Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992

Vol. 134 No. 2

Developments in the EC—32nd-38th Reports: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Reports: Developments in the European Communities — 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th (Irish Presidency of the European Communities, January-June 1990), 37th and 38th Reports.
—(Senator Wright.)

Last week I was talking about the situation in Somalia. Something which has disturbed me and, I am sure, many other people was the attitude taken in the Sunday Independent last week by one of the writers who tried to rubbish the visit of President Robinson to Somalia. His report did not diminish the role played by the President and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but rather it adversely affected the way many people felt towards him. It should be said that the visits to Somalia by President Robinson and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, were extremely useful in making more people around the world concerned about what is happening in that area. To suggest that the visit was of no consequence and that it diminished the role of the Presidency was an insult to the Irish people and to everybody who has a caring attitude towards the people of Somalia. We should recognise that that visit was of extreme importance, even if Mr. Dunphy does not feel it was. Mr. Dunphy should visit areas of the world where there are more important items to be discussed than perhaps he is capable of discussing. He should go and see the situation for himself and then write from the perspective of being there rather than talking in terms of what he called the minor role that can be played by the President of Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

When I was speaking last week I mentioned the fact that throughout the world there are many areas where problems such as famine and deprivation have been addressed by the European Community over the past number of years — for example, Ethiopia, Sudan and Afghanistan. Not alone do we have to address the problem of famine occurring from natural causes, but we have to address ourselves also to a resolution of the horrific civil wars that are going on in many of these countries. We cannot suggest that these problems can be resolved in the countries themselves. There has to be a major international intervention, and the major international intervention I would like to see would be that the arms salesmen of the world would be prevented from selling to these areas.

In many of these countries, where there is deprivation and horrific poverty and death, it is caused by people in the western world who, because of the lowering of tension as a result of the ending of the Cold War, have armaments to sell and they are selling them to these countries. We see that on the west coast of America nearly 250,000 people will lose there jobs in the armaments industry because of the ending of the Cold War. We see the former states of the USSR with arms to sell, and they can be sold openly in any place. There was much said yesterday about some man in England who went off and bought a Russian Mig fighter in Poland. If a private individual can go off and buy a Russian Mig fighter, you can well imagine what an arms dealer can do with money to spend and with customers readily available in the poorer countries of the Third World.

The European Community is going to have to take a very strong line in any international negotiations that take place on disarmament, because there is no point in disarming the warlords unless we disarm the people who are selling the arms in the first place. They are in Europe, in America and in the former territories of the CIS, and Britain, France and Germany and not without considerable blame in this area also. We see in the Gulf area, where we had an horrific short war not so long ago, that the United States have now sold some 76 F-15 airplanes to Saudi Arabia at a cost of $35 billion. The main reason the Saudis say they are buying these aircraft is because of the fact that Iran has now bought quite a number of submarines from the former USSR.

Consider the implications of $35 billion to be spent for the 76 F-15 planes. The Saudis have said that the future of Saudi Arabia is in their two new cities of Yanbu and Jubail. The total involvement by Saudi Arabia in the development of these industrial cities has been in the region of $20 billion to $22 billion, Europe and America have put in the rest, and it comes to exactly the same amount as the Saudis are putting into buying these F-15 planes. Basically, what they are doing is paying back the United States for the help that they got in "Desert Storm".

I am sorry for developing these points, but I think we should at least address current matters which are to some extent outside the ambit of the various reports. Since the break-up of the eastern bloc we have had the horrific example of violence in Yugoslavia. It seems as if this ethnic cleansing will continue and that no effort will be made by the international community to get involved in, as they say, the internal politics of the area. Unfortunately, it is not entirely internal politics. When the break-up of Yugoslavia occurred, some countries decided they wanted to go it alone again and the EC recognised these countries. Therefore, it is definitely a matter of concern for the EC that we should be involved in trying to stop the rape of what was Yugoslavia. It is estimated that up to 300,000 people could die in that area because of the winter conditions and the lack of food and of shelter.

We in Ireland have to address in a more competent manner the problem of refugees. We have taken in over 200 people from Bosnia and they are living in reasonable conditions in north County Dublin. The problem with this is that this might give people the idea that a refugee camp over there is the same as a refugee camp in Ireland. The difference between the conditions of those 200 refugees lodged in Ireland and the conditions of refugees in other camps abroad has to be seen to be believed.

I was one of a group who visited a refugee camp where over 10,000 people were living in tent conditions in the desert near Aden looked after by the French relief group, Medicins sans Frontiéres. Their living conditions could not be compared with the conditions of refugees in Ireland. Pictures of refugees enjoying themselves in Ireland does not mean that refugees around the world live in similar conditions. Refugees live in tented areas and under horrific conditions in many areas of the world and it is up to Ireland and the EC to ensure that their conditions are improved.

There has been much talk about Ireland's ODA contribution. We must increase the present amount. I realise that even though we have not reached the United Nations recommended level of ODA spending, through the EC we have increased our input into overseas development agencies. It may be necessary to revise the tax system to allow for a specific amount of money to be given to overseas development agencies. There is no other way to do it; unfortunately, nowadays, nothing is given for nothing. Irish people are very generous and within the confines of our budgetary situation we should consider the provision of a very small percentage of our tax revenue for the alleviation of poverty and to deal with crises outside Ireland. Some people will say we should address our own major problems and forget those of other countries. No nation can live in isolation today. We need the outside world just as much as it needs us.

I agree that Ireland has huge problems today. We speak about warlords in places like Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan but we have warlords here in Ireland also and indeed all over Europe. The warlords we encounter are those of the commercial world who use currency for their own ends without any thought of consequent damage to the national infrastructure and to the personal lives of thousands. They are the worst type of warlord. Currency speculators such as those of the past month have to be defeated; they are of no use for the development of business or the enhancement of nations. They should be condemned wherever possible.

Over the past number of years I have been a critic of the Central Bank and in particular of its Governor, Mr. Maurice Doyle, believing that the Bank has not contributed to our industrial development. Its excessive conservatism has held interest rates at unsustainably high levels for too long. However, in the current crisis both the Department of Finance and the Central Bank have acted extremely well. They have protected our currency and, consequently, current and future jobs.

International banking circles in Europe praised the Minister for Finance and the Central Bank for moves taken to protect our currency during the opening weeks of this massive rapacious attack. Present interest rates may be blamed on the actions of those rapacious speculators.

I am glad the Government have moved in to help those struggling hard to protect jobs in a difficult economic environment. The past number of years has witnessed a massive worldwide recession. Ireland, in terms of its exports, GDP and GNP has done exceptionally well on foot of Government policies. We need jobs and they will follow if current Government policies on job creation can be followed through. We also need financial help. At present the companies that will be helped most financially under the official scheme are those coming under pressure because of the growing strength of foreign currencies, and in particular of the pound. In the main they are exporting companies but I hope the Government do not forget the horrific high interest rate problems encountered by small service industries and by agriculture.

I agree with assisting export companies in the present currency situation but many export companies received substantial EC or State grants when setting up and may also avail of a very low tax rate of 35 per cent on their exports compared to the normal business taxation rates applying to other smaller firms who contribute indirectly to our exports success. The EC can help here. Meetings have taken place recently where it was suggested that under EC rules assistance to industry would breach free trade regulations.

The major problem associated with these six monthly EC statements is that they contain statements and records of meetings where unemployment has been one of the core issues on every case. Unemployment has grown over the past number of years throughout Europe and EC policies have not been able to reverse the trend. Efforts have been made in many areas of the Community to devise short term measures to alleviate problems associated with unemployment but unfortunately 90 per cent of these measures have had no long term benefit. Many courses have been set up but they have not led to sustainable jobs. The Government must monitor every EC effort to ensure that money spent on courses, whether through FÁS or otherwise, is productively allocated, leading to sustainable jobs and improving the status of the participants.

We must foster employment-related skills. There is no point in putting people through a six month or 12 month course if it is not going to lead to the prospect of a job afterwards. Highly skilled, highly educated people should not be entered on short term courses that do not enhance skills or increase the probability of finding work.

In the past number of months we have witnessed the great debate on Maastricht. Irish people have followed tradition by indicating that they believe our future lies in a stronger Europe. Situated on the periphery we need a strong Europe in which there will be less paperwork and fewer problems in trading with mainland partners, our largest market. In the past, paper work has accounted for up to 10 per cent of the cost of exporting and anything that brings these costs down is worth fighting for. Maastricht offers a guarantee in this respect.

Regarding the Danish "no" vote, I heard the editor of the premier Danish business magazine being interviewed on "Morning Ireland" last week when he said that nobody in Denmark can say why the Danes voted "no"; a hundred Danish people would give a hundred different reasons. It is important for us to find out why they voted "no" but it is more important that they find out for themselves.

Britain has itself to blame for its recent difficulties. It is strange to hear Mr. John Major suggest that Maastricht is the be-all and end-all of things when Britain has pulled out of the ERM and by doing so has created more difficulties for itself in the long term, and for us in the short term.

Britain is a divided country which still considers itself a colonial power and believes it should be the premier runner in Europe, not realising that its economy is in decline as is evident by the substantial rise in forced redundancies over the past number of weeks. Britain's industry is outdated. It has not kept up to date as we have and will suffer over the next number of years because of that.

