Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Jun 1990

Vol. 399 No. 12

European Political Union: Statements (Resumed).

Mrs. Owen

Before the debate was adjourned I was talking about the need to increase the powers of the European Parliament institution. The Community is based on values, principles and common convictions intrinsically linked with the principle of democracy, the rule of law, individual personal freedom, social justice and universal respect for human rights. In order to ensure that these basic and fundamental tenets of the Community survive, a sound democratic base — no less than what each member state has itself, must exist and must be nurtured. The Parliament must be an operational one which effectively represents the citizen in legislation and in the monitoring of responsible Government in exactly the same way as inside each of our own countries, it is not the civil servants who are directly answerable for decisions and policies but rather the elected Ministers and TDs. The Commission is also the institute for public servants and is not answerable directly to the people. Therefore any increase in the powers of the Commission cannot be at the expense of loss in power for the directly elected members who are called to account every five years.

The European People's Party, to which Fine Gael belong, played a decisive role in the preparation of the draft Treaty establishing European unity, adopted by the Parliament on 14 February 1984. That was the only political group to vote unanimously for this draft Treaty. This was the forerunner of the Luxembourg agreement of 17 February 1986 which eventually led to the Single European Act. This Act has greatly extended the role of the European Parliament into areas such as the internal market and its completion, regional and social policies, research and technology and agreements with third countries. The Parliament has a dual strategy: first, to exploit the extension of these powers and, secondly, to secure further enlargement of its responsibilities beyond the Single European Act, with a view to full power of co-decision in EC legislation.

The democratic deficit in the European Community that Deputy Peter Barry spoke about has been tolerated for long enough and can no longer be treated as just a political misdemeanour — as we would say here, a venial sin — but as a serious violation — or a mortal sin — of the very spirit of the Community. The risks attached to not allowing an increase in power to Parliament are great and we should not lightly run those risks. No form of Government can survive for long in a healthy, vibrant State without a decision-making structure that is effective, open to scrutiny, and continuous, while at the same time closely linked to the needs of the people and open to real participation by the people. We saw in our own country over the last week or two that such an effective decision-making structure does not exist and, as we heard one Minister say, corners were cut. If these ingredients are not present, Governments will wither and lose the legitimacy normally conferred on them by the assent of their members. Qualified experts, people who are highly motivated, will refuse to stand for Parliament and it will become irrelevant and superfluous if we refuse to allow a growth of power.

People may argue that the Council of Ministers, which is effectively the legislative organ of the Community, consists of members directly elected to their own national Parliaments, but the Council of Ministers is not accessible to the people whereas the public debates in the Paliament are so accessible. The people there can hear debated publicly issues that they are vitally interested in. Reports are available, the TV is present, and media quotations help to link the members in the Parliament with their constituency back home, in whichever of the 12 countries they come from. Issues such as pensioners being denied their pensions or the destruction of the forests by acid rain can be heard debated openly in the Parliament, and we can ask our individual members to raise these issues.

As the role of the Parliament is extended, more interest will be taken and there will be an increase in the turnout for voting in the election. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that, as we progress towards integration of the Twelve, the freedom and democracy that exists in each of our countries remains inviolate in each member state.

I would like to turn to the third area which I assume will be discussed at the Council meeting in two weeks' time, that is the area of Community unity and coherence in its international contacts. Who would have thought that in only a short span of time in world terms, 45 years or so — my own lifespan — there would be such a declaration of unified joy and delight at the unification of Germany and the breaking down of barriers in Eastern Europe? With one single resounding voice of celebration, these momentous happenings were welcomed and cheered. It is evident as we move towards a completed internal market and an economic united states of Europe, that we must look towards common stands in our international relations and policies where possible. It is clear and evident, from the unanimous joy at the changes in Eastern and Central Europe, that such common stands serve as a cause of détente in the world and safeguard peace in Europe and beyond. A peace policy is surely a political necessity to avoid the ravages of the two great wars that took place in this century. It is also a moral duty to have such a policy.

The Community, because of its roots, growing up post-war and bringing together former enemies, should play a mediating role in the world. We can do this if we reach common agreed positions on the serious issues of the day and seek to bring our opinions as a unified body to bear on the rest of the world.

Lasting peace and stability can only be achieved by a north-south policy that strives to rid the world of hunger and creates justice for all, that offers fair trade access and terms, that extends opportunities for lasting development to people and defends human rights. The Community can and does actively involve itself in these objectives, principally through the Lomé Convention with the 67 ACP countries. Here I would like to welcome the inclusion of the newly independent Namibia to the ACP EC countries in the Lomé Convention.

It is through a sound, vibrant economy within Europe that it will be possible to convince producers and consumers alike that we can and should give fair and free access to the Third World producers to sell their produce in Europe. Without this access to trade, our attitudes to developing countries will be little more than paternalistic charity, leading to a far more insidious dependency than straight colonialism ever did. We would be applauding ourselves that we have allowed these countries to achieve independence as nations and we would be saying that they are all right now, they have their independence, all the while creating a worse dependence by not allowing them free access to our markets.

Access to education, training and trade, as well as the more basic needs of food and emergency aid, must form key elements in our relations with the developing world. I have witnessed great anger among Africans in the Sadec region who are as educated and skilled as any German, French or Irish man or woman, running their own businesses and manufacturing excellent products, who encounter European attitudes that anything African is inferior. One can only be allowed access to Europe for these products after we have looked at the European, the Japanese or the US alternatives.

I am very critical, as I have said earlier, of this Government's attitude to our whole development policy, but I will not go into that again. It is now time to accept that we must play our part in the full European team. This country is giving a disgraceful impression to our European partners by waving aside, in a cavalier fashion, laws made by the European Court, principally with regard to the 48-hour rule. We must change the kind of attitude where we expect to be playing on the big field, getting our international cap, while all the time we are actually staying on the substitute benches. When this Presidency is judged, it will not be judged on the candy-floss type media hype that has gone on; if will be judged on true and real policies and results.

