I would like to say at the outset that I hope this is one of the last occasions in which this House debates a European Summit in this manner. The recent referendum which saw such an overwhelming endorsement by the people of Ireland for the European ideal also demonstrated a keen appetite among the public for more information and more debate on Europe. The Progressive Democrats have long supported the establishment of a specialised committee to debate European Affairs and I hope that before another Summit takes place such a committee will be operating and that this House, and the wider public, will be better informed on the subject than we can be at present. I hope these matters can be resolved in a mature way between the various parties before we return after the summer recess.
I congratulate the Portuguese Government on the successful conclusion of their historic first period in the Presidency of the Community. As we know from our own experience no Presidency is ever easy and that has certainly been true over the past six months. The many successes which have been secured are due, in no small part, to the efforts of Portugal, and demonstrate once again the contribution which even its smallest member states can bring to the Community.
Inevitably, we first judge any Community Summit by its implications for us, but it would be naive to look no further than this. In many ways the real test for Community Summits is how they progress the wider Community agenda.
The Portuguese Presidency and the Lisbon Summit occurred at a crucial time for the EC which is now in the midst of a delicate transition between the Community as we have known it and the post-Maastricht Union. In addition we are fast approaching the January 1993 deadline for the completion of the Single Market. The pressures for enlargement, for redistribution of existing funds towards poorer regions and the ongoing tragedy of the Yugoslavian conflict on our borders have combined to test the Community in an unprecedented way.
Judged in this context the Lisbon Summit represents a considerable success for the Community. If our concerns about the actual increases to be agreed in the Delors II package remain to be finalised, they are still all to be played for and the Summit has seen tangible progress in many other important areas.
The three issues of enlargement, budget negotiations and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia undoubtedly dominated the Summit and all have important implications for this country.
The Progressive Democrats welcome the European Council's unequivocal determination to press ahead with European construction and fully support plans to enlarge the Community. Indeed, given the changes which are taking place in Europe plans for enlargement must proceed as quickly as possible. Much of the groundwork and informal preparations for such enlargement can commence now, but it is vital that any formal developments await the full ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, including the agreement of the Delors II package among the member states. Equally it must be the Community's aim to ensure that newcomers to the Twelve accept the full Union package rather than settling for some sort of half way house even for an intermediate period.
Obviously, there has been disappointment here at the failure of the Lisbon Summit to finally agree specific targets under Delors II. The reality, however, is that everything is still to be played for. The debate here has focused crudely on particular sums as if success or failure can be judged in pounds, shillings and pence. In reality, the Delors II package is about much more than mere balance sheets. A central aim of Community policy to date, and a key element of the Maastricht Treaty, has been the promotion of cohesion and the narrowing of the wealth gap between member states. This is as important as an underlying philosophy of the Community as it is in purely financial terms as the Community develops into a real union of shared and common interests and prosperity.
The Progressive Democrats believe that the Council conclusions agreed at Maastricht again underline this philosophy and are important markers for future negotiations in this area. In particular we welcome the confirmation in the conclusions of the essential dimension of economic and social cohesion; the agreement to put in place the new Cohesion Fund in early 1993; confirmation of plans to reinforce other structural policies and the decision to decide various components of Delors II in Edinburgh. If we think back to the bitter arguments that were fought over the original Common Agricultural Policy reform plans and now see their eventual success, we have significant reason for optimism in the negotiations which will take place over the Delors II package.
One important development in this regard has been the decision to give equal treatment to five East German Lander and East Berlin as Objective 1 regions along with countries like ours. This inevitably means that any increased funds will now be shared among a larger group of countries and underlines the need for substantial increases in such funds. The progress of the Maastricht Treaty ratification process was, of course, central to the debates at Lisbon and this country should note with satisfaction the welcome given by the Heads of Government to the referendum result here, which reflects the growing stature of our country within the Community.
The Heads of Government at Lisbon demonstrated a keen interest and desire to learn from the lessons we have seen in the Europe-wide debates on the Maastricht Treaty and particularly in the referendum campaigns here and in Denmark. Those campaigns have brought home to the Heads of Government the dangers of the Community becoming too removed from its citizens.
There is now a clear willingness to bring the Community ever closer to the public which is reflected in decisions to increase the transparency of Community decisions and to increase dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament which again underlines the need for this House to proceed with a specialised committee on European affairs.
Equally important has been the decision to move forward with the concept of subsidiarity and to give precise delineation of the type of Community action which can be carried out. We would do well to remember that subsidiarity is as relevant to internal matters here as to our relationship with Europe.