Agriculture has played a dominant role in the Irish economy until now and this trend will continue although difficulties are being experienced in every area of agriculture at present. We must compliment Commissioner MacSharry on the huge amount of work he has done to protect agriculture. As recently as this week's GATT talks he has fought to ensure that Irish people can live on the land, enjoy a reasonable quality of life and contribute to the economy. Farming, like other industries, is going through a period of change which will present major problems for many people in the industry.

The question of set-aside land must be looked at. It is strange to think that half the world cannot feed itself while we are overproducing. Surely we could grow useful crops and not crops whose surpluses accumulate into unwanted lakes or mountains.

We must ask the banks at this stage to exercise care in their dealings with firms in this particularly bad time. There is a feeling abroad that the banks are not playing their part in maintaining present jobs levels. Unfortunately, bank managers around the country have lost the power to manage their banks. All they may do is pass messages from regional offices to their customers. They are not in the business of managing banks anymore.

Over the next few months we are going to see the end of Customs and Excise barriers and that will create certain problems. It has been stated that 1,000 jobs will be lost in the Customs and Excise clearance area over the next couple of years. This is probably true and we must ensure that these employees are transferred to positions where they may protect our borders against international drug traders. There is no doubt that the international drug trade is growing, not least in Ireland. A number of people have been caught and we must compliment the Garda and the customs officers on their vigilant efforts over the past number of years to half the huge quantity of drugs coming into this country.

I hope that over the next few years we will discuss current developments in the EC and not deal with out-of-date reports, as we have in this House. We have had an opportunity to talk about current matters but not to address the current topics raised in the reports.

If we unite in Europe this country has a tremendous future. Many people say there is no future for young people in Ireland or for the unemployed. I am certain that if the Maastricht agreement is followed through in other European countries, in a very short time we will have a better Europe with good prospects for the present generation of Irish and for generations to come.

If you were feeling in a severe mood you would probably rule out Senator Lanigan's statements as irrelevant just as you would rule out what I am going to say. Strictly speaking we are supposed to be debating the developments in the European Communities — 32nd-38th reports, inclusive. I have totally forgotten what those reports are and Senator Lanigan rightly did not confine himself to these reports; he gave a free ranging speech which I hope to emulate.

May I point out the absurdity of bringing into this House reports which belong, strictly speaking, to history when all that we say about them are, properly speaking, historical comments? In practice, we ignore them and go on to talk about the present developments in the European Community. This points up the futility of our Joint Committee on European Affairs of which I am a member, because, of necessity, its activities and discussions and our reflections on them when they come to this House are retrospective. We, unlike other countries, have no input as yet into our Government's policy making on European affairs. I understand that one of the reasons the Danes took such a lively and constructive interest in Maastricht was the dominant position of their Parliamentary Committee in formulating European policy. I know the UK House of Lords has an EC committee which makes an input into Government policy on Europe. Engaging as we do in a purely retrospective exercise on long since past developments is totally irrelevant and that is why Senator Lanigan and I totally depart from the strict terms of reference here. I hope our Foreign Affairs Committee and our European Committee, if they are to be one and the same, will demand a new brief for themselves in this respect so that we will feel at least that what we are discussing relates to the present and to the future rather than to the past.

Senator Lanigan has a perfect right to make his comments on the column of a particular writer in the Sunday Independent with regard to the President's visit to Somalia but, in turn, that writer has every right to his own view and I would defend his right. It is no harm perhaps to have a corrective voice to a universal chorus of adulation; I distrust universal adulation even where such a worthy person as our President is concerned.

I think since he made that statement, he has admitted that he was wrong.

With respect, I would uphold his right to be wrong. We live in a free society and the voice of dissent is valuable even when it is wrong headed.

I do not want to delay overlong on Somalia but since Senator Lanigan brought it up and I was not able to contribute to last week's debate, might I say briefly that the real questions about Somalia have not been asked amid all the ballyhoo or have been asked by very few people. One RTE reporter — Marian Finnucane — did a good programme in which she went straight to the heart of the issue last week.

The facts are that Somalia is no longer a cold war strategic area and no longer of any interest to the one remaining superpower. It has no oil and therefore it is neglected. A corollary to that is that the Somalians, like so many Africans, have been driven into the kind of agricultural production which is not in their interest but which serves the interest of those to whom they are in debt and to whom they have to render that debt. In some respects their position and the crops they are forced to cultivate from which they themselves cannot benefit is not unlike the situation of Irish pre-Famine tenant farmers, which is one of the reasons we feel a sense of empathy with them, not simply because they have a famine as we did but because their basic economic situation is the same. They have been forced into a subsistence economy. This is so not only in Somalia but throughout Africa. God only knows what horrors will loom up before us on our television screens in the forthcoming months from other parts of Africa.

The Irish public is generous to a fault and continues to dig deeper for all these various and sometimes competing charitable organisations. One of the questions raised by the publicity given to our relief agencies in Somalia is to what extent they are in needless and, indeed, in counterproductive competition with one another. Many people in this country feel that this famine is an act of God, that the Somalians are being scourged by famine just as we were and that we owe them this historical debt. That is a good response but we do not reflect sufficiently on the fact that basically the Somalians starve because we are well off, and by "we" I mean the First World. The first world consumes an indecently extravagant proportion of limited world resources which means that the Africans have to suffer. The President touched on this fact in her analysis and went as far as the constitutional constraints of her office permitted, but as inhabitants of the First World, and of the European Community in particular, we have, or will not come to terms with it.

Senator Lanigan referred to war lords and the ubiquity of the gun culture in Somalia, a scandal for which some of our European partners are responsible. I have asked myself over the time we have been members of the European Community participating in its various councils, including the Council of Ministers, in the Commission, in the European Parliament and various other fora, to what extent have our Government said to the Germans, the French and the British to knock it off, that we do not want them supplying arms to Third World nations or engaged in this obscene arms trade. Have we ever said that? We boast about having an influence on common European policy — whatever that means — but we have no influence whatsoever in this direction. As Senator Lanigan rightly said, the commercial war lords in the arms racket ply their trade absolutely unchecked in this regard. It casts strong doubts on the influence we have in Europe when we cannot exert any influence apparently to curtail the disgustingly obscene arms trade, the results of which are so shamefully evident in Somalia.

One of the reasons I welcome President Robinson's visit and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrew's prompt initiative in this matter is that it seemed that when they went to New York to make their report to the Secretary General, for the first time in a long time our President and Minister for Foreign Affairs were saying that Ireland as a nation has a distinctive view on the tragedy in Somalia. It is not the view of most of our European partners who have a very different history from our history. In short, what we saw last week was an assertion of something like an independent Irish foreign policy and a return to the best days, if you like, of this country's foreign policy in the early 1960s. I believe that is the President's policy except, of course, she is restrained from expressing it constitutionally.

Our foreign policy interests are not identical with those of France, Germany or Britain. These large powers in the Community pursue their own national interest. For them a common foreign policy is something on the margins. I said it before in the debate on the Maastricht Treaty that the French and the British have made it perfectly clear that for them the important thing in foreign policy is their own national self-interest. The French have said this quite nakedly: where the national self-interest of France is concerned, France will pursue her own policy.

The idea of a common foreign policy in which states subordinate their national self-interest to some kind of European ideal is utter nonsense. It was one of the pieces of nonsense we were supposed to swallow during the Maastricht debate. We should take a leaf out of John Major's book, and Norman Tebbit's book. Quite unashamedly at Brighton they said that for them the important thing was their national self-interest and as a public representative as far as I am concerned the only important thing is the national self-interest of this country. We are getting a second chance to back off from that entirely illusory policy of a common foreign policy.

Equally illusory, of course, is the idea of a common monetary and economic policy and we have seen that in pieces in the past couple of weeks. It is quite obvious that the Germans prefer their own national self-interest to any greater European common interest. They have no intention of supplying us with £6 billion when they have to foot the bill of German unification. The £6 billion is now becoming like what the old woman said to Robin Flower: "Cá bhfuil an sneachta geal a bhí ann anuraidh", I am afraid the sneachta geal is evaporating at a great rate. Remember, by the way, that the Germans pursued their own unilateral interest in the matter of Yugoslavia which we all, willy-nilly, had to follow.

One of the lessons I think we should learn at this critical stage in the development of the European Community is that Maastrict was a mistake, that it is hopefully dying, that we go back to the drawing board and that we pursue our own national self-interest as a primary value and that in so doing we recover our self-respect which was so shamefully put up for grabs during the Maastrict referendum campaign.

I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the evolution of Europe for a number of reasons. First, the Irish people will enjoy the type of unity within their own country and the type of free trade that has been achieved in Europe. The benefits of that will be significant to many Irish people. The previous speaker has gone out the door but he said we should take a leaf out of John Major's book——

He is present.

How could the Senator confuse me with someone else?

I did not do it intentionally. I made a mistake. I thought the Senator had left. Very few people in Ireland would support the Senator because I believe the British have not accepted that they have a problem and that is the real difficulty in Europe and in Ireland today. There are people in Ireland who do not believe that Ireland will ever achieve equal status or standing in anything. We have the John L's and the Conor Cruises. I heard a commentator say at the time Fianna Fáil had a leadership crisis, "You can appoint Albert or John or Mary but the country is bankrupt". There are people who use such extravagant language and I would question whether such people have a real commitment to the future of Ireland. That is as far as I will go on that because I want to be positive.