In regard to the environmental policy, where is the Environment Protection Agency? In regard to extradition, where is the law to show that this Government intends to extradite criminals convicted of crimes in other states? Where are all the other things that have been promised? That is what the Government will be judged on. I say to the Taoiseach clearly and loudly that he will not take his place in Europe as a leader of any stature unless he is prepared to go out into the centre field to play. Otherwise he might be left on the substitutes benches, or even worse, in view of the euphoria in Ireland, he might be relegated to washing the shorts of the Kohls, the Mitterrands and the Thatchers of Europe, while we look on as the small bit player in this field. We must co-operate in regard to European unity and all the decisions, difficult and sensitive as they may be, so that we can play our full role in the European Community.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

The Irish Presidency of the Council of Agricultural Ministers has achieved very substantial progress towards the Internal Market. The early conclusion of the annual price negotiations opened the way for major advances in other critical areas such as animal and plant health, disease control, removal of internal trade barriers and common positions on external trade.

Already a record number of regulations, in excess of 90, have been adopted by the Council of Ministers and it is my intention to add further to this list in this final month.

The bricks and mortar of European construction are being supplied by the Agriculture Council. The work is hard and the hours are long but the opening ceremony of 1992 cannot take place without the building work of the Agriculture Council.

The success of the Emergency Council meeting in lifting the French, German and Italian bans on UK beef was vital not only for European beef producers and consumers but also for the whole concept of the Internal Market. The political consequences of failure would have been disastrous for Europe and Ireland has emerged from the very difficult negotiations with enhanced status and respect throughout the European Community. The scenario facing the Irish Presidency at the beginning of this year in all matters but especially agriculture was one of rapid evolution. I believe this evolution can be addressed under four headings in so far as their contribution to political and economic union in Europe is concerned. These are the continuing progress towards the internal market of the European Community, a comprehensive rural development policy throughout the Community, the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and the historic developments taking place in Eastern Europe and in particular the major political and economic developments in Germany.

It was against this backdrop that the delicate and painstaking negotiations of the 1990-91 agriculture prices package was successfully negotiated and this of itself was no mean achievement given the powerful and sometimes conflicting forces involved. The prices package in itself was a major contribution to the continuing process of political and economic integration of Europe. For many people, and in particular Irish people, Brussels and the EC is seen largely in an agriculture context. The Agriculture Council meets more frequently than any other council and there is a constant referral to Brussels in the management of the various commodity markets. It is not too far-fetched to suggest that in the agriculture sector a considerable amount of economic unification has already been achieved. By far the largest body of Community legislation is in agriculture and the very success of the Common Agricultural Policy now in its 33rd year shows a pathway for other sectors of economic life to follow. Talk of political integration is rather meaningless until such time as significant progress is made in the various functional activities common to member states.

It is the very diversity of agricultural production, marketing and consumption brought about by the differing climates and locations which creates the need for a common policy. This diversity has created a need for closer co-operation and mutual recognition of strength and weaknesses among the member states not only to achieve maximum efficiency within the Community but to enable the Community products to compete both at home and on external world markets. I am not trying here to suggest that we already have a fully integrated agricultural sector within the Community — far from it — significant progress has been made and the experience gained over the years has developed a culture within which problems can be aired and problems can be solved.

In the six months of our Presidency we have already made considerable progress along the path towards the single market. Several pieces of important Community legislation have already been adopted, for example, animal and plant health, feedingstuffs and veterinary matters and several more are for adoption at our final Agriculture Council meeting in Luxembourg in ten days' time. These successes in themselves represent the product of hard grinding work over long hours in the various meeting places in Brussels and elsewhere. They deal with sometimes highly complicated and abstruse matters such as the integration of national legislation in the areas of zootechnology and veterinary medicine. This is the hard slog of creating an internal market and it does not come with the fanfare of trumpets or without much effort and compromise by all concerned. The Irish Presidency can certainly hold its head high in its achievements in the area of progress towards the internal market in the agricultural sector.

On GATT, Ireland has been involved in maintaining and developing the strong Community position in the preparation of the final phase of the Uruguay Round negotiations which must be completed before the end of the year. In the past six months it has been important to have the Community speak with one voice on such important negotiations and this has been successfully achieved for the first time. I have kept the Ministers for Agriculture fully informed of GATT discussions and I was grateful for the unanimous support of the Community position in defence of the CAP in recent months. I will also arrange to have the GATT discussions on the agenda for our next and final Presidency Council. Indeed, I would go further in that rather than developing a siege mentality in defending the Common Agricultural Policy the Community has patiently explained that the CAP is not at variance with the principles of liberalisation and expansion of world trade in a developing international economic environment. We are in the process of convincing our world trading partners that the Community is prepared to progressively reduce support to the extent necessary to re-establish balanced markets and to introduce a more market-orientated agricultural trading system. What we are not prepared to accept is an approach whereby all support and protection for agriculture would be phased out over a ten-year period. This would bring about the instability on the internal Community market in supply and price which has been the hallmark of world agricultural markets in recent years to the detriment of both producers and consumers. From Ireland's point of view we need to ensure that the Community can continue to support farming and rural areas and that farmers' incomes are maintained at reasonable levels.

Progress in the GATT negotiations and hopefully its successful conclusion by the end of the year shows clearly the growing sense of political maturity of the Community and its ability to act collectively on the world scene. This ability has not been lost on our world trading partners. Indeed the true test of a strong political and economic union is the way in which it responds to challenges to its very existence from external sources. I, therefore, hold a view that our experience in the GATT negotiations has and will be of benefit in building a common sense of identity within and among the Community members.

Following three different accession negotiations, the Community is now facing perhaps its biggest external challenge with the major political developments in Eastern Europe and the inevitable reunification of Germany. The suddenness and rapidity of developments in Central and Eastern Europe have been instrumental in focusing on the need for greater political unity among the Community members themselves. A new pattern of relations will have to be established in the coming years with the previous state trading countries of Eastern Europe while the eventual integration of East Germany into the Community is not a matter of if but when. In the short term there remains some food supply problems in several Eastern European countries and I was pleased that during our Presidency we were able to adopt with great rapidity a programme of food aid for Bulgaria and Romania. I am also very happy with the fact that we have now introduced a structured discussion under our Presidency for analysis and consensus at the Agriculture Council in relation to agriculture policy vis-à-vis the rest of Germany and vis-à-vis the rest of Europe. That will stand as a monument to our effective programming and farsightedness during our Presidency.

