Presidency in Strasbourg, presumably to sell the Presidency line to the members of the European Parliament. I am shouting stop. Does the Taoiseach not realise that the vast majority of MEPs have better contact in both the Council and the Commission than any temporary journeyman-spokesman can possibly hope to have? Has the Taoiseach forgotten that the Irish taxpayer is already funding a Civil Service machine here that is perfectly capable of communicating the Presidency's message in conjunction with the already well established channels available to the Community institutions?

In the last few days the Taoiseach has been saying that the next Presidency will be a green Presidency. He, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, are sending out the message that somebody somewhere is going to do something about the environment sometime soon. Reading those oracular utterances with great attention I have come to the conclusion that the Government are saying they will do something about the environment in Ireland some time after the end of the Irish Presidency. I was confirmed in that view by the Government's reaction last night to Fine Gael's Environment Protection Agency Bill.

When faced with a constructive and well constructed Bill from the Opposition, the Government's reaction is to throw a fit of pique, to turn themselves inside out and refuse to recognise the value of what is before them. The Fine Gael Bill deals with all the issues. If the Government feel there are gaps in it or that improvements can be made in it, they should take the opportunity of remedying it on Committee Stage.

The two parties in this Government have clearly learned nothing from the experience of the last Dáil. The Taoiseach and his colleagues in his party are retreating even further into the kind of tribalism that left them open to a series of defeats in the last Dáil and which lost them seats in the last election. The Progressive Democrats have adopted the very attitudes in government which they so sanctimoniously deplored when there were more than twice as many of them in the House as there are now.

They are nearly not in.

A Taoiseach who has consistently ignored the environment in Ireland for almost three years cannot credibly hope to achieve much for the European Community environment in six months. During the course of his remarks the Taoiseach set out the objectives that European environmental policy should have in a very general way, but I did not see any recognition of the fact that the changes which are required in agricultural processes, industrial processes and even in trading patterns, if we are just to stop our environment from getting any worse, will create the need for a revolution in the way we go about organising our economic and trading activity. I wonder if the Taoiseach has thought that he might propose to the European Council that the headquarters of the European Environment Agency be located in this country. We are given to understand that the Taoiseach, in his capacity as President of the Council, may be visiting Eastern Europe over the next six months or so. What credibility will he have in encouraging the emergence of democracy in those countries? He is the Leader of a parliamentary party who are programmed to stand up and applaud and sit down and stay quiet to suit his convenience. The grass roots of his party stayed home in droves when he sent two Ministers and a Minister of State to Clare to discuss objections there to his handling of the party's affairs. He recently had to send emissaries to Galway West to quell an outbreak of popular feeling there. He faces a festering mutiny in Waterford, which shows itself in votes in this House. There are mutters of discontent all over the country. The Taoiseach might do well to ponder on the lessons for himself and his party from what has been happening in Eastern Europe in recent months.

(Limerick East): He would want to bring Frank Wall back from Hungary fairly quickly.

It might be worth while to look at what was stated in the conclusions. Incidentally, large sections of the conclusions can be read in the Taoiseach's speech. In connection with the transport sector it said that the European Council would like a coherent Community policy to be drawn up and an effective response found to the problem of the congestion of air space in order to guarantee maximum safety for passengers. The need for a unified and coherent system is increasingly evident to the air traveller in the Community. It is a rare enough occurrence to make an air journey anywhere in the Community without encountering air traffic control delays.

In the moves towards a truly unified Community, it will be necessary to look at the positions of the various member states on the issue of immigration. The Presidency conclusions point out that conventions on the right of asylum, the crossing of the Community's external frontiers and visas will need to be examined. This is an area which will require some difficult decisions, and we have seen a measure of that difficulty in the last few days in watching the British Government's scandalous treatment of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. That is part of the same problem to which the Presidency has referred in the conclusions.

The same concern with unifying the Community requires that we give very careful thought to the means by which democratic control can be exercised over the activities of the Council and the Commission. The European Parliament already has work in hand on this issue, and it is one to which this House should give attention sooner rather than later.