I strongly welcome the opportunity to say that it will mean a tremendous amount for this country to stand on its own two feet in the European Community. We will have free trade and will be able to benefit from that. We must start by getting the youth of our country to believe in themselves and to believe that we have as good and better for our young educated people as exist anywhere. For too many generations we have convinced our young people that they would be better off anywhere rather than at home. We used our national media to project the glamorous life one could have in Australia, Canada or Britain. Today we are picking up the tabs and seeing the tragedy of families returning home on every boat. They are broke and have no home or job. This makes our situation much more difficult here. I ask those learned people to be more positive and helpful to the youth of this country and point out to them that there is a great future here for them. We do not need to use a film where mothers are crying at Knock Airport waving goodbye to their children. It would imply that Knock Airport, on which £14 million was spent, was a disaster and contributed to emigration from the west. I say to those people, the John Ls and the Conor Cruises——

On a point of information, it is John A.

John L. was a boxer.

I apologise. I ask those learned people to tell our young people about the many opportunities they have in this country and to point out to them that a person can come from anywhere in the world and set up a successful business and provide jobs in every corner of this country.

We have the ability to develop our tourism and fishing industries and the resources necessary to provide jobs for our young people. The cries of those who continually condemn this country as having nothing to offer to our youth are becoming distant. Such people are not being heeded. Ireland has had to overcome its own critics and that has been the biggest problem we have had to overcome, going back to the foundation of the State.

I welcome the fact that we will have free traffic in goods and services on this island. I believe it will make a major contribution towards the removal of the Border. At least the psychological border will go if we can trade freely with our own kin across the Border. That would be a tremendous advantage. I believe it would also help to prove to those who are involved in the paramilitary campaign the futility of their efforts because this country will be united in trade and the elected representatives will be united and at one.

I do not praise the Mr. Major nor do I criticise him. I sympathise with the British people because they have a real problem. The Sinn Féin attitude in the past was burn everything British other than their coal. Many Irish people have set up homes and businesses in England and there is no rancour or bad relations between us and the British, other than their occupation of the North of Ireland. Everyone knows the British would leave tomorrow if they could. One would not need to be a university graduate to know that the British are trying to extricate themselves from the situation they created in Northern Ireland which costs them millions of pounds they cannot afford.

Whether we like it or not the British are the poor relations in Europe today. Who would have dreamed sterling would not hold its value against the French franc or the mark? The British annually commemorate winning the war and hammering the poor Germans into the ground, but anyone who looks at the German economy today must recognise that they are the dominant people in Europe. Last week the Minister said the peaceful unification of Germany was significant. I support those sentiments. I had an opportunity to listen to eminent people saying how they helped the East Germans. They did not do it by pumping in millions of pounds but by sending in 2,000 of their best people who took over and built up a very successful industrial base in East Germany. The world recognises that the German nation will be the number one economic force in the world, let alone Europe. I think it is great for a small country like ours to have its currency tied to the German currency.

It saddens me that our currency is no longer on a par with sterling even though for years people crossing the Border to shop had to take what the traders offered for the punt. It is very hard for those traders north of the Border to accept that the punt is stronger than the pound sterling. Today if you were driving through Derry, Strabane or Newry different people would give different rates of exchange. Some would offer £1.10 or £1.05 while others give parity. Some traders north of the Border are charging on the punt against the pound sterling. I look forward to a monetary union which will include Britain because that will only help trade.

We have much to gain from being in Europe and we have a major contribution to make. Our industrial development has only begun. We have only started to develop our tourism industry which has vast potential. My county is undeveloped. I was pleased to be at a conference on Monday evening when it was announced that a new £15 million hotel would be built in Port Salon, County Donegal. Donegal did not develop as quickly as Shannon, Limerick or other centres but we are developing and providing jobs. Our young people coming out of third level colleges must believe they have a future in Ireland and their first thought should be what can I do for myself and my country? I deplore turning on the television or the radio and listening to the Gaybos, Pat Kennys, Mike Murphys or whoever, continually use that subsidised station to paint a false picture which has led many of our youth to leave Ireland to face a disastrous future. This morning I listened to the "Gay Byrne Show". He was interviewing a person who was complaining that he could get a cheaper trip to America with an airline other than Aer Lingus but the had to fly to London by Aer Lingus. He continually points out the disadvantages and how difficult——

The Senator is referring to people who are not present and that is not fair.

I thank the Chair.

He can go on that programme tomorrow.

Recently when the British broke with the ERM, the chairman of the chamber of commerce in Newry appeared on two evening television programmes pointed out that people from the South were driving to Newry to shop. Anyone would realise that it was good business for the chairman of the traders in Newry to say on the "Six O'Clock News" that he had a rush of business from Dublin. He took advantage of the fact that our television programme producers were telling the people to go North and shop for Christmas. Then they interviewed ladies who said what great value they got and how profitable it was to shop in the North. This propaganda is continually broadcast.

I have an obligation, as do others in this House, to say we do not accept such propaganda. It is misleading the people. Yet, that false propaganda is continually projected on our screens by a station which is subsidised by the Irish taxpayers. This station is misleading our young people and encouraging them to go abroad and it is misleading our people by telling them to shop outside the State. It contributes nothing to the nation. If I were to write to the people in charge I would be snubbed; they would not listen to me. They would tell me I was a fool and did not know what I was talking about but I have a platform here and I am using it to tell these people they are doing no service to the nation. Some of them are earning salaries in excess of £100,000 a year; two or three members of a family have jobs in this closed shop. The best qualification one can have to get a job in RTÉ is to be a friend of somebody who is inside the camp.

Acting Chairman

That is not relevant.

It is relevant.

Acting Chairman

We are speaking on the EC motion.

I appreciate the Chair's guidance.

Acting Chairman

I have given a lot of latitude to the Senator.

He is speaking as a European.

Acting Chairman

I would remind Senator Honan that I am in the Chair.

I appreciate that and I respect the Chair totally. I am trying — perhaps I am not doing a great job — to point out that this little country has many advantages. We must give our young people a basic education and provide as much resources as we can for second and third level education and for training. They must believe in their own country and not follow bad advice to go abroad. Many return from abroad broke before they see the opportunities at home. That is the point I am trying to make and I hope I have been sucessful to some extent.

As regards employment one can criticise and say that this and previous Governments have failed to resolve the problem but the day of the family farm employing three or four people is no longer with us. Small families in rural Ireland have a problem today, first, in educating five or six members of their family and then finding employment for them. I support Senator Lanigan when he complimented Commissioner MacSharry on the tremendous fight he put up in Europe to have agriculture reorganised to the extent where 80 per cent of the benefit no longer goes to 20 per cent of the farmers in Ireland. We all recognise that Commissioner MacSharry did a great job for Europe and for Ireland. I hope that the MacSharry plan is successful and that he will succeed in having a much wider spread of the benefits.

Consider our fishing industry. We need more than restricted quotas. Whether it is milk, fish or whatever, we must receive the maximum benefit and not just for a few people, whether it is the Kerry Co-operative or whatever——

Golden Vale.

With respect to the tremendous success of those co-operatives, they were actually taking the cream of the benefit from Europe and they have the capacity to fight very hard and say it is this way or not at all; we will hold on. These giants became so big that they were quoted on the Stock Exchange and they invested in America. It is far from the day when the poor little fellow on the side of the hill put £5 on the table and started a co-operative but thanks to the vision of Commissioner MacSharry, he fought for the small holders. I think he did a great job and we will never have a Commissioner who will do such a service to this State. People might not like him because he has a political background they do not accept but I think he did a fantastic job for the country.

I come from a Border county and it pleases me that this country has developed its social welfare system to the point where an old age pensioner in the south is now better off than an old age pensioner in the North. Right across the board, nurses, teachers, the Army and the Garda are much better off than their counterparts in the North. An unemployed single person here was getting £54 before the last increase but in the North he would get £62 for two weeks. It is a great achievement for a country that has no oil and has limited resources to have a high status in Europe and to be able to give a fair measure of support for the underprivileged and the unemployed at home. In addition, our currency is stronger than sterling. It is a tremendous achievement for those who have been involved in Government in organising our future in Europe. It gives me a sense of pride, more so when I live in a Border county. Today there are people with gloomy faces who wonder when will sterling stop falling. I would find it very difficult to take a leaf out of John Major's book at this stage.

I hope we will have the support of Europe in developing our fishing, tourism and timber industries and that the youth of this country will have an opportunity to make a major contribution in Europe. The Government are aware of that. They behaved sensibly in the last currency crisis. They stood fast and did not let the speculators win. I compliment the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Ministers for their forthright steadfastness in guiding the ship in Europe. I think there is a great future for this country. We must start off by believing in ourselves and encouraging the youth of the country to believe there is a future for them and be good Europeans.

I am pleased to see the Minister in the House again. It is always nice to see my old neighbours. It seems to me that on the other side of the House we have a plentiful supply of television and radio critics and potential editors of newspapers, or at least of Sunday newspapers. The advice I would give to these people is that if radio shows, television programmes or indeed newspapers articles irritate them, in the name of goodness stop reading them, turn off the radio programme or plug into one of those music stations where a person is bound to get some music to their taste and where they will be able to relax and be happy. Then they will not have to come to this House to unburden themselves of their irritations. I know the Chair is about to advise me that I should come to the main subject of the debate and that is just what I was going to do.