In the long term the implications for the Common Agricultural Policy will have to be assessed thoroughly. Coming from a non-market to a market based economy will present both threats and opportunities for the Community's agricultural sector. I see no reason to doubt that Ireland can avail itself of the increased marketing opportunities which will present themselves in the coming years not only with the sale of quality products but also in supply of agricultural services and consultancy. The detail of the new relationships in terms of licensing, quotas, sensitive products and price supports will all have to be examined in detail. I do, however, take comfort from the West German assurance that their commitment to the Community and the Common Agricultural Policy, in particular, will not be weakened in any way by either the reunification process or developments in Eastern Europe. I can, however, foresee that some of these countries which have been significant traditional producers of food in the past will in time be able to compete with the most efficient of our producers.

Because the concept of balanced development of trade must be defended both in the GATT and in our relations with Eastern Europe, I have initiated a procedure for regular review and discussion of these issues at the Agriculture Council. I have every confidence that the Italian and succeeding Presidencies will build on these initiatives.

Two other areas in which the growing political and economic maturity of Europe have been manifested in recent weeks have been the rural world elements of the successful agricultural prices discussion and last week's successful Council convened to resolve what has been described as one of the significant issues before the Agriculture Council in recent years. As far as last week's Council is concerned all independent and objective experts have judged the outcome was both correct from a technical point of view and allowed national positions to be reconciled within a Community position without the declaration of a winner or a loser. It was the Council mechanism itself which provided the vehicle through which the strongly held legitimate points of view of both sides could be thrashed out and a compromise reached. To contemplate what might have happened by way of an increasing spiral of tit-for-tat trade action as well as the implication for such non-involved countries as Ireland was unthinkable. We took a calculated risk and — as President I convened that meeting — obviously our calculated risk has been vindicated. I believe the institutions of the Community came out of this particular episode much strengthened and I again wish to pay tribute to the excellent work of Commissioner MacSharry in helping to bring about an acceptable conclusion all round.

It has become clear in recent years that a comprehensive rural development programme must be developed side by side with the Common Agricultural Policy to ensure a progressive and enterprising rural community. The guarantees of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain in place but with the increasing budget constraints it is essential to introduce dynamic development policies throughout the Community.

The demographic trends of rural depopulation in recent times in the developed world, including Europe and America, associated with increasing populations in major cities have serious implications for environmental and social policy in the Community. Many of the serious problems such as drug abuse, which will be considered by the European Council, are characteristic of the congested conditions in large cities in America and elsewhere and not of the rural communities in the various member states.

The Irish Presidency has attached special priority to rural development. I am happy to inform the House that rural development will be the exclusive issue for consideration at the informal meeting which will take place in Ireland next week. I look forward to very positive conclusions from this debate which will be a framework for important policy initiations in future years.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the agricultural sector is playing its part in the inevitable process of continuing political and economic integration of the European Community. Agriculture has been engaged in this process almost from the beginning of the Community and history will judge that the period we are now living through represents a new point of departure in which decisions and attitudes now adopted will determine agricultural policies and agricultural income in Europe and in this country well into the next century. The importance of agriculture for our economy need not be emphasised once more in this House but let it be stated that at over 40 per cent of our net export receipts and 20 per cent of total employment the agricultural and food sector is vital to the economic prosperity of this country. We have a comparative advantage in agriculture and food production and we should welcome the moves towards political and economic union for the simple reason that we must exploit our natural comparative advantages to the full if the hopes and realisations of our island community are to be realised.

Mr. Spring

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on European political union. In asking for a debate on this issue I had hoped that such a debate would have helped us to formulate a dynamic response to many of the developments that have taken place in recent times and to be in a position to add our response to the agenda of the EC Summit at the end of the month. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. In the first place, this is not a debate but rather a series of statements and no conclusion will be reached. It is not the debate the Labour Party have sought nor the one the Taoiseach repeatedly promised during the past month. There is no motion on the agenda because the Government are incapable of formulating a motion on their position on European political union and there will be no vote at the end of the discussion.

In short, the Taoiseach and Government Ministers are just going through the motions. It is extremely unlikely that anything we or any of the other Opposition parties say here today will have the slightest influence on the Taoiseach or the Government whose minds clearly have been made up for them by others. I propose, therefore, to use the opportunity to place on the record my views on where the national interest lies in this debate and on where the interests of the ordinary people of Europe lie.

In overall political terms, the Taoiseach's speech this morning was a disgrace. It will come, in time, to be seen as the abandonment by him of his duty to the people he represents here in Ireland in favour of the illusion that he counts for something among the crowned heads of Europe. The Taoiseach of our three and a half million citizens failed to mention from start to finish the interests of those citizens, those ordinary people, from whom he has sought a mandate on four separate occasions. There were key passages of that speech which would not have surprised me if I had been sitting in the Bundestag listening to Chancellor Kohl or to Mrs. Thatcher in Westminster.

It must be said too, that in the face of growing evidence elements of his Government are more than willing to consider the abandonment of Ireland's military neutrality, I found it absolutely remarkable that the Taoiseach had not so much as a word to say on this subject. It is quite clear that the issue of security is high on the EC agenda. Clearly, the Taoiseach is hoping that if he does not refer to the subject, we will not notice that critical fact.

I want to refer to each of these aspects of the Taoiseach's approach. As far as the "ordinary people"— the young, the old, the disabled, the children, the women, the workers, and the unemployed citizens of Europe — are concerned, the question they want answered is what will European economic and monetary union mean to us? The question I would pose is, who remembers the Social Charter? The Social Charter agreed between the European Heads of Government was a grave disappointment, and a far cry from the document originally published by the Commission. We have already published a detailed critique of the charter, comparing the outcome to the aspirations of the original drafts, and condemning the right-wing influences that led to its dilution.