So far, the Community has reacted wisely and constructively to the tide of change sweeping across Eastern Europe. Trade and co-operation agreements have been concluded with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, and it is intended that negotiations begin on such an agreement with East Germany. It has been agreed that special trade facilities will be granted to Poland and Hungary, and special measures have already been taken and will be repeated to supply food to Poland.

All of these measures will be accompanied by the creation of a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Community will participate in the creation of a stablisation fund for Poland and in a special adjustment loan to Hungary. This approach on the Community's part is constructive and helpful, and we all hope that its value will not be reduced or prejudiced by resort to cosmetic political gestures.

I believe that every Member of this House will applaud the declaration by the Twelve that Namibia will be welcomed into the Lomé Convention as soon as it expresses a wish to join it. This statement is a very practical expression of the Community's real support for democratisation.

As far as Central America is concerned, the Twelve have made a very brief statement which concludes by calling on all parties in the region to strive for a resumption of the regional peace process based on the Esquipulas Agreements. I am disappointed that the Council did not go further. The European Community is, in practical terms, the external guarantor of the peace process in Central America. It should, in my view, play a much more active role in advancing it than emerges from the statement in the Presidency conclusions.

There is a number of areas which need attention. First, I believe that the Community should now reconsider very carefully the conditions it attaches to aid to Central American countries. It should also reconsider the channels through which aid is made available. Our concern is that aid should assist the peace process and the democratisation of these countries. I do not believe that any government in Central America is in a position effectively to refuse aid. The donor countries are, therefore, in a strong position in relation to conditionality. Second, the structures of European political co-operation should be used to define a Community approach to dialogue with the United States on its role in the region.

There are specific concerns that must be met. An election will take place in Nicaragua on 25 February next. The Tela Agreement on the demobilisation of the Contras must be implemented. The Community should undertake a role in relation both to the funding and the monitoring of that election. We ourselves in this House should consider how we might participate in the monitoring process.

The reintegration of displaced persons in Nicaragua and, we must hope, in other countries in the region, will make massive demands on the public purse. This is an area where the Community must be prepared to assist.

Finally, the area of trading relationships between Central America and the Community and between Central America and the rest of the world must be addressed.

A number of matters of very considerable domestic importance will fall to be settled at Community level during the first half of next year. One of these will be the question of farm prices and the accompanying measures to cater for the needs of small family farms by direct income support. We will be watching that very closely, since those very farms are now in grave danger. One of my colleagues, who represents a great many very diligent and capable small farmers, tells me that this year, for the first time, some of his farming constituents will be looking to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for help at Christmas. Dairy farmers all around the country are now faced with the prospect of having no income from their dairy herd until next April. The allocation of 11 million gallons of extra quota, no matter how it is done, would bring very little relief to any of those who share in it. Community decisions will be more important than ever, since we are told that market prospects for the next year or more indicate that milk prices could come down by as much as 12 pence per gallon. It is clear that one of the major influences will be the course of Community policy in the dairy sector during that period.

Beef producers will be watching the Community very closely, as they hope almost against hope for measures to put some profit back into their business — something they have not seen in the past two years. Cereal producers face a very bleak future and they see it getting bleaker unless action is taken to prevent the vast capacity for the expansion of production in the Paris Basin and in East Anglia from further depressing their already inadequate prices. I would like to know if the Government have any intention, either in their Presidency of the EC or as the Government representing the people, of proposing national quota measures as a means of dealing with the Community's cereal production problems.

The operational programmes to implement changes in the Structural Fund provisions have yet to be drawn up for this country. The Government clearly have some ideas in mind, because they are reflected in the Estimates for 1990 but we are asking the Government to come before the House and explain and discuss these programmes in detail. We are talking about a process that will lead us towards an even closer economic and monetary union in the Community. It is very clear that the achievement of economic and monetary union, if it is to respond to the ambitions set out in the Single European Act in relation to economic and social cohesion, will require a further look at how the Community is financed and how the Community budget is disposed of. In that context it is not enough to say, as the Taoiseach has done that we will review the financial perspectives up until 1992 between now and the conclusion of the Inter-Governmental Conference. The Community will have to take a more fundamental look at its future financial perspectives because without it, the European Monetary Union will not measure up to the aims of economic and social cohesion that have been set out in the Single European Act.