It was the damage to others he referred to.

He certainly seemed irritated by it.

Acting Chairman

Senator Upton, without interruption, please.

There are seven EC reports to be discussed this afternoon. From the tone of the speeches so far it would appear that they were not read to a very great degree. Indeed, I must be honest and say that I have not read them either and there are a number of reasons for that. First, these reports are exceptionally turgid. They are written in very dull, tiresome, Eurospeak. One would need to be in the best of form, have plenty of time on one's hands and little else to do in order to work one's way through all those reports.

Senator Murphy alluded to the fact that the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities was ineffective in generating any impetus in to the way we formulate policy in relation to the European Community and I share his frustration.

I also share the frustration which is widely felt in this House because we do not as yet, have a foreign affairs committee. This appears to be getting the "Yes, Minister" treatment. We have debated the matter and many requests for the formation of this committee but, to date, nothing concrete appears to be happening.

It is very difficult for people in Irish politics to make an effective and meaningful contribution to the debate in Europe. The nature of Irish politics militates strongly against that. That, coupled with the manner we get information from Europe and the way it is made available from the EC militates greatly against the ordinary people, and even against the average politician, coming to grips with what is involved. It is a great reflection on the EC and the people who run Europe — the European Civil Service — that it was necessary for one of the British newspapers, The Independent on Sunday, to produce a lay person's guide to the Maastricht Treaty. It is a pity that had to happen. If people across Europe are to be involved in decision making and are to understand what the issues are, a greater effort must be made to improve the way these matters are communicated to the general public.

A relatively small number of people in this country understand what is involved in developments in Europe — academics, business people, journalists, some people in the Civil Service and, I suppose, a variety of other people — but the average person does not understand what is happening in Europe. I must confess to having great difficulty in grasping what is involved. Things change rapidly, there is an enormous amount of information and it is very difficult to come to grips with it.

Over the past 20 years or so there have been considerable benefits for this country from the EC. For that reason I see the present developments in Europe as very worrying. The EC is now at a crossroads and is experiencing a crisis. That crisis was triggered off initially because of the knock-on effects from the reunification of Germany.

Europe is now gripped in a currency crisis which has very serious implications. That crisis may have been triggered by the result of the Danish referendum. One must accept, however, that the underlying facilitating forces and influences must have already existed for the Danish result to give rise to that problem. The narrow majority in favour of Maastricht in France added to that instability. The continuing difficulties which the Tory Party in Britain is experiencing and the disarray in which that party now finds itself, also greatly contribute to that instability. Indeed, the behaviour of some of the Euro-sceptics in the British Tory Party reminds one of General De Gaulle's attitude to Britain when he prevented that country from joining the European Community. One cannot help feel that some of these people were never fully committed Europeans; they have remained very sceptical and have many reservations about Europe.

A clear message of commitment to the European ideal should be given at the Birmingham Summit. It is important that something should be done to facilitate controlling and limiting the mounting tensions which are now to be seen, in particular in Germany. It is important that the message from the Summit would help to end or alleviate the currency crisis.

Talk of a two-tier Europe is not helpful. It is something this country should do everything in its power to resist and set aside. In particular, talk of some federal minded European States within the European Community setting up a high speed Europe while the rest would be left in second place would be highly undesirable.

There should be a full examination of the fall out from the French and the Danish referenda. There is a great need for the European Commission and the European institutions to become more open and more user friendly. They need to become more comprehensible to the ordinary people. From our point of view, it is very important that the notion of subsidiarity be developed and expanded so that those countries which can, should be allowed do their own thing within the framework of broader European policies.

I am concerned about recent suggestions that the powers of the Commission should be curbed. It is very undesirable that the big states should be allowed to have a greater role and that the functions and role of the Commission should be diminished. We have to recognise that the big states pay the bill and provide the finances to keep Europe functioning, but most of the progressive proposals which have helped this country initiated from the Commission. One gets the impression there is a constant tension, a constant struggle, between the Commission, which is seeking to broaden facilities and improve the welfare of states such as Ireland, and governments of the larger economies which, understandably, may be reluctant to provide the money for that development. As things now stand, it would be undesirable from this country's point of view for the powers of the Commission to be restricted. What will happen in the long term is a different matter. That is in the future; but there are many other implications to be considered in relation to how Europe develops, and so on. In the short term, in the present crisis and given the difficultues which exist in the developed economies, it is undesirable that that should happen.

I would be in favour of an enlarged European Community, at least in principle. That is where Europe should go and where the welfare of Europe ultimately lies. However, we need to look at that under two broad headings. There is the question of the EFTA countries which, broadly speaking, are well off; these would be the rich countries with successful thriving economies. If they come into the EC in all probability this country will benefit. However, if the Eastern European countries, poorer countries which have enormous difficulties, come into Europe, it will put further pressures on the budget and so on. Having said that, I am not suggesting that these countries should not be allowed into Europe. The way forward for us in Europe is through the integration of these countries. However, it is important that the manner in which they are integrated should be thought out very carefully.

We should consider the measures which will be needed to integrate these countries fully into the EC and how we should best approach that problem. I would not like to think it would be done in a willy-nilly manner, as with the reunification of Germany. Everybody in Germany appeared to think it was a great idea at the time but subsequently, very difficult knock-on problems arose. That country is now finding it quite hard to deal with those problems.

The expansion of the Single Market and the developments that will take place on 1 January 1993 give rise to a number of items of concern, one of which is the increased risk of the introduction of rabies into this country. That is a very serious problem to which very little attention has been given so far. I would like to see a far greater degree of public awareness of the risks and of public understanding of how those risks should be limited.

Then there is the question of the attitude of the United Kingdom to non-European nationals who live in the EC. That raises very difficult and important questions in relation to our dealings with Britain and how people from this country will have free access to Britain, which matter needs to be looked at carefully. I believe the deadline of January 1 1993 for the ratification of the Maastricht agreement will not now be reached but it will not be the end of the world if that happens. We had a similar situation before when it was necessary to hold a referendum in this country in relation to the Single European Act. However, the longer the ratification is postponed, the more difficulties it raises for this country: for instance, the longer it will be before the Cohesion Fund will come into force. It is important that we get the Cohesion Fund in operation as soon as possible.

I understand that Denmark has set out its main problems and concerns in a White Paper. The concerns centre on defence considerations and they would be shared by very many people in this country. They also relate to currency issues and to the level of social services. In relation to the level of social services, I would also find myself, to a large extent, in agreement with the Danish position. I would also agree with some of their concerns about defence.

We have to recognise that it will not be possible to renegotiate Maastricht. If we attempt to do so we will open an enormous can of worms and the whole agreement will become unstuck. At the time of the debate on Maastricht I was in no doubt that we should ratify it. I am glad we did so and I have seen no reason to change my mind subsequently despite what has happened in the intervening period. I still hold the same view and believe the long term interest of this country lies in staying in Europe and along with the lines broadly indicated in the Maastricht Agreement. That is not to say I approve of everything in the document, but our best interests are served by going down the road which Maastricht proposes in general. Every effort should be made to get the Danes off the hook and to facilitate them, as far as possible, within the constraint of this country not being able to renegotiate the Treaty, and accepting that the Treaty cannot be renegotiated.

In any debate on Europe we go back to the ideals which were behind the founding of the European movement way back when the founding fathers had the capacity and the wisdom to get it up and moving. Those ideals are still worthwhile. I have no doubt about that. The basic overwhelming drive in those times was the prevention of war in Europe and I do not think anybody would quarrel with that. With the turbulence which is now beginning to manifest itself in Europe those ideals are as worthwhile and as good as ever. We should be as anxious to promote them now as when the people started off after the last Great War. This is something which should never be lost sight of. When one sees incipient fascism, neo-fascism and all that sort of thing raising its ugly, disgusting, horrible, cruel head in Europe, I for one would be very much on the side of the people who set up those institutions to try and put an end to that kind of behaviour and to starve it off. We have to recognise that the forces which allowed fascism to develop are still there and they will again express themselves unless appropriate means are taken to prevent them gaining root and developing.

There is no purpose, either in turning our back on the fact that Europe has brought this country a great deal of prosperity. We have not exploited all the opportunities it has given us but, nonetheless, great opportunities exist for us. In many ways the EC allowed this country to get on its feet to take it place among the bigger states and have a voice at the top table. That is desirable. It is also desirable that this country should have that opportunity to make its contribution and I very much regret that we have not made a bigger effort to develop our notion of the way Europe should be going. I would encourage anybody who has any capacity or any influence in those matters to try to do that.

I welcome the publication of the reports and I welcome the debate. It is a pity the reports are not written in a style of language which would be easier to understand and more accessible to the average person. The quality of presentation of documentation which comes into this country from Europe, is truly appalling. It is written in single space type. All 72,000 pages of it are written in the same way with lines drawn under points of interest. It is terrible stuff. Anyone in the lecturing or communication business would know that. If I went on like that to the students I would be eaten alive and I would imagine if Professor Conroy went on like that with his students he would be thrown out. There would be riots. I think the Europeans have a major lesson to learn in the very elementary aspects of communication, without even getting sophisticated.