But the Social Charter is now reality, and so is the action programme prepared on its own initiative by the European Commission. That action programme will now, in so far as it is adopted over the coming months, form the basis of the social dimension of the Europe of the nineties. The headings in the action programme spell out the areas it is intended to cover: the labour market; employment and remuneration; improvement of living and working conditions; freedom of movement; social protection; association and collective bargaining; information, consultation and participation; equal treatment for men and women; vocational training; health, protection, and safety at the workplace; protection of children and adolescents; the elderly and the disabled.

The Commission itself, in introducing the action programme, pointed out that some achievements can be pointed to as forming part of the social dimension that already exists. On issues such as equality in the workplace, the Equality Directive applying to social security and the European Social Fund, which finances so much vocational training, a great deal less progress would have been made in the last ten years or more without the involvement of Europe.

The 1992 process means a lot more than the breaking down of commercial barriers, at least it should, but we would not need an action programme now if equality and justice were the norm throughout Europe. Without new initiatives to strengthen the rights of working people, and to enhance the quality of the lives of all European citizens, the 1992 process could in the end mean little more than a deregulated and uncivilised marketplace.

A commitment to the measures implied by fulfilling the Social Charter and the action programme, at the level of the Government and at the level of the entire community, and particularly at both sides of industry, would transform the whole debate about 1992. At present an integrated Europe means very little for Irish men, women and children and we believe that it should ensure a visibly better future.

Battle lines are being drawn up already around the Commission's action programme. Those who believe they were successful in watering down the Social Charter have concentrated their efforts to ensure that the action programme interferes as little as possible with the profit motive and with the ideological commitment to allowing the free play of uncontrolled market forces. Unfortunately in the Taoiseach of Ireland they have found a ready ally. The Social Charter has barely been mentioned once in the lifetime of his Presidency. It was not mentioned this morning. Indeed, there was no mention of the concept of convergence, the principle which is supposed to underpin the process of integration and which is supposed to guarantee that high on the agenda of Europe will be the securing of a decent standard of living and a decent quality of life for every citizen in Europe. Instead, we read the following remarkable piece of European Toryism in his speech of this morning:

On the economic side, while the system would be more decentralised, it should provide for close co-operation between member states on macro-economic and budgetary policies. To the latter end, it should contain rules and procedures designed to ensure budgetary discipline, including rules proscribing the monetary or compulsory financing of budget deficits and the automatic bailing-out by the Community of a single member state in difficulty. At the level of the member states and the Community, the system should also embrace policies to promote cohesion, efficiency, competitiveness and integration across the Community.

I ask the House to note the priorities inherent in this passage. Cohesion is lumped together with efficiency and competitiveness as an after-thought, but the big issue is budgetary discipline. One would think, listening to all this, that the Taoiseach had secured the services of Nigel Lawson on secondment from the board of GPA. One might even think that this was a Taoiseach who was himself presiding over a budget surplus, with all of the country's social needs being met.

The reality is that we know exactly what the Taoiseach means when he talks about discipline. He is prepared to try to find £12 million to try to bail out his rich friends and their radio station at a time when he is presiding over wholesale cuts in health, education, housing and essential social spending which were the issues in the last general election campaign. When the Taoiseach talks about budgetary discipline, he means that it is the poor, the handicapped and the marginalised who must be disciplined.

People who use the national lottery as a political slush fund, those who make settlements with beef barons and those who target only those with no interest groups to lobby on their behalf have no right to lecture anybody about budgetary discipline.

We have always welcomed and supported the process of European integration, including the decisions made at the last Dublin summit in April, but we also entered a caveat which must not be lost sight of, and that is why I wish to repeat it here. The process of cohesion and integration that is under way within the Community is of paramount importance, and we are opposed to any dilution of the resources being applied to that process.

As a socialist I believe we must ensure that the European Community works together to bring moral and political support and understanding to Eastern Europe, together with a full range of practical help and assistance, from trade agreements to joint ventures, from training to technology transfers, free of Cold War restrictions, but also, as a socialist, I believe that integration in Europe must mean an integration of people. Economic liberalisation, and greater efficiency in the market, must go hand in hand with social justice and with specific measures aimed at making an integrated Europe meaningful to its working people. That is why I regard the approach of our Taoiseach to this area as a grave disappointment.

We cannot afford to see the developments in Eastern Europe used as an excuse to dilute the measures already in train to secure our balanced objectives of social justice and economic efficiency. We have already seen too much of that in the negotiations and discussions over the Social Charter. I have already pointed out, here and elsewhere, that the social balance which is essential to the free-market thrust of the 1992 programme has been very badly served by that Social Charter. Whatever about the attitude of the Irish and other right-wing Governments, the Social Charter will continue to be a major priority for us as socialists throughout Europe, in solidarity with our trade union colleagues, to recover that opportunity. We intend to ensure that the Action Programme prepared by the Commission is restored to the top of the European agenda, and that it becomes our principal battle-ground, harnessing the growing demand among the people of Europe for equity, justice, and participation in society and the economy based on efficiency and effective monitoring control. That is the background against which the priority of the completion of the Single Market must be viewed by the ordinary citizens of Europe. It is the background to the moves towards economic and monetary union, to which I now wish to refer.

Economic and monetary union is the obvious logical next step from the internal market process, and that has to be accepted. Its purpose is to present Europe with the possibility of currency and price stability, and with an end to damaging fluctuations in interest rates. The overall concept may well demand both an EC central banking system, and perhaps ultimately a single currency, and we fully accept the need to proceed with work on both of these concepts. EMU, too, will bring with it the need for much greater financial discipline in each of the economies of Europe, but that discipline, as I have already said, must be applied to those who only believe in greed and in the economic philosophy that leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting cutbacks.

But I have no interest in EMU simply for its own sake, or as part of a process of liberating financial markets to greater heights of speculation. The EC and its member states must not be sacrificed on the altar of strict monetary policy, unconnected to broader economic concerns. EMU must imply both economic and monetary policy considerations. The overall approach must support an economic policy aimed at securing sustainable growth and the translation of that growth into jobs through a coherent industrial strategy. In addition the issues of regional development and convergence must remain as central to the economic policies of the Community, together with policies aimed at ending the poverty and marginalisation of so many of our people.