It was interesting to hear the Taoiseach set out the benefits realised by European political co-operation. As I sat here and listened to the Taoiseach saying that — I agree with him that it is true — I looked at the present Taoiseach and the present Tánaiste while I cast my mind back to 1986 when we talked about the Single European Act in this Chamber. For both Members, European political co-operation seemed to be something like a Trojan Horse. It was going to put us in grave danger of losing, I do not know what but we could encompass it in the idea——

I never said that.

——that they were afraid this House would lose its political virginity.

Hang your heads in shame.

Now the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are recommending the value of the process of European political co-operation.

Hear, hear.

We had told the House so years ago and had those Members realised it at the time they might be making better use of it now.

I used it 10 years before that.

(Limerick East): But with no degree of consistency.

The Taoiseach said recently that Anglo-Irish relations are "normal". I do not know how relations could be described as normal when for the second time in a matter of a few weeks the British Prime Minister came out of a meeting of the heads of State and Government and made an utterly ill-judged comment on the security situation on this island. I am more convinced than ever that the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher should agree to sit down together to exchange views in a serious way on the range of issues arising from Anglo-Irish relations. Unless and until that is done Anglo-Irish relations will be seriously impeded. The understanding of different and even opposing points of view is an essential pre-condition to arriving at any agreement on joint or concerted action.

I understand that the Taoiseach is probably a little reticent about speaking in detail about what goes on at these meetings. However, I wonder, Sir if he would not rethink a little and be more realistic — I think that is the right word — in the way he deals with these issues. In the course of the Taoiseach's speech, there is a lengthy paragraph which begins by saying that at the conclusion of the Strasbourg Council, the Taoiseach had a meeting lasting about half an hour with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. Mr. Haughey continues:

I conveyed our concern over the case of the Birmingham Six, ... We also discussed bilateral issues and welcomed the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Group. We considered the situation in relation to Northern Ireland and the prospects for political progress there ... we were agreed in our condemnation of violence and on the constant need to improve security co-operation. We emphasised, in particular, the possibilities that would open up if violence were to end.

We would all applaud that. The Taoiseach continued:

We discussed the current state of affairs in the Community and reviewed at some length many of the major issues and developments.

They must be a very powerful pair to do all that in half an hour. I think the Taoiseach should give up this old convention of trying to dress up a half an hour's hurried discussion, which inevitably must have concentrated on one or two issues, as a meeting that could be described as a meeting between the two heads of Government. The Taoiseach should finally come to the conclusion that the rest of this House has come to long ago, that it is time for the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of the neighbouring country to sit down together and have a serious look at the issues that confront them, whether they are in agreement on them or not. It will not be until they do that that we will get a situation where they can work constructively and properly together for the benefit of our people.

Gather your courage and faith.

I wish the Taoiseach and his Ministers well in their exercise of the Office of Presidency of the European Community. I will not put it more strongly than that, because to do so would be to over-dramatise the whole affair in a totally unjustified manner. Ireland has had the Presidency before. The Community made significant progress in a number of areas during the first Irish Presidency in the first half of 1975. My colleague and predecessor, Deputy Garret FitzGerald signed the first Lomè Agreement and played a very distinguished role on behalf of the Community in nurturing the growth of democracy in Portugal. Ireland again had the Presidency in the second half of 1979. Looking back over it, I think it is fair to say that the most noteworthy event of that Presidency was the toppling of the then Taoiseach. The Irish Presidency during the second half of 1984 saw some solid work being done in preparation for the Single European Act in instituting budgetary control in the Community as a prelude to the expansion of the Structural Fund and in giving the European Parliament a more meaningful and democratic role in relation to the European budget. I should add, for the sake of some of the media commentators, that that was all done without dramatic soul searching on how to reconcile the duties of the Presidency with domestic ministerial duties. The business is nothing like as tense or as fraught as some of the commentators would have us believe. If the next Irish Presidency measures up to the performance of the last one, it will do very well indeed.