Senator Upton made one of the most valid points in relation to the Community, namely, the lack of communication between the Community and ourselves, the appalling gobbledygook we receive. As a result, many people feel it is totally removed from them. We have difficulties at times ourselves. What does an MEP do, in political terms? They are separated from us, they have no real relationship with us. That is one of the reasons quite a few Irish people, despite the enormous benefits we have received from membership of the Community, voted against the Treaty. Quite a substantial number of people did this and others wondered what was the reason. There were also many petty things. I fail to see the benefit of the purple rather sickly looking passports with which we are now issued compared wiht our traditional green passports of which we were very proud.

As Commissioner MacSharry has rightly said, the Maastricht Treaty was not about national identity, it was not about personal moral issues, it was not about conscription. Yet, people have a sense of interference with their personal identity. People are still Irish, are still German, are still French, are still Italian, British, whatever it may be. That should be recognised by the bureaucracy in Brussels.

However, that is not to say that the Community has not been of enormous benefit to this country. An article in the June edition of Business and Finance stated for example: “Last year we contributed £348 million to the EC coffers and got £2,198 million in return.” That is an enormous relative return. If we were trying to find that sort of money from taxpayers, from VAT or otherwise it would be an appalling imposition. At times we fail to realise the transformation of the economy of this country which has occurred thanks to EC membership. For us, what has been happening over the past few months has been quite a tragedy.

One of the most dangerous features of what is happening at the moment, is the suggestion which seems to be emanating from the UK, that the role of the Commissioners should be diminished. If this happened the bigger countries with larger populations and economies, who already have a dominant role as was seen only too clearly in the present European situation, would have an even greater role. One of the Commissioners' functions and duties is to act for all of the European Community. A Commissioner comes from a specific given country but acts on behalf of all member states. On many occasions they have shown clearly that they are acting in the interests of the Community as a whole and not of any one member. Their acting in the interests of the Community as a whole is of enormous importance to smaller countries, such as ourselves. I am very glad the Taoiseach has issued a very strong statement on the suggestion by the United Kingdom that, at the forthcoming European Summit, there should be some sort of bargain over the powers and rights of the Commissioners. Any such change would be detrimental to this country.

In relation to the Maastricht Treaty we approved it with a strong majority; the French approved it by a small minority. It is very clear from public opinion polls that in the United Kingdom there will be a majority against it. The same could happen in Germany. The legal situation is that some accommodation must be found to deal with the Danish vote against the Community.

The information I have from Copenhagen is that the majority of the Members of the Danish Parliament say there must be renegotiation of the Maastricht Treaty. This is a rather horrific prospect. I sincerely hope that, in discussions between the EC leaders on Friday, the modus operandi can be organised with Mr. Schluter of Denmark and his colleagues where, without a renegotiation, sufficient consideration may be given to the Danish concerns. Some Irish people had similar concerns and voted against the Maastricht Treaty. In Denmark there was a feeling of being overwhelmed by bureaucratic regulations, of being beside a major country, Germany, and a sense of a loss of their own identity. It is easy to say, as certain Danes have said, that one gets 100 different explanations for the vote but the trend of those explanations has tended to follow one of those three lines. They felt able to reject the Treaty and, despite all that has happened, Denmark is in a very strong economic position. In regard to the recent suggestions about a two-tier monetary system, Denmark is one of the few countries which would fulfil all the criteria for the upper tier.

We have not even begun to adapt to the implications of the financial situation. It is a tribute to our economic progress over the past few years, to the enormously improved financial situation in which we find ourselves, that we have a short breathing space to adapt. Eight, nine or ten years ago the recent turmoil in the markets, would probably have been devastating for this economy. That is not to underestimate the situation in which we find ourselves.

For industry the present interest rates are virtually unsustainable. The Government have moved very rapidly, efficiently and effectively to deal with the problems of exporters. Clearly, that can, and must, be only a very short term solution. One manufacturer said in an interview recently that exporters will use the funds to broaden their markets. It is excellent that they should do so because it means that never again will they be totally dependent on the United Kingdom market.

It will be extremely difficult for us to be competitive vis-á-vis the United Kingdom if our punt remains above sterling but not impossible. One of the great successes of the German economy has been that they have combined a strong economy with a very effective export and industrial system, perhaps one of the best in the world. This proves it can be done but let us not underestimate the enormous difficulties involved.

We have been very successful in the export area. Ireland is one of the few countries, which has a surplus vis-á-vis exports to Germany; Denmark is another. There are a host of other problems beneath the surface and which will erupt unless the monetary situation is cleared up.

Let us look at a problem which is affecting other countries. What will happen to the very vital motor manufacturing industry throughout western Europe? Will the French and the Germans allow the Japanese to manufacture Nissan cars in the United Kingdom and sell them at a very low price into their markets? I do not think they will do that for very long. Many of the problems we are seeing in microcosm can be seen on a large scale between France, Germany and the United Kingdom and they will have to be solved.

It is absurd that a Government, which accepted the ERM, and based their entire strategy on it, and argued up to a few weeks ago that it was absolutely vital, gave a long list of reasons for devaluation and for leaving the EMS, should talk about how much better it is to be out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. There is a contradiction here.

It is easy to blame the money speculators, although it is appalling that people should have been making vast sums of money by speculating on the variations in the currency levels. Nonetheless, allied with that is the reality that a currency cannot be kept above its true value for very long and as a matter of prudence, our industries and anyone dealing in exports, including our exporters, quite rightly found themselves in a situation where they had to buy sterling or sell sterling to maintain industrial and other exports to the United Kingdom. It is not a simple matter of blaming the currency speculators or the gnomes of Zurich, who were blamed 15 years ago. There is a lot more to it than that. We have a crucial path to follow over the next few months and I hope and I believe we can maintain our currency.

We will need to have a very clear, rational and organised policy in relation to the currency situation. We must be aware of the fact that in the conversations, leaks and rumours emanating from Central Europe one gets the strong impression that our colleagues from Germany in the Bundesbank have a very clear role to play, namely, to prevent inflation in Germany, which they are achieving successfully. Perhaps the main reason for the currency problems which exist at present is that on one occasion they allowed themselves to be contradicted politically when the German Government, against the advice of the Bundesbank insisted on equal exchange parity between the Deutsche Mark, which had a real value, and the Ost Mark, which was a virtually valueless currency. Many of the problems which we are experiencing today stem from a decision taken very much at a distance from us. That decision has done enormous damage to the German financial position and in turn, is reflected in some of the events with which we have been trying to cope in the past few weeks. These might seem domestic matters to some but they are very important to individuals who are trying to meet mortgage repayments. Many of these events, which may seem somewhat distant, can have either an immediate or a long term impact on us. A great deal of talk is now emanating from Germany about the retention of the Deutsche Mark; most Germans are in favour of retaining it. They are not in favour of the ECU replacing it. Discussions are taking place with a view to introducing a currency which would include the German Deutsche Mark, the French franc, and Austrian and Swiss currencies and possibly the Benelux and Danish currencies in a central European currency. If we are determined to stay within the EMS it is important to ensure that our currency — which, to a large extent, fulfils the necessary criteria — continues to maintain a relationship with the Deutsche Mark. We should not allow ourselves, even by accident, to be relegated to the second division because if we are it is unlikely we will ever re-enter the first division. Unfortunately, because of our geographical position and the fact that we are one of the poorer members of the European Community — for many years we were the poorest member — there is a tendency among many Germans in financial circles to disregard the Irish punt. They still have a tendency to think of the United Kingdom and Ireland as the British Isles, as one. I would much prefer to see the ERM continue. I should like to see a monetary union of all 12 states but if a choice has to be made we must make sure that we have our foot in the door for any European central currency.

It is a long way from that to countries like Somalia. One of the most recent worthwhile visits and actions by an Irish Minister was the visit by the Minister, Deputy Andrews to Somalia to bring events there to world attention. That has been greatly augmented by the visit of our President to Somalia which was very worthwhile. Somalia does not have any oil reserves and is not of any strategic importance. It is easy to forget about it, to look for a moment at the horrible pictures on television and then turn away and get on with one's daily life. As one or two speakers have already suggested, it is a dreadful condemnation of the European Community that, on the one hand, we pay farmers not to farm land and, at the same time, we see on television people starving to death. All sorts of bureaucratic and industrial reasons and reasons in regard to trade and currency can be put forward but at the end of the day in one part of the world there is a food surplus while in another part people are starving to death. It should not be beyond the will or capacity of the European Community to do something in that respect.

I will turn for a moment to the Common Agricultural Policy which has recently been greatly reformed. The Common Agricultural Policy was not introduced as a result of a charitable notion or because somebody thought it would be a good idea that Irish farmers should receive substantial payments from the European Community. It was introduced for totally selfish reasons, to ensure that the major countries of western Europe would have sufficient agricultural produce to feed their populations.

Let us not forget that the European Community sprang from the post-war situation and the Coal and Steel Community; Germany and France worked together in that regard. The same applied to the Common Agricultural Policy. It did not come down from the clouds like a stork, it was introduced for political reasons. At that time it was the accepted wisdom of bureaucrats, population experts, agronomists and all sorts of people that the world could not feed itself, the population was increasing and the way to deal with this problem within the EC was to ensure appropriate support for the farming community so that enough food could be produced to feed western Europe.