The environment is an area of major concern in the context of both a more integrated and a more social Europe. Action is required at a number of levels — in individual countries and in local communities; at European Community level; and, indeed, at the global level. Where the Community specifically is concerned, there must be a firm policy of ecological assessment of all investments, together with a range of powerful sanctions based on effective monitoring and control. For example, the continued existence of the Sellafield nuclear dustbin within 50 miles of this city must oblige the EC to equip itself with the powers to act on behalf of those citizens of the Community whose lives and well-being are threatened for a mixture of profit and needless military posturing. A Community which cannot protect its citizens is deeply flawed, and the Taoiseach who can wax eloquent in this House about the environment, without facing the fact that there is a need to confront the hostile environmental approach of our nearest neighbour to the health and well-being of our people, does not deserve the self-proclaimed title of "The Green President".

The environmental issue extends beyond the EC boundaries to encompass Eastern Europe, where concern for ecology has for too long been submerged by ill-conceived plans and grandiose military ideas. It extends also to the Third World where exploitation and poverty have led to policies and short-term actions which threaten the entire global balance. The EC can and must play a leading role in helping to rid the countries of the Third World of the pressures which translate themselves into bad and damaging practices and ultimately into further stages of deprivation.

All of these issues — economic and monetary, industrial, regional, environmental, and policies aimed at improving the rights of working people — are interrelated and all of them are much more likely to find proper expression if the goals of economic and monetary union are set by national and Community democratic institutions, including the European Parliament and Council, rather than by Central Bank governors.

In the same way, political union must be seen in relation to the total goals of the Community — not as an end in itself, but rather as a means to greater accountability, involvement, and participatory decision-making. Political advance calls for a planned and attainable set of forward steps at each stage. No member state must be left behind, and rhetoric should not be allowed to outstrip our practical capacity to move forward. The Taoiseach in the course of his contribution this morning ignored some very key issues. In relation to the key question of neutrality, on which I spoke recently at a conference of socialist leaders here in Dublin, the Taoiseach, for some reason best known to himself, seems not to have a Government position at present. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Progressive Democrats in Government is making statements in relation to the issue of Irish military neutrality while the Taoiseach does not seem able to outline the Government's position. I consider this very unfortunate and it will be extremely so if no speaker on behalf of the Government today will clarify this. It is extremely disturbing that the Taoiseach can ignore the subject while Deputy O'Malley is prepared to offer our military support to the highest bidder. I would have thought there was a responsibility on the Taoiseach in the course of this debate to outline the Government's attitude to the issue. Unfortunately, I can only take his silence to mean that Deputy O'Malley is going to be allowed to make the running on the issue and that Government policy is going to be created in a covert sell-out of what has been a core value of the Fianna Fáil Party down through the years.

In conclusion, in the light of what I have heard here today and reflecting on the Taoiseach's contribution, I view the process under way in relation to developments in Europe with considerable distrust. It seems that our Taoiseach is more concerned with the illusion of international statesmanship than he is with the real and major concerns he was elected to represent. I want to see European union developed and advanced, but I want to see it happen in a way that gives power and participation to the citizens of Europe and not just to the bankers, financiers and right-wing politicians. As I said at the outset, it is unfortunate that in this debate we are no wiser at the end of the day as to what position the Government will take at their Summit meeting in Dublin next week in relation to EPU.

Mr. D. Ahern

I do not intend to take long, but I should not let the opportunity pass without remarking on some of the statements made by Deputy Spring. The type of submission he has made here typifies the snide remarks made by the Labour Party to this side of the House over the last number of days. I listened with interest to what he had to say and I am still no wiser as to what the Labour Party's policy is on EPU. He made a remark about the ordinary people of Ireland. I do not know where he was educated, but I was educated to understand that each and every one of us is an ordinary person. Maybe at some later stage Deputy Spring can tell us his definition of "ordinary people."

European political union has a number of facets. The question of German reunification is one of these. A number of weeks ago I had the privilege of being part of a delegation from the Oireachtas who visited West Germany as part of continued contact with West German parliamentarians. Each one of us on the delegation felt we were on such a visit at possibly one of the most exciting times in German history. We were present at the Berlin Wall as it was being taken down. We witnessed the sheer joy and enthusiasm for the changes in both East and West Berlin. We witnessed at first hand the stupidity of the arrangements whereby East and West Berlin were separated, yet we were very conscious of the fact that at the time of the setting up of such structures they were necessary to ensure peace in Europe. It is a matter to be thankful for that the wall and Checkpoint Charlie will in a few months' time be just a memory. This is symbolic of the changes which have been taking place throughout Europe in the last year or so.

It is hoped these moves in Germany can be mirrored in the rest of Europe and that is why both Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand found it possible to write in April to the Taoiseach as President of the European Council asking that political union be accelerated in tandem with economic and monetary union. The way suggested by them has been taken on board by the European Council. Hopefully at the European Council meeting which will be held towards the end of this month further progress will be made on the question of European political union.

When I was in Germany recently, the Germans were outwardly in complete agreement with the reunification of their country but I got the feeling that some of the more conservative and older Germans believed privately that progress should be at a slower rate in order that its implications could be fully assessed. On the other hand, the younger population were very enthusiastic about the reunification of their country, and everyone felt that it was inevitable at some stage. The one thing they understood completely was that it had to be done under the umbrella of the European Community.

I was very taken with the total commitment of the Germans to the European unity ideal. This was typified by Chancellor Kohl's insistence that there was no question of EC Structural Funds already committed being diverted to East Germany. Everyone there insisted that the way forward was by the unification of Europe. Obviously there are fears that German unity would have implications both financial and otherwise, for the rest of Europe.

On the financial side, I have no doubt that the integration of East Germany will happen without much impact on the finances of West Germany or the European Community. We should remember that there will be an increased market of 16 million people available to both Germany and the rest of Europe. We should be prepared for this so that we can meet the challenges, particularly the industrial ones, which will arise.