I welcome the opportunity of making some remarks on the European Council meeting of 8 and 9 December. It is important that we have the opportunity of discussing them in this House in a calm, collected and responsible manner. I believe it is very important that we recognise the fact that Europe is going through a crucial stage of its development at present. It is of critical importance that maximum co-operation is forthcoming from all the member states to ensure that the objectives and targets of 1992, in particular, are achieved. From the report of the meeting of the Prime Ministers and from the report made by the Taoiseach today, it is very obvious that there are still huge obstacles in the path of the completion of the single market. Likewise, in the area of national frontiers, it appears that there is still a great deal of work to be done and also in relation to road and air transport and, indeed, shipping which is spelt out in the detailed report from the European Council meeting.

Obviously from Ireland's point of view, the question of the implementation of flanking policies in relation to the Structural Funds must be a crucial factor and one in which we must take great care. While the Prime Ministers were meeting in Strasbourg last weekend, many people who were putting their faith in the Government — many investors and developers throughout the country — were depending on the drawing down on the Structural Funds for 1989. It is unfortunate that Structural funding will not now be available to them in 1989 for expenditure which has already been incurred. This will put a great number of investors and developers in the tourism and allied areas under enormous pressure. The Government must take the blame for the delays that have occurred during the year. I believe that the whole question of Structural funding was badly handled by the Taoiseach and his colleagues.

The fact that the Council attributes importance to environmental problems is to be commended but is, perhaps, long overdue. The setting up of the European Environment Agency is to be welcomed and I hope that the non-EC countries will also participate. There is a certain irony in the Taoiseach announcing his Pauline conversion to the environment and environmental issues on a European level.

Ten years ago I drew attention to them.

What did you do in the meantime?

As the Taoiseach often says——

More than anybody in this House.

As the Taoiseach often says I did not interrupt you. I was surprised to hear the Taoiseach announce his Pauline conversion to the environment on a European level, particularly while those of us who were here at home were in battle with very serious smog in the city of Dublin, with smog levels way above those permitted at European level. If the Taoiseach is serious about the programme which he announced at the weekend he should put his own house in order first. He should stop the squabbling that takes place between the Minister for the Environment and his Minister of State and let us get on with some practical steps to eliminate the smog in the city of Dublin.

But you failed to do it when you were Minister for the Environment.

The Taoiseach is very touchy this evening.

If progress in this area is achieved——

I think the Deputy has struck a nerve.

——then I would say we will all back the Taoiseach. If he makes progress at home, then I would say he will get support and he will be backed on his efforts to achieve environmental controls and improvements in the European context. First, the Taoiseach must put his own house in order. That has not been done. As late as last night, the Government yet again took a very negative attitude in relation to the efforts of this House.

In relation to the social dimension and job creation, the Community leaders have lost their way. In relation to the Taoiseach's comment that already European industry has responded to the challenge and the project has evoked widespread interest around the world, ironically, it has aroused more interest around the world than it has among the European leaders. I question what response European industry has made in relation to the serious unemployment problem that exists within the Community. Are we not becoming overdependent on the newly industrialised nations or, indeed, on Japanese and other foreign investment to solve the job creation problem in the European Community? I believe there is an opportunity for the Taoiseach to make job creation in the Community the over-riding concern of the EC during 1990 and, in particular, during the first six months of his Presidency. He has an opportunity, as the incoming President of the Council, to put job creation on the agenda. I would urge him to do that because, as matters stand at present and having read the reports at the weekend, I do not believe that the Prime Ministers of Europe share the concern in relation to job creation — giving people the dignity of work and getting people back to work. The Taoiseach has an opportunity now and he should grasp it in the next six months.