As Senator O'Brien is aware, if farmers are encouraged and a worthwhile market exists they can produce the necessary food. In countries such as Ireland, France and Germany the soil and climate are a tremendous asset and efficient farmers could grow huge surpluses of food if they were encouraged to do so. We have done that and have found as a result that there are food surpluses, posing huge economic and financial difficulties. Instead of paying farmers not to produce food, instead of imposing milk quotas while children dying in Somalia because they cannot get milk, I would have thought with modern communications, transport facilities and organisation, our priority should be to find ways and means of transferring food surpluses from western Europe — to areas where people are starving to death. I do not subscribe to the belief that if food is sent to those countries the people there would be discouraged from growing it themselves. That is another excuse for not doing something which should be done.

I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Andrews, and President Robinson visited Somalia and at least made it a point of discussion. Some of us were a little upset because it received very little media attention in our neighbouring island. In my view, that illustrates the fact that many people in power — I mean power in the widest sense, media power as well as political power — are not really interested in whether people are starving in Somalia; they would prefer to avoid the problem.

If Somalia like Kuwait had oil, no doubt an enormous effort would have been made to help; likewise if Bosnia had oil and was of crucial strategic importance, I wonder whether we would stand idly by while ethnic cleansing takes place. What a horrible new phrase? Many of us remember the photographs of the refugees, the deported populations from various parts of Europe and the photographs of the concentration camps. They have not got as far as mass gassing of the Bosnian people, but they have come close to it. The number of dead already has run into six figures. That is a lot of people to die, yet it is not one of our main priorities. It would be nice to think that we might be more concerned when the problem involves human lives and human suffering rather than simply the strategic control of the price of oil.

As Europeans, we should be in favour of enlargement of the European Community but I am concerned at the sort of impetus which seems to be developing whereby that enlargement would be concentrated on countries such as Austria, Switzerland and, perhaps, Sweden and Finland. The focus of the European Community appears to be moving towards enlargement. One would not mind if that movement is simply to encompass Central and Eastern Europeans. However, we should not allow a two-tier Europe to develop made up of a central Europe in which the very wealthy countries of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Benelux and perhaps, France and Denmark join together and then a second tier of countries, such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Ireland. Something is beginning to happen in relation to the enlargement of the European Community which does not bode well for this country. I am glad to note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, is putting some emphasis on the Visegrad countries and on the nature and manner in which the Community should be enlarged.

The GATT negotiations are crucial to our farmers. Tomorrow we will be looking at the economic situation and particularly the economic deflation which is occuring worldwide. It is difficult to see an end to it, but it is crucial that some accommodation be reached between the European Community and the United States in regard to GATT. This may not solve our problems; it probably will solve very few problems, but if there is no agreement, the economic deflation and recessionary cycle into which we are slipping will be aggravated I hope it will be possible to reach agreement, but we do not want to be used as a peripheral pawn in which Irish agriculture can be sacrificed at the altar of reaching an agreement which would satisfy the needs of the more industrialised areas of Europe.

The reports on the developments in the European Community are out of date. They deal with many areas, such as work of the Community and our relationship with the Community. Those reports cover a number of headings including the Community budget — which is very important to this country — external relations and trade and development co-operation about which we have been talking. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Andrews and others who did great work in that regard. The reports also cover customs policy, the free movement of persons and services, the Common Agricultural Policy industrial policy and a tourist policy. There is a vast amount of work going on in the Community which affects us. I should like to see European Community issues debated at least once in every session because what happens in the EC can have a great serious effect on us.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on these reports. I should like to deal with an issue raised by other Senators, namely, the responsibility of Ireland and the European Community to the people of Somalia. At a meeting of the European Parliament Jacques Delors, President of the Commission, spoke about the various activities within the Community. When referring to EC foreign policy he stated:

Our commitment to our neighbours to the East and South should not, however, distract us from our responsibilities in Africa, South America and Asia. This remains a central plank of our external policy. There can be no question of us relaxing our efforts at a time when debt and the growing threat of instability call for a strong political presence and sustained, if not increased, economic and financial support.

Lastly, the Community must be in a position to cope with emergencies anywhere in the world, aiding and alleviating human distress in the wake of conflicts, natural disasters and epidemics. Action must be swift — swifter than in the past — effective and tailored to requirements. The Community's responsibilities leave no room for political foot-dragging or bureaucratic red tape. This is why the Commission has taken the initiative of setting up a European Humanitarian Aid Office.

It is interesting, retrospectively, to read these comments of the President of the Commission. This is fine flowing rhetoric, beautiful sentiments, but abysmally out of touch with recent events in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. There is still scope for massive improvement in the Community's response to such problems. The President of the Commission said, and I repeat: "The Community's responsibilities leave no room for political foot-dragging or bureaucratic red tape". There has been nothing but political foot-dragging or bureaucratic red tape in regard to those countries.

I, too, applaud the recent visit to Somalia of our President and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews.

I agree with Senator Upton's comments about the formal status of these debates and the fact that the House discussed developments in the European Community only twice a year. This is the 20th year of our membership of the European Community. If one wanted a duller summary of the work of the European Community one would need to delve very deeply in the Library. The 39th report is identical to the 20th one which, in turn, was identical to the 5th. There is no sparkle, they are as dull as dishwater. Perhaps the fault lies with the masters in the Commission in Brussels, but something should be done about these dreadful reports to which we are supposed to address ourselves. They are most unsatisfactory.

Senator Upton spoke about the fact that we still do not have a foreign policy committee. We have an Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC. Indeed, I was a member of the first committee when I was elected to the Dáil in 1973. The committee is satisfactory in so far as its brief goes, which is a kind of retrospective reflective type of role to examine legislation which has already been enacted within the Community. However, it is not forward looking or multidimensional and positive initiatives cannot be taken by it. Consequently, there is a crying need for a foreign policy committee or, alternatively, for a European Community committee that could examine the contemporaneous and future scene, independent or retrospective legislation.

In regard to the political foot-dragging, it is regrettable that it is two years since we first talked about a foreign policy committee and the then Taoiseach gave a commitment, in principle, to the establishment of such a committee. However, we still do not know what is happening in that regard. We do not know when the committee will be formed or what form it will take.

The Community is going through an extraordinarily difficult period at present, probably its most difficult since its foundation. Many negative comments are being made about the community, its past, its present and its future. In the welter of criticism, it is important to be a little reflective and to look at the vision of the founding fathers of the Community, people such as Jean Monnet. He saw the fundamental raison d'être of the Community not in the area of economics, of agriculture, of getting money for farmers, not in the technical area, but as a fundamental means of achieving diplomacy and peace initially in France and Germany, then in Europe and the world. That was the objective of the European Coal and Steel Community and subsequently the European Economic Community.

The first World War ended in 1918 and the world, particularly Europe, was in such disarray and disorder that a second major conflagration occurred only 21 years later in 1939. That was a short interval between those horrific events in Europe. In the most negative sense of all, if the EC has achieved nothing else, it is a great credit to it that practically half a century has passed since we have had a war of the dimensions of that which took place in 1945. I do not think one could pay bigger tribute to the Community.

Recent events relating to Maastricht have been unfortunate. Our heart is obviously in the right place having regard to the result of our referendum in that regard. The Danish result was a little unfortunate and in my view threw Europe off the issue to an extent. Denmark is a small country and they voted against Maastricht by a tiny majority. A number of subjective issues were at stake in the referendum in Denmark which had no relevance whatever to Maastricht or to the European Community. Yet, what was decided by the tiny majority who voted against Maastricht in Denmark has had profound effects. There was a great fear in the southern part of Denmark — which shares a land border with Germany — of German dominance and aggression and, for no other reason than that fear of dominance, many Danes voted against Maastricht. In a sense they voted against dominance by Germany in their own internal affairs. Of course, that was irrelevant to Maastricht. The only two countries in Europe who were required under their constitutions to hold a referendum in relation to Maastricht were Denmark and ourselves. Our country's result was very stable.

The French referendum was close to being a catastrophe and, in my own view, President Mitterrand's behaviour in calling, for a referendum in France made him more of a pygmy than a statesman. At the time the decision was made in France to hold a referendum in relation to Maastricht, which was not required under the French constitution, the pro-Maastricht forces were leading the day in public opinion by about 25 per cent. With the polls running in that manner and public opinion massively behind Europe there was no necessity whatever, other than the simple ratification in the National Assembly in Paris to hold a referendum. Again, to be subjective, the result of the French Referendum was not based on the needs of Europe but on personal aggrandisement. Debates took place in which strange elements like Le Pen and the Communists were in agreement. There was a very reasonable distrust of European bureaucracy by many people and while anti-German feeling was a huge factor in the Danish vote, the crucial issue in France was the unpopularity of the President. Many people voted against Mitterrand rather than against Maastricht. The French result was a success because there were huge negative reactions prior to that poll. People were negative about the French President and about European bureaucracy. They were also conscious of the Danish rejection of Maastricht. Despite all that, on the day the vote was carried.