The other main worry in Europe is that a united Germany could cause an imbalance in that it would mean a very powerful and dominant force on the European Continent. If the reunification of Germany is carried out, as is being insisted upon by the Germans, under the European umbrella then I believe we in the rest of Europe will have nothing to fear. When we were in West Germany, we were informed of the pace at which German reunification is taking place and we actually witnessed this in the meetings which were taking place that very week between East and West German Ministers.

It is logical that European political union cannot be left in the wake of economic and monetary union. This has been the aim of the Taoiseach and the Government during their stewardship of the EC Presidency over the past few months. I believe the special meeting held in April will go down in history in that it pulled together all the facets of European unity.

The EC was set up initially as an economic unit and it is obvious that the entire European scene is now going to be put on a different plane. Political and security matters will come very much into the limelight and how each are handled will be a major challenge to all Europeans. It is imperative that we do not approach these in a dogmatic way; we must be open to all shades of opinion. For instance, one of the major hurdles which has to be overcome is whether European union will involve greater powers for the European Parliament or Council. Obviously, if European unity is to mean anything and there is to be an equalisation of the less developed areas with the better developed areas, recognition will have to be given to this point when dealing with this issue. The Structural Funds are there to help the peripheral and less developed areas come up to the standard of the more prosperous areas. In order to ensure a level political playing pitch, the structures must take into account the need for the less developed areas in Europe to be given an equal say in any future political decisions made on the Continent.

The Taoiseach said that the principle of subsidiarity must be enshrined in European political union. I fully subscribe to this view because it would be naive to think that all political decisions can be dealt with on a centralised basis. Without decentralised powers the union cannot be created. The Community is so vast that to do otherwise would be disastrous and could lead to the type of problems now being experienced in the Soviet Union. I do not think eventual European political union will lead to a loss of sovereignty — I do not accept the British view in this regard. Since we joined the European Community many years ago, various processes have taken place outside our control. Yet, we have been able to cope with the challenges which have arisen. Similarly, I have no doubt that we will be able to cope with any problems which arise in the political area.

In conclusion, I should like to wish the Taoiseach and the other Heads of State well in their deliberations at the end of the month. I have no doubt that the entire concept of European union, whether it be economic, monetary or political, will have been enhanced during the Irish Presidency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Bernard Durkan. The Deputy will be required to conclude his contribution at 5.49 p.m.

Mr. Durkan

Is it in order for me to share my time with Deputy John Connor?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is in order if the House agrees, and I am sure the House will agree to the Deputy's request. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Durkan

Time is passing——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy withdraw?

Mr. Durkan

No, I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When do you suggest I should call Deputy Connor? In what way does the Deputy propose to divide his 15 minutes?

Mr. Durkan

As I will be the first speaker and am a little selfish I propose to give five minutes of my time to my colleague.

Like other speakers, I am sorry we did not have a full debate on this issue rather than the statements which are being made today. If we had a full debate on this issue, I believe Deputies would have been interested in continuing the debate for far longer than these statements will allow.

When one speaks of European integration one cannot help but reflect on and acknowledge the work and efforts of the founding fathers of modern day Europe, the people who sat down in the aftermath of the two World Wars and were able to generate sufficient enthusiasm and use their negotiating abilities to motivate people to think in terms of a united Europe at a time when almost all of Europe lay in ashes. I do not think we could ever repay the people who had that foresight at that time. They saw with clarity, even in those unenlightened and difficult times, that developments in Europe would ultimately take place at a very fast pace and the European map would change in numerous ways during the years ahead.

The events which have taken place during the past six months, should be sufficient to illustrate the wisdom of those people in the sense that Europe has changed both internally and externally, for example, the progress made towards the reunification of Germany and the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe. We must recognise that those changes will have a further impact on Europe and its future development. We, in Ireland, must recognise that time means nothing any more in the sense that events very often overtake various objectives, guidelines and goals which have been laid down. A couple of years ago, the buzz words around Europe were "fortress Europe" and "reciprocity", but these have now been subsumed into other Eurospeaks which have developed over the past six to eight months.

It is obvious that the Europe we have known for the past 15 to 20 years is going to change and we will need to change our vision for the future. Every man, woman and child in Europe must begin to believe that they are equal, that they have an equal opportunity to jobs, whether they are employees or employers and to financial resources which will help them to set up industries and provide employment, and equal political, economic and social rights. This is a particularly important point in the context of this country. We have some advantages because we are an island nation and somewhat remote from the rest of Europe but there are disadvantages which we need to be more aware of. In our continued negotiations with our European colleagues we need to keep this point to the fore. For example, Irish industries have far greater demands put on them, particularly in transport costs, than industries in other European countries. I do not want to spend too much time on this point.

We should all recognise the importance of a good relationship with the EFTA countries. Some of these countries are considering their further involvement in Europe. As previous speakers have said, countries outside of EFTA, for example, Turkey, have indicated their willingness to become involved in Europe. Political union should automatically mean economic union, giving the rights I have referred to to all European peoples. In the last ten or 12 years, and particularly in the last six months, there have been changes in Eastern and Western Europe. It is quite likely, therefore, that there will be more dramatic changes in the future.

In the last ten or 15 years there has been a sharing of sovereignty between the European Community nations. That is a good thing and is to be encouraged and welcomed. In Eastern Europe, however, we have seen the re-emergence of a certain nationalism which we in this country fully understand and which is laudable. At the same time we must recognise that that can have a disturbing effect on what we have in mind for European unity in the future. For that reason, in the last weeks of the Presidency, we should make our influence clearly felt and let it be known that we recognise that the East European countries are facing problems which are likely to have an impact on Western Europe as we know it. Understanding those problems we should be in a position to advise those people. It would probably have been fortuitous for the Taoiseach, in his capacity as President of the EC, to visit those countries and become involved in a more intense way. I listened with interest to the Taoiseach's responses at Question Time and I realise the difficulties. Nevertheless, we are living in a time of change and because of that we must now plan for the next ten or 15 years. If we do that we should be able to say that there is equal opportunity for the people of the various countries. That is particularly important for us as an island nation.