The Social Charter which was adopted at the weekend is now a very diluted document, as we forecast in this House. It is regrettable that the Irish, the British and the Portuguese are leading the attack in ensuring the document was diluted. Notwithstanding that, however, I hope that the Minister for Labour and his colleagues will expedite the action programme over the next six months. It is an area where we will be able to monitor and keep a close watch on what action is taken by the Minister over the next six months. It is regrettable that what set out to be an inspiring document with worthwhile targets has now ended up as a very diluted document. We can only hope that whatever has remained in the document will be put into effect in the coming six to twelve months.

Obviously the whole question of progress on monetary and economic union would seem to be moving along very slowly as has been admitted and accepted in the context of the meeting last week. It would also seem that there is little role to be played by the Irish Presidency in these matters now that the matter has been referred back to the end of 1990 and, therefore, to the Italian Presidency. However, in the meanwhile this would provide an opportunity for this Government and this House, in particular, to have a close look to try to get a better understanding of what monetary and economic union will mean and what effect it will have in relation to our independence, in relation to our sovereignty and in relation to monetary control of this country. I hope that in the next six months, the opportunity will be taken to outline to this House how the control of the Irish economy, the control of monetary policy and the control of other economic factors will still remain, if at all, in the context of this House when monetary and economic union is completed. This would seem to be a concern of other countries at present. It is a matter on which we should seek more information from the Taoiseach and the Government in relation to the working arrangements which will take place if, and when, monetary and economic union takes place.

In relation to the developing countries of central Europe, the Community has a major role to play. I welcome the announcement from the Council of last week on the creation of the European bank for reconstruction and development which will provide productive and competitive investment in the States of central and eastern Europe so as to assist the transition towards a more market-oriented economy and to speed up the necessary structural adjustments. As has been stated in recent weeks, developments are occurring at an incredible pace in central and eastern Europe. The EC must ensure that these countries, which are rejecting communism and totalitarianism are allowed develop and prosper and over time to play an important role in mainstream politics. To date, the issues have been handled well by the European Council. I hope that the trade initiatives taken to date by the European Community will be continued because it is obviously of fundamental importance that the initiatives and the rush towards democracy, towards pluralism and towards open society which is taking place in central and eastern Europe be allowed to develop and prosper. I believe it will be a very important part of world peace and the development of a civilised world in the next century. In that respect the European Council of Ministers and the European Community generally have a major role to play in line with the United States in ensuring that what has now started — we have only seen the start, moving at an incredible pace — be allowed to be brought to fruition and that the people of central and eastern Europe are allowed to move into a new phase of democracy and of open politics. It will not be easy because there are enormous problems facing the economies of central and eastern Europe. In that respect, the initiatives taken over the last number of weeks by the Community will be of major importance and I hope that in the next six months some other initiatives will be taken to ensure that the assistance already given — small as it is — will continue to allow for the total democratisation and development of open economies in Eastern Europe.

In relation to Central America, the decision to host in Dublin the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora States, Colombia and Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, and the EC partners is a worthwhile step because there are still enormous political difficulties in Central America. I wish the Foreign Minister and his colleagues every success in achieving and making progress in relation to Central America which seems, unfortunately, in recent months to have taken some backwards steps. I should like to feel that our Department of Foreign Affairs will be progressive in their attitude to the elections in Nicaragua and the efforts by these countries to establish self-determination. It is a worthwhile, small step to be taken during the Irish Presidency.

In his contribution the Taoiseach mentioned that he had a discussion with President Delors on the importance of rural development. I hope it is not too late as, in recent years, in rural Ireland people have thrown in the towel because of the serious cutbacks in essential services which are vital to people there. I refer to transport when people need to go to hospital. It is a small thing in terms of a big meeting taking place in Strasbourg, but it is very important to somebody living in a rural area. The same applies to housing and educational facilities. It is all very fine to talk to President Delors about the necessity for Community action, but it must be matched by initiatives on the domestic front. A lot of damage has been caused in the last two and a half years and perhaps, with the assistance of President Delors and the Commission, some of it can be undone before it is too late and people will have left because of unemployment, serious cutbacks in essential services and the programmes pursued by the Government during that time.