That, of course, was followed by what we have seen in the United Kingdom. It is regrettable they are having such problems at present in monetary and political areas in regard to Europe. I do not glory in it for one minute because it is not healthy for this country. It would be much healthier for us if there was unity in Britain and Ireland in relation to European Community events, an equilibrium between the two countries and parity in our currencies. There is huge discomfort in Britain at present following the devaluation of its currency. It is a great compliment to the Irish punt that we have been able to retain our relationship with the German Mark and other European currencies in such circumstances. At the same time, it is hugely negative for this country to have to trade with an imbalance of about 10 per cent in comparison with the previous position with a neighbouring island which still takes about 40 per cent of our entire exports. It is a very unhealthy situation.

With regard to the views held by Britain in respect of Europe, I can see why their judgment might be clouded because of historical events in this century to which I have referred. However, if I were an Englishman, while I might not love Germany, while I might not like the extent of Germany's success in Europe today, or the strength of the Deutsche Mark or the strength of Germany worldwide, if I were thinking rationally about things my conclusion would be that it would be very much in Britain's interest to be a good member of the European club and to continue to encourage the Germans to be the good Europeans they are. I would be encouraging federalism in Germany rather than nationalism. I would be encouraging the Germans to put their talents and aspirations in Europe because the logical conclusion of the Thatcherite approach to the European issue would be the disintegration of the European Community and the rising again of the nation state. If I were an Englishman I would have much greater fears about a rising German nation state than I would have with the very favourable behaviour of Germany in recent years, being the good Europeans they are within the European Community.

It is a tribute to the Community that, despite all the negatives that are going around, the Austrians, the Finns and the Swedes — previously outside the Community and not wanting to have anything to do with it — are now lining up to come in, and even the Norwegians are making positive noises about the Community.

Where our own country is concerned, I do not accept for one instant the argument that Irish sovereignty is diminished within the Community. They talk about Irish culture, Irish language and Irish music and say we are losing our identity. There is no evidence that in the 20 years we have been in the Community there has been any diminution of Irish nationalism, Irish culture or Irish music. Indeed, the integration is bringing us into dialogue with many other cultures in Brittany, Germany etc., which is probably more encouragement of our culture than had been the case.

The linkage for our Ministers in Council of Ministers meetings, the opportunity for Members of our Parliament for the cross fertilisation of ideas with members of the communities of other countries in the vocational groups and Government Departments, is extremely healthy. Irish sovereignty is strengthened rather than diminished by our being in the Community, because with an isolated Ireland outside the Community — three million souls out in mid-Atlantic — sovereignty might be a reality but it would be a nominal joke.

It is a heady experience for us within the European Community that, as a country of three million in a population of 360 million, we hold one place at the table among ten when the Prime Ministers meet. The same applies to our Foreign Minister and Agriculture Minister. In that sense the level of participation within the Council of Ministers is out of all proportion to our population within the Community.

I would like to speak briefly about the west of Ireland as it relates to the European Community. The House will be aware that in recent months the bishops in the west have been extremely concerned about appalling problems — demographic problems, land problems, problems in farms and industry, and huge unemployment levels. There are parts of Country Mayo where the unemployment level is 50 per cent, for example. It is against that background that there has been a huge amount of public activity in the form of meetings organised by the bishops. In turn, they have impressed the European Community sufficiently to have the EC fund a special study in relation to the west.

Studies can be a bit of a joke. We have reports since the State was founded about solving the problems in the west of Ireland. You could consign most of them to a waste paper basket; you could rightly consign this one too. It is like solving the problems in the North of Ireland. If six people of goodwill went into a room and sat down for three or four hours, they would solve the problem. There is a way to solve the problems in the west. You could write a blueprint for a new harbour in Mayo and put a price tag of £30 million on it. You could say you wanted a rail system with trains travelling from Dublin to Westport in less than three and three-quarter hours. Twenty-five years ago I was on a train from Tokyo to Kyoto, the distance from Dublin to Westport and back and it took three hours and ten minutes to make that journey, yet today it takes seven and a half hours to make the same journey. If we want to bring the west of Ireland into the real world we must build up the infrastructure, but there is a price tag on that of a couple of hundred million pounds. If you put the money into the kitty, as sure as day follows night you will put the show on the road in the west of Ireland.

The merit I see in the study being undertaken by the European Community about the west of Ireland is that it will point up that it is a marvellous part of the country. It is a great place to live. It would be a great place to work if there were jobs. Jobs can be provided there, but at a price. I would like to see the European Community study highlight something we know already: that the part of this island west of the Shannon — and for the Minister's benefit we will take Clare into that, and possibly Longford — is distinctly and uniquely different to any other part of Ireland. That point has been missed completely by successive Governments in recent years.

My single greatest disappointment with our membership of the European Community is not, strangely, with what has been happening in Europe — we have had ups and downs in our European policies — but that every Government since 1973 have taken up the European Regional Development Fund and insisted on dispensing that fund nationwide. There is as much of this money going to Dublin, Meath and Kildare pro rata as there is to the poorest parts of west Clare or west Donegal. That is wrong. We argue in Brussels that we are on the periphery, we argue with the béal bocht — the poor mouth — and we want to get money out of the European Community, yet, when Dublin gets the European Fund, the same generosity is not shown in the context of the periphery of its own country.

If this study highlights nothing else, I hope it highlights the problems, the history, the present and a positive future, but the corollary of that will be funding on a massive scale. I would like to see an Irish Government — and I do not care which Irish Government it is — designating the west as a special region within the country and indicating to Brussels that it would welcome the designation of that region for special funding, and within Ireland that region would be accountable to a Cabinet Minister.

The debate this afternoon could easily have been taken with the economy on the debate tomorrow. That became clear from the speeches we have heard. There are a few points I would like to make in support of my colleague, Senator Staunton. There is deep concern about these reports, which are now out of date and of no benefit to us. I would ask the Minister, Deputy Daly, who is not always given due credit, to take this concern on board. He will be remembered forever if he brings us closer to Europe, even if it is only through reports.

We have been in the EC for years. I will only barely touch on this, but I want to put it on record. I had hoped that, sharing a strong European sense with elected people in the Northern part of this country, we would see ourselves as one unit and one nation and forever do away with the horrible divide that continues to be between us. Europe was the one chance I saw years ago, and I still have not given up hope.

I think we have to start looking at change and hope. The headlines in the media every day are pessimistic about everything that is happening here. Some of us should talk more about hope, even if it means more change, and this can only be done in the whole European context. Everything is dictated to us by regulation or by direct legislation affecting us as Europeans. I have to be careful now because of the new friendship of some of my colleagues in my own party and other parties, in case what I am going to say is taken the wrong way but it is a pity that England has gone down this anti-Europe road. It would have been much better for this nation if Prime Minister John Major had stayed on course and followed the line he took when he was elected Prime Minister of England; he was a strong European and he was as committed to Europe as everybody else, but for party reasons he seems to have lost his nerve and he seems to be pulling back from that strong stand of being a committed European.

Nobody can say to me or to my colleagues here this afternoon that we are less Irish or less nationalist in our thinking because we are committed Europeans. I had to clarify these points in my own mind when we were dealing with the Maastricht issue: were we being swallowed up as a nation by Europe? Would we have our own identity if we went down that road? Having listened to some of the speeches made by our friends in different parties in England and coming back here and looking at our own situation, I have no trouble in deciding that we stay with Europe.

I would like also to pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and to my former colleague, and now President of Ireland, President Mary Robinson, for the trip they made recently to Somalia and to refer also to the trip the Minister made on his own. While paying tribute to those two people this afternoon, it would be wrong of me not to put on record — and even if the Minister of State, Deputy Daly represented another constituency I would do so — that he probably has done more travelling to some of the afflicted countries in his capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs than anybody else.

We all serve in local government, so this sector is very relevant. I welcome the money from Europe going into roads like the Bunratty bypass and the extraordinary expensive sewerage and water schemes that have been put in place. However, I plead here today — and I would ask it to be taken from here — that money be given for country roads. There are roads other than the big highways and they are every bit as important for the promotion of industry and tourism and for the creation of jobs and prosperity. I would ask the Minister to ensure that money would be provided every year for those roads as well. There is a need here for a strong regional policy and I ask the Minister, Deputy Daly, to bring this suggestion to Government. I will stand over this. I will probably be rapped on the knuckles, but I think they are afraid to do that.

Senator Staunton spoke about the West of Ireland. We should speak not only about the West, but about the rest of Ireland. This brings us back to what is involved if the status of Shannon Airport is changed. I want to put this on record. I am sick of saying it, despite this glib comment by people elected, and not elected, that there she is again only watching the votes, only minding one or two constituencies. I have spoken here at length on leaving in place structures outside Dublin that have been successful and that are needed to maintain employment. I will keep on saying it. I do not give a damn who takes a poor view of it.

I welcome all the legislation that is being put in place in a European context to support women's issues and to deal with discrimination against women in the workplace, on boards and so on. This is not a road I go down too often, because I am a strong believer in staying with the lads; but the interesting thing is that past and present Governments — and probably the same will apply to Governments in the future — did not put some of the legislation in place until they had to do it, until they were directed by Europe to do so. We should ensure the continued decentralisation of some EC institutions in Ireland and not have them all in one street. There is the rest of Ireland to be looked after, but I suppose Europe has helped us to some extent in that direction also.