Reference has been made to security, extradition, neturality, etc. These require a much wider debate than is possible within the constraints of these statements so for that reason I do not propose to go into them.

The last point I want to make is in regard to Ireland's influence in the GATT talks. There has been a reluctance to discuss this in this House or to spend any time examining it in detail. Of all the negotiations that are likely to take place the current GATT round is the one most likely to have the greatest impact on the future of markets throughout the world and we should not be slow in making our own case and the case for Europe.

Mr. Connor

As the country holding the Presidency I would have hoped that at this historical juncture — and I know that is a hackneyed phrase, but this truly is an historical juncture — we would have had something of vision to put forward to a European Summit. We do not have. We find that West Germany, France, Britain, Italy and, indeed, little Belgium, will have their papers before the Summit setting down their positions, their vision of the future. This country, the country with the Presidency, the host country, will have nothing.

We heard a statement from the Taoiseach this morning. It is well written Civil Service stuff; but it is full of banalities, things that we know already, recounting the history and development of the Community. What I would have liked to have seen was a setting down in a coherent and visionary fashion of what we propose in regard to the changes that are taking place in Europe. We cannot ignore what is taking place all around us. We cannot ignore what is taking place in Czechoslovakia, the most prosperous and what will probably be the most successful of the democracies in the East. We ignore completely what is taking place in Yugoslavia, that historical word "balkanisation" which is taking place on a massive scale in Yugoslavia where the central Government has been so weakened. We find the northern portions of Yugoslavia wanting to join the EC while the southern, poorer part have no desire to do so, and we are offering no advice on that. We have the Polish econonmy trying to change from a centralised economy to a market economy and in great difficulty. The new Polish Prime Minister said last year "he who helps us first will help us twice" but during our Presidency of the EC we have not related very well to the difficulties of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia or the others, notwithstanding the fact that these are our sister nations on this Continent.

There have been enormous changes in a number of weeks and months. We were fortunate in a way to have been there at that historic juncture when these great changes were taking place. I believe that not since 1918 have we seen such changes in such a short length of time. At Versailles, when the European powers came together after the old order in Europe broke up — and the old order in Europe has again broken up — it was said that the leaders came and scurried around looking for peace but because many of them were shortsighted and narrow minded men what they found was calamity instead, in the long run. I would not like to think that there is an analogy between what is happening today and what happened then. Because there is such lack of vision about our approach, however, I greatly fear that we have a situation again which is directly comparable.

This morning the Taoiseach spoke about European integration, the drugs situation, the internal market and so on. I would like to take one aspect of the internal market at home, because we in this Parliament can never ignore what affects us fundamentally. Let me talk about the internal market and agriculture and the situation for small farmers. There have been fundamental changes in the operations of the Common Agricultural Policy which have had a dramatic impact on the economic growth of this country over the last 20 years. There has been a movement away from price guarantees bringing the selling of our commodities closer to market realities. Generally speaking, I can agree with that. In the long term, we have to move in that general direction. Under the terms negotiated, however, we got income supports for our small farmers, so for every pound a small farmer lost from his income because of the withdrawal of market supports — and market supports are far more important to the small farmer than they are to the large farmer — we were given another pound to compensate him by means of income supports.

We have done very well in dismantling the price supports but we have done very badly in putting in place income supports. The country has not adopted a whole range of them and we are into the second year of the operation of the Structural Funds under which the outreach to people on low incomes is extended to headage schemes, the intensification scheme and to the environmentally sensitive area scheme. That would give additional help to an enormous number of small farmers who live in the midlands. Have the Government put those schemes into place? No, they have not.

We cannot go around lecturing and talking about what we are contributing towards the development of the internal market and the development of social and economic cohesion within the Community when we do so much at home that is against the principles of social and economic cohesion and the promotion of the internal market. I regret that I do not have more time to elaborate on a number of other points.

The Tánaiste

Europe is undergoing a period of dramatic transformation. We have, as the Taoiseach remarked, arrived at the end of the post-war era. Our ancient Continent, its energies so often in the past dissipated through national, religious and ideological disputes, at last has the opportunity of realising, through peace and co-operation, the enormous potential of its peoples and resources. The European Community must surely provide the engine for the future development of Europe, just as, in the past, it served as the beacon which showed the way forward to the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe.

Ireland must ensure that it is at the forefront of the Community as it develops its role in the new Europe. It is surely in our interests to be so, since Ireland's future prosperity is inextricably bound up with that of Europe. Membership of the European Community has affected different nations in different ways. As far as Ireland is concerned, few would disagree that membership has been a positive experience. Leaving aside the material benefits which have accrued from membership, there have been enormous positive changes in our national outlook and our self-perception, arising directly from our involvement with the Community. During the Middle Ages Ireland enjoyed extensive links with Europe. We were very much a European people, enjoying significant contact with the European mainland. Ireland's influence was apparent across wide areas of the continent. During the centuries which followed, these links, if not altogether cut off, were severely curtailed.

Membership of the European Community has changed this. Now, in the final quarter of the 20th century, we have fully resumed our contacts with Europe. We have rediscovered that Ireland is every bit as much a European country as is France, Spain or Italy. In returning to Europe, we have in no way suffered a loss or a diminution in our Irish identity. Indeed, I would argue that we have, through the re-establishment of our European dimension, once more found our true selves. This was shown during our period of office as Presidency of the Council when Ireland played a significant role in world events.

There is no doubt that for a small country like Ireland, the Presidency has represented a considerable challenge. The demand on our resources has undoubtedly been heavy. We have, nevertheless, taken on the burden with willingness, enthusiasm, dedication, and — if I may say so — no little skill, because our membership of the Community has given us a greater opportunity than ever before to assert our independence and fulfil our potential as a nation. For six months, we have had what has been for us a unique opportunity to influence the train of events at a crucial juncture of European history. As the curtain rises on a new Europe, Ireland, through its membership of the Community, is centre stage — determined to play a full part in the future acts.