The last six months have also seen important progress being made on the implementation of the Internal Market. Over 90 per cent of the necessary measures for the completion of that market have now been adopted at Community level. There has, however, been a notable failure to yet agree proposals on the harmonisation of VAT/excise duties. This is now long overdue and is of vital interest to us.
Another important influence at Lisbon was the ongoing tragedy of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. If progress on almost every other front in the Community has shown its growing stature as a world economic power, the Community's virtual paralysis in the face of this tragedy reflects an impotency which must concern us all. The response at Lisbon — where progress has been made in identifying possible areas of joint action under the Common Foreign and Security Policy arrangements — is welcome, if only a starting point.
I do not believe that even those who are most stridently neutral can be satisfied to see the Community sit idly by while fellow Europeans are subject to the carnage and destruction which is taking place now on our very borders. If the Community is to develop as a pillar of security and stability in Europe it must find the means to match its undoubted economic power with a political influence which can operate for the benefit of Europeans everywhere.
The Community remains at a crucial phase in its development and the challenges of the next six months will be as great as those we have faced to date. Central to these challenges will be the forthcoming referendum in France and the ability of the Community to come to terms with the difficulties raised by the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty.
Throughout the recent referendum campaign, however, the Progressive Democrats stressed that the European Community represents a political movement and not just a legal arrangement. I believe that the present difficulties facing the Maastricht process will be overcome and that the Danish people will yet be embraced in a progressive and developing union.
In the Community on the energy side a number of issues are currently under discussion. Progress is being made on completing agreements under the European Energy Charter. Discussions are continuing on the draft directives on the completion of the internal market in electricity and gas, on harmonisation of licensing procedures and conditions for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons and on oil crisis measures and Community membership of the International Energy Agency. The question of an energy tax was discussed at the most recent Energy Council in May and we are awaiting proposals from the Commission on energy conservation under the SAVE programme and on the development of renewable energy under the ALTERNER programme. At home we are making progress towards interconnection for both the gas and electricity grids.
The European Charter, which was signed by me on behalf of Ireland in the Hague on 17 December 1991 is a declaration by the countries involved expressing a desire for Europe-wide co-operation in the energy sector. To date there is a total of 49 signatories to the Charter, consisting of 47 countries, the European Communities and the Inter-state Economic Committee, representing the Confederation of Independent States of the former republics of the USSR.
The main objectives of the Charter are to improve security of energy supply, maximise energy efficiency, enhance safety and minimise environmental problems on an acceptable economic basis. The intention is to create a climate favourable to the operation of enterprise and to the flow of investment in technology by applying market-economy principles to the field of energy. The Charter itself is a political declaration without legally binding powers but it provides a frame work for a basic agreement and individual Protocols which will have legally binding effect.
The basic agreement is designed to cover horizontal and organisational issues of the Charter while the individual Protocols will cover specific sectors. Negotiations are, at present, in progress on the basic agreement and on protocols dealing with hydrocarbons, energy efficiency and nuclear safety.
While it had been hoped that the text of the basic agreement would be ready for signature by 30 June 1992, at the end of the Portuguese Presidency, it has been delayed due to various difficulties which have arisen during the negotiations. It is now the aim to have it ready for signing by the end of the year although it is possible that negotiations will, in fact, carry on into 1993. The Protocols will not be concluded until the basic agreement is finalised. In its efforts to complete the international market in gas and electricity the Commission has a three stage approach:
I. To implement the directives on transit of gas and electricity and on price transport.
II. The creation of a transparent, non-discriminatory system of granting licences to build pipelines and for the production of natural gas; the separation of the management and accounting of production, transmission and distribution of operations, and the introduction of limited third party access.
III. A third stage will be defined in the light of experience gained.
I mentioned at the most recent Council of Energy Ministers in May that I would be very anxious to ensure that change from the present well established position would in fact bring benefits and that these benefits should not be at the expense of any group of consumers, nor bring about risks to security of supply in the short or longer term.
I added that a carefully graduated approval to third party access was not only possible but desirable and could be done in such a way that would avoid any possible threats to the financial stability of existing monopoly utilities. The details of this proposal will require careful consideration as the discussions progress.
At the May Council I agreed with other Energy Minister that the proposed tax on CO2 emissions should be conditional on other industrialised countries taking comparable measures. I expressed the view that while the Community had and should continue to lead the debate on proposed action in that area it could not and should not take unilateral action which could put it at a disadvantage.
I realise that I am running short of time and I will conclude on that point.