One aspect which the Taoiseach did not mention but which was contained in the full report circulated by the European Office is the question of starvation in Ethiopia. There is a weakness and a lack of urgency in the Strasbourg statement in relation to Ethiopia and we are facing the prospect of millions of people dying in the coming months. As we saw on our television screens last night, children are dying in their hundreds by the hour. All we got was a weak, aspirational statement looking for co-operation. The Labour Party and I feel that that is probably the weakest part of the statement circulated from the Council of Ministers and it is not good enough.

A major diplomatic initiative is required as a matter of urgency in relation to the starvation facing the people of Ethiopia. Let me say to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that if the blockade obstructing food reaching Eritrea and Tigre is being caused and abetted by the Soviet Union, the European Community should be putting pressure on them and no stone left unturned until some aid is brought to those areas to ensure that the world does not have to witness starvation and millions of people dying in 1990. It is a matter of extreme urgency and it should be given priority. I urge the Taoiseach, as incoming President of the European Council, to address the question of starvation, drought and other enormous problems as quickly as possible so that the existing political problems causing these difficulties can be removed on humanitarian grounds to give these people some comfort and assistance at what is obviously an extremely difficult time.

I begin by extending the good wishes of The Workers' Party to the Government and the Taoiseach in particular as Ireland prepares to assume the Presidency of the EC. There is every indication that the period of the Irish Presidency will mark a highly important stage in the development of European integration as well as a clarification of the type of political structures which will emerge from the current momentous changes taking place in the Eastern part of the continent.

In such a situation I believe that this country with its position as a neutral State outside both the two major military blocs can bring an added and positive aspect to the work of the Community during our term, in the way that the French Government were able to take initiatives in relation to Lebanon and the Middle East.

I must add, however, that it will be necessary for the Government to adopt a more assertive role if we are to make such a meaningful or positive contribution during our period in the Presidency. The approach of the Irish Government during the recently completed negotiations on the Social Charter does not give much hope in this regard. The charter, as adopted, has been shamefully watered down and reduced to the level of an aspirational document rather than having any binding character. In short, the citizens of this country are being presented with more of a social charade than a Social Charter.

I say "citizens" advisely, because in the rush to water down the terms of the charter the various proposals to provide fundamental social rights have been narrowed down to refer to "workers". Automatically excluded are hundreds of thousands of people in this country and millions throughout the EC, who rely on welfare, who are retired, who may be unpaid workers in the home, who may be disabled or otherwise outside the recognised workforce. The process of economic integration and the single market will have very serious implications for people in these categories, yet it seems as though their rights will be ignored completely under the terms of the Social Charter just adopted.

The Single European Act recognised the need for balance between the development of the economic and monetary aspects of integration and the social side. Yet we find the whole thrust of discussion on the Social Charter is to emphasise its non-binding nature, in sharp contrast to the attitude on economic and monetary union.

This is expressed in the opening paragraphs of the report from the Presidency to the European Council where it is stated that the charter must express the "member states' desire to harness together economic development and social progress in the Community, while complying with the principle of subsidiarity".

Why was this reference necessary and do the Government not concede that such a statement, as stated by the European Federation of Building and Wood-workers, would merely be a pretext for remaining idle? It is revealing that no such principle was applied in the introduction of directives relating to such matters as the internal market, public procurement and competition policy.

In so far as the rights of workers are covered by the charter, references to employment development and creation being given first priority, are indeed ominous in any document relating to the Social Charter and again emphasises that implementation of the Social Charter is doomed to become ineffectual when the dictates of employer organisations for low pay, flexible work practices and part time or contract work practices are cited as being vital to creation of jobs.