Who would wish it any other way? Since before the prospect of membership of the Community had even become a possibility, successive Irish Governments have recognised that the future of this country lay with the Community. The Fianna Fáil Government who took Ireland into the Community were certainly in no doubt. Nearly 20 years ago, during the referendum campaign on Ireland's membership of the Community, the then Taoiseach stated:

The choice is between taking part in the great new renaissance of Europe or opting for economic, social and cultural sterilisation.

As the Community once again contemplates moving to a further stage in its development, a similar decision faces not only the people of Ireland, but the entire population of the Community.

Even before cracks began to appear in the Iron Curtain the Community had embarked on an ambitious programme of internal integration. Following on from the enormous advances brought about by the Single European Act, the Community had already begun to move towards the logical consequence of the single market, economic and monetary union.

EMU represents the most ambitious move yet along the road to the European Union. It is likely that in its final stage EMU will involve a significant transfer of competence from national to Community level, including the creation of a common currency, a pooling of a proportion of national reserves, and intensive economic policy co-operation between member states. Ireland can expect to benefit from these developments if we show sufficient responsibility in our economic management. I am confident on the basis of the enormous progress in this area over the past three years that we are capable of this.

There will, of course, have to be special consideration in any future system of EMU for the special difficulties which could be faced by peripheral and less prosperous regions in adapting to the demands of the new system. The Single European Act established economic and social cohesion as a fundamental principle of the Community, and enshrined it in the EEC Treaty. This is a question of solidarity between the people of the Community based on the long-term interest of all. There simply has to be consideration for the situation of less-prosperous regions if the Community is to maintain an ordered and sustainable development. On the one hand, it is clear that adaptation to the single market and the future requirements of economic and monetary union could carry negative effects for less-prosperous regions. On the other hand, some of the more prosperous regions of the Community are beginning to suffer from serious congestion, resulting in infrastructure overload and a noticeable decline in the quality of life. It must, therefore, be in the long-term interests of the people of all regions of the Community to ensure generous and sustained support for the principle of cohesion through the Structural Funds and other means. I am confident on the basis of the clear support for the principle of cohesion contained in the conclusions of the special European Council that such support will be as forthcoming in regard to the future development of the Community as it has been in the past.

It is vital that the process of Community integration should be sustainable, not just in terms of economic and social cohesion, but also in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of Community structures and their acceptance by the people of the Community. This point is recognised throughout the Community and there is a growing feeling within the member states that the momentum of the Community's integration, together with the new situation in Europe, demands that decisive action be taken to strengthen the internal structure of the Community so as to enable it to sustain the pressures of the challenges ahead. The special European Council which met in Dublin at the end of April moved quickly to address these demands by instructing Foreign Ministers to prepare a report on the need for Treaty changes designed to achieve the three specified goals of strengthening democratic legitimacy; improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community and its institutions and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international action.

As we know, the Heads of State and Government will decide on whether to convene a second Intergovernmental Conference, in addition to that which is due to draw up the Treaty changes necessary for EMU. European political union is the key to the second Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. M. Higgins

Would it not have been worthwhile producing a White Paper on that?

The Tánaiste

The Irish Presidency has invested considerable effort into maintaining the Community's internal developments in the face of considerable external upheaval. Claims at the beginning of the year that the Community was being distracted from its commitment to European Union by developments in central and eastern Europe have proved to be unfounded. Far from running out of steam, the integration process has been accelerated.

The decision of the Heads of State and Government to reaffirm their support for political union was a clear and important indication that the Community intends to respond positively to the new situation in Europe. Some may suggest that the absence of any agreed definition of political union removes much of the meaning from such declarations. Those who do so do not understand the dynamic of the European Community.

The Community has, since its inception, operated on the basis of a balance between the demands of the present and the aspirations of the future. From the very beginning, progress has been attained by practical negotiation, achieved through compromise but grounded, nevertheless, on the principle of the mutual self-interest of the member states. In most instances, however, negotiations would never have started but for the existence of a vision or aspiration of the future. It is certainly the case in the aspiration of political union. The arguments of self-interest were always there when nation states came together in the pursuit of a common vision.

Political union is to be the lodestar for the next stage of the journey towards European Union. The Taoiseach has given us some interesting indications of what he feels might be included in a Treaty review under the heading of political union. I do not intend to go through each of the possibilities he raised, because these will be discussed at the Summit and will form the basis of the discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference.

There have been some interesting developments on this point recently, involving increased contact between members of national parliaments and the European Parliament. At the beginning of last month there was a meeting in Cork of the European affairs committees of the parliaments of the member states which was also attended by representatives of the European Parliament. There was significant agreement at this meeting on the need for action to deal with the so-called democratic deficit in the Community and also on the importance of the principle of subsidiarity in any future Community structures. The European Parliament delegates also had an opportunity to hear the views of delegations from the national parliaments on the European Parliament's intention to hold a conference of parliamentarians from the European and national parliaments. There will have to be a scheme of co-ordination worked out between the European Parliament and the national parliaments in regard to enlarging the whole area of democratic compatibility.

Mr. M. Higgins

And they noted the absence of a foreign affairs committee here.

The Tánaiste

In seeking to guarantee this principle within the Community we should not overlook the fact that the Council itself is also a democratically based institution. That is important, as far as we are concerned, representing as it does the Governments of member states, of which we are one. I have yet, in my years of involvement with the Council of Ministers, to meet a member of the Council who did not consider himself to be a representative of his people and, therefore, there is a democratic element in that Community institution as well as in the European Parliament.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Tánaiste but I am bound to say that the time available for these discussions is almost exhausted.

The Tánaiste

That is because of my generosity in allowing other Members to speak. I will finish in one minute. Democratic accountability is of great importance and will involve national parliaments as well as the European Parliament. The European Council will also be involved, representing the democratically elected Governments of the member states of the European Community.

I again want to emphasise that the Intergovernmental Conference to be held on political union is the important one. When agreement on that matter is achieved at the Summit, we can have further discussions in this House and throughout the country in the form of a debate as to how political union should proceed. Let nobody doubt our commitment to the Community or to our central role in the new Europe. We do not belong to the second division in Europe, we are in the first and we have proved in the last six months that we are in the vanguard of those seeking a strong and united Europe, drawing on the strength of its rich diversity.