Nowhere is the vagueness more striking than in the reference to wage levels. It calls for an equitable wage and a decent standard of living and that non full time workers should be given an equitable reference wage. Can the Taoiseach explain what these terms mean? In fact they mean nothing as there is no attempt to define what an equitable or decent wage is. Given the overall thrust of the Social Charter, it is obvious that it will be of no use to workers in their efforts to bring an end to low pay exploitation.

Similarly on welfare levels, there is a reference to adequate levels deleting reference to years of service contributions made by workers. There is no reference either to provision of any minimum levels of welfare payments, either in relation to average industrial wage levels or keeping people above the poverty line.

Parallel to this there is a weakening of the rights to trade union membership and bargaining rights. The clause which allows the internal legal order of member states to determine the extent of rights provided under Articles 11 and 13 be applied to the armed forces, police and the Civil Service, is particularly relevant, given the attitude expressed so recently to attempts by members of our Defence Forces to form an organisation to defend their working conditions and seek improved remuneration.

Even despite these weak provisions, a further loophole is afforded Governments, by giving responsibility for implementation to the member states, in accordance with what is called national practice. I can only conclude that the objections of the Thatcher Government in Britain to the adoption of any effective Social Charter won the day, and that the Government here capitulated to the extent of agreeing what is now a very weak document indeed. Judging from the stance in the negotiations, attributed to the Minister for Labour last month — even if media reports are only partially correct — it would appear that the Government was a willing submissive partner in the entire watering down process of the charter.

Nevertheless the charter has now been adopted. While it is very unsatisfactory indeed in major respects, the aim now must be to ensure that the aspirations are implemented despite the impediments placed in the way. Implementation of the Social Charter will begin under the Irish Presidency. It will be necessary for the Irish Government to ensure that an effective action programme is adopted. If the Government believe that this Social Charter can indeed offer adequate protection to workers in the new Europe — and I would be interested to hear how they hope to have the interests of the unemployed, disabled, retired, young people and women outside of the workforce defended — then they have an excellent opportunity to work to produce positive examples during 1990.

In addition, it is important to put on record that this Social Charter should be viewed as a starting point in terms of providing adequate social rights. As I said, it excludes vast numbers of people who stand to suffer under the new economic conditions and ground rules. The Government, therefore, should commit themselves to examining ways in which the Social Charter can be strengthened, as I believe that, despite official protestations that this charter is satisfactory, it will become evident that it is far from satisfactory and in need of prompt amendment.

We need a review mechanism to ensure that the inherent weakness in the Social Charter can be assessed and tackled. We also need provision for recourse to Community law to allow enforcement of articles of the Social Charter. I would call on our Government to give these two areas priority during the forthcoming Presidency.

On the wider aspects of the Summit and the forthcoming Irish Presidency, it is likely that the recent tumultuous developments in Central and Eastern Europe will continue in 1990. But while the events of the past six months represented the beginning of changes which will create the opportunity to break down the barriers in Europe and work towards a "common European Home", the next six months will require a more considered and balanced approach from the European Community in terms of assisting the further development of the democratic changes now being implemented throughout the eastern part of the Continent.

In this regard I was very surprised indeed to hear the Taoiseach — even more so in view of the Irish Presidency — express such strong opinions in favour of German unity, by which, I presume he means unification of the GDR and the FRG. Such a development may eventually take place but surely it is a matter for the people of the GDR and FRG to resolve without the interference of politicians in other countries, particularly those who are afforded an important European stage. Indeed, given the various agreements on international borders in Europe agreed after the Second World War and reaffirmed under the Helsinki Agreement, any statements or action which could serve to destabilise these agreements or to rekindle old disputes on borders between countries must be studiously avoided.

Instead the aim must be to work to break down those factors which lead to division and military confrontation in Europe. Clearly the greatest source of military danger on our Continent is the continuing existence of two powerful military blocs, namely NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I hope that during the time of the Irish Presidency, serious initiatives could be taken to move towards the dissolution of both these blocs and a further reduction in the armed forces and nuclear and conventional arms capabilities of all countries on this Continent.

Reference has already been made to what has been described by Deputy Spring as the Pauline conversion of the Taoiseach to the cause of the environment, and to his ambition to have a major environmental aspect to his term as President of the EC. I hope he has something different in mind from the approach adopted by his Government in relation to the smog crisis and water and river pollution. There are many areas of Dublin and Cork cities where smog pollution is every bit as bad this winter as it has been for the entire period of the eighties. The only response on the part of the Government has been to feed us with verbal pollution while those with asthma or other respiratory conditions have their health placed at risk and thousands of young people are subjected to conditions which may affect their health for the remainder of their lives.

Similarly, the shameful capitulation of the Government to the demands of the farming lobby on the recent Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill is indicative either of a total lack of commitment or of understanding — I do not know which is the worst — on the vital issues affecting our environment. When the Government here show some sign of taking their domestic issues of pollution and the environment seriously, perhaps it will then be appropriate for us to lecture our fellow Europeans on this issue.

If the Taoiseach does intend emphasising environmental issues, perhaps one desirable development would be to work for the establishment of a European environmental agency here. The establishment of such an agency was agreed at the Madrid Summit earlier this year. Ireland is already the location of the European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions at Loughlinstown. Perhaps that foundation could be expanded and given a new role. As it is known that a number of other EC States are interested in this agency, the Government should quickly declare their interest and join all Irish MEPs in a campaign to convince the Council of Ministers and the Commission of the viability of Ireland as a location.

It will be important, in the exalted position of our Presidency, to ensure that issues of vital concern to the running of our economy are not forgotten or neglected. The recent NESC report on the effects of the single market on the Irish economy warrants urgent attention. If European integration will continue to mean — as the NESC report suggests — a high level of emigration and continuing difficulties with our economic development, then our term in the Presidency must be used as a means of pushing EC institutions towards providing much greater assistance for peripheral regions and economies to aid economic development.

In the negotiations on the Single European Act our Government missed the opportunity to make our acceptance of the draft Act dependent on very specific guarantees with regard to Irish economic and fiscal interests. While recently there has been some indication of Government panic on the implications of looming integration, in particular in relation to tax harmonisation, there is little indication — and the NESC report would appear to confirm this view — that Irish negotiations are producing the sort of guarantees and arrangements which will benefit job creation and living standards at home.

As the NESC report pointed out, true integration involves much more than removing trade barriers. It must involve positive measures such as common policies and agreements. It also states that Structural Funds as currently constituted will not be sufficient to create convergence of income or levels of industrial income between Ireland and other more developed sections of the EC. The NESC also call for a Common Agricultural Programme and note that the CAP has been used as a convenient excuse for the failure to develop separate and different national agricultural and food processing policies. If we bear in mind that when we joined the EC our income was 61.8 per cent of the EC average and that today it is just a half per cent higher, we can see the vital necessity for the Government not to once again make a mess of the potential for utilising European funding and structures to benefit job creation and living standards here.

The NESC report also calls for an active interventionist role by the State and its agencies in job creation, a proposal which The Workers' Party have long advocated and which now seems more pertinent than ever given recent statistics which show the private sector abjectly failing to deliver the jobs in sufficient numbers despite the so-called economic boom. Lest someone protests that such an approach is in breach of EC regulations and policy, let me remind the House that the European Commission has said it will not object to such policies for regions where living standards are less than 75 per cent of the EC average. Thanks to the policies of Irish Governments since we joined the Common Market in the seventies, we are still well below that figure.

Finally, The Workers' Party view the forthcoming Irish Presidency as of great importance in the potential it offers to highlight demands for jobs, peace and improved living standards throughout the EC and Europe generally. If the Taoiseach, in his preparations for the Presidency is prepared to take on board some of the points raised he can be assured of my party's support for any negotiations and pressure which may be necessary to bring them to fulfilment.

There was one omission on my part and, lest it be taken in the wrong spirit, that is to wish the Taoiseach and the Government well in relation to their Presidency in the coming six months which is a major task.

We all wish that.

Barr
Roinn