I want to refer to the social fund. In the past there was excellent social funding for special schools and workshops for mentally handicapped people. Some of that funding has either dried up or is not in place any more. Because of my special interest in this area, I want to put on record that that should be corrected. I welcome warmly the European decision to clear the Mullaghmore project in north Clare. I could not understand certain politians, representing constituencies far from the Mullaghmore project, going public when it was eventually cleared and saying that they were doing another check on it. I suggest that those politicians, whether they be MEPs, TDs or Senators, stay on their own stamping ground and we will look after Mullaghmore and see that north Clare is in order.

Does the same apply to Shannon?

I am surprised at a former Cathaoirleach interrupting.

I would like to thank all the elected people in Clare for supporting it. Of course, all it will do is put jobs in place. I thought that is what the whole exercise was about.

This brings me back to morrow's debate. We could have taken the two discussions together. I want to pay tribute to Commissioner MacSharry for the job he has done in Europe, but I would appeal to him in his last few months not to give way to the Americans. I watched a programme last night with a little sense of worry that he might go down that road at this late stage, having held such a firm stance all through these negotiations. I would like to wish him well. When his contribution to Irish public life has been written about, we will see that he played a greater role in Irish public life than we even knew about. He was a credit to this nation. He did his job well. This programme I watched dealt with the policy of set-aside in farming. The effect of setting aside 15 per cent of land worried me deeply. That contradicts a lot of what former Ministers and Governments thought Irish farming was all about. However, I will not go down that road. I will just make that comment because I feel strongly about it, having read about it and watched this programme.

As regards changes in the future, I welcome them. Even though things do not seem to be great at the moment when we see the extraordinary unemployment figure, the only way to put jobs in place is to think and act positively and not to adopt this approach of "We cannot do this or we cannot do that". I remember years ago asking my late husband to do something. He was then a serving Member and I was not. He said: "Tras, that cannot be done." I remember turning to him and saying: "Derry, in my language there is no such word as ‘cannot'."

We have a lot to do. There is great hope and great interest in the young people coming after us. We should talk more positively about this great nation of ours. This is where I agree with Senator McGowan this evening. I would appeal to RTE and the media to be more positive about what Ireland has to offer our people and not to be always looking at what is wrong here.

First, I think it is important to put on the record of the House that the business before the House this afternoon is to discuss activities in the European Community from the period starting on 1 January 1988. That is unfortunate, because during a period when there has been so much change in Europe, so much discussion in Europe and so many political proposals, this House did not have an opportunity of having an input and passing on a message to our own Ministers who, I am confident, do an excellent job out there. It is not in accordance with the original 1972 Act, which said that the Houses would have an opportunity of discussing the six monthly activities of the Community. I hope the Minister of State will not allow the same thing to happen again. Surely the Members of this House have an input that possibly could be helpful to the various Departments——

I think the Minister has no responsiblity for that.

I do not accept that, Sir. The Minister is part of the Government and it is the Government and the Whips who decide on the agenda.

Acting Chairman

The House decides on the agenda.

The House has asked over the past five years for this debate. It is a nonsense that the democratic voice of this country is excluded from having any input into the momentous changes that have taken place in Europe. We must be very conscious of the fact that those changes adversely affect the lives of every person in this country. It is not good enough for a Minister to stand up, as one did last weekend, and say that farming incomes have gone up this year by 10 per cent when every bank you go into has a queue of farmers waiting to be interviewed. I doubt if the bank manager is inquiring about where they are going to invest their additional 10 per cent. We have a responsibility to have an input into the policies of our Government Ministers in Europe. If we are in a democracy, surely there has to be some way of dealing with that. I repeat it is a nonsense that we cannot have, as the 1972 Act states, six monthly debates on the activities of the Community.

That being said, I would like to put a few questions to the Minister. We have had the debates on the Maastricht Treaty, we have had the referendum and the people have voted in favour of the concept of economic and monetary union. I have had the opportunity of travelling fairly extensively in East Germany and Poland during the autumn. The £6 billion the people voted for in the Maastricht Treaty referendum is something that may very well come, but I would like to know where is it going to come from.

The last time I was in Berlin was in 1987 and the changes that had taken place there since 1990 are very evident. Consider the cost to the Federal Republic this year of building up the infrastructures in what was East Germany. The Federal Government had to spend on new policies for renewal, for unification, for the infrastructural development of East Germany, for new policies on social welfare, for changes in education and even on compensation for the properties that were confiscated by the Communists since 1945. The cost of that to the German taxpayer exceeds the entire budget of the European Community. In addition to that, the Federal Republic seems to be by far the most significant contributor to the EC budget.

The German nation has a huge task before it which no other European country would be capable of taking on. It is evident to me that the German people cannot continue to pay more and, therefore, there has to be a levelling off of funds from the EC unless other countries like Denmark, Britain and France are prepared to contribute a greater share towards EC funding to realise the aims and promises of the Maastricht Treaty. Our expectations must take a more realistic turn.

The German nation is catering for over 50,000 asylum seekers each month. We accepted less than 200 people from eastern Europe this year and there was much trouble before we acquired facilities for these people for which I compliment the Government. I was told by a German Minister recently that in September 54,000 asylum seekers there sought housing, social welfare, education facilities, health services, etc. That is an extraordinary budgetary aspect with which the rest of the European Community is not burdened.

The EC as a whole must be prepared to look seriously at the problem of refugees and at the entire problem of eastern Europe. In this country at present the focus of public attention is on Somalia. I tried every second week without exception from the time we came back in February to ask for a debate on the famine situation in Africa, including Somalia. We did not get it but I am glad the voluntary agencies, the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are involved in the matter and have made a very significant contribution. I compliment President Robinson, for taking upon herself the onerous trip to Somalia to focus attention on the plight of the starving people.

I submit that we should also look at the 2,500,000 homeless people in the former Czechoslovakia where the weather is harsher than in Africa, where they have a different type of civilisation but find themselves in a serious plight. On the back page of the Irish Independent today there is a picture of a man who froze to death on a street in Moscow, illustrating the grave hardships millions of people in eastern Europe will suffer this year because of the failure of Government policies in that region over the past few decades. Since the collapse of the communist system the person on the bottom ring of the ladder has been put in an impossible position. In the short term our charity must be more widely dispersed.

Last year I said in a speech here that the focus on Africa should be combined with attention to the needy in Europe. Aid in the short term should go towards people who have neither food, shelter nor clothing for the coming harsh winter in Europe. I am conscious of the difficulty of getting Governments or the EC to move quickly and I am also conscious of the fairly generous aid contributions that the EC has given to practically all affected regions in Europe. Perhaps the Minister might remind the House and the public of the huge amounts of money going in that direction.

Sadly, it has not been possible to stop the fighting in those countries or to get people to negotiate together. People who have second thoughts about Maastricht and European Union or the European ideal in general should be subsidised to enable them to visit any east European country to see the effect of 45 or 47 years of political stagnation and communist rule on the infrastructure and on people's lives. In town after town as one drives through east Germany one sees houses bombed in the early 1940s which have neither been demolished nor renovated.

Much may be said in favour of the communist system but under the public housing programme, a housing block for over 50,000 residents was built, a potential nightmare for a guy canvassing for an election. The quality of life in a housing block with 50,000 people — there are 51,000 or 52,000 people in my county — is questionable and to have them all in one block a couple of hundred yards long sounds like a nightmare. The apartments measured 400 sq ft. with two and three families in each apartment. People in that situation need to be helped. This will necessitate sacrifices on our part and will slow down the evolution of Europe considerably.

Over the past month we have had hassle from moneychangers, who also gave trouble in Our Lord's time when he was obliged to eject them from the Temple. They have been at it again because they do not want to see monetary union going through. There would be more for them to get their snouts into if they could pull that one off. The kind of difficulties these money hasslers have introduced and the uncertainty, fear and hardship that has befallen people who have lost their jobs or have been put on short time has not been adequately or accurately calculated. The Governments of the member states of the EC should take the strongest possible steps to prevent a recurrence of that situation. It is not going to be an easy problem to tackle.

The Irish Government handled the debate on the Maastricht agreement incompetently. It was badly sold, and were it not for the way the Taoiseach gilded the lily by promising £6 billion in aid and development, it would not have gone through. Nevertheless, having regard to evident hardship whether in Africa or in eastern Europe, Irish people should be encouraged to appreciate their luck and to build up the infrastructures here as best we can.

I notice in the rebuilding of East Germany that the Government there are spending ten times more on rail infrastructures then on the road network, a statistic that surprised me. The reason is that they say they can move people more economically by rail, with less delay and congestion. I know that CIE or Irish Rail are anxious to ensure an investment of £30 of £40 million in the upgrading and the improvement of the rail services between Dublin and the West, especially.

I am told that the cost of the bypass to Portlaoise is estimated at £37 million for seven or eight miles of bypass. I am told by CIE that £30 million would bring the rail link between Dublin and Sligo up to European standard. That would be money well spent. The rail infrastructures from Dublin across to the West of Ireland should be improved, with new links added on perhaps. I hope that the Government will look in an expansive mood on my friends, Shannon Airport Development. I cannot understand why a semi-State organisation wishing to save money can think of no other way but by slashing hundreds and thousands of jobs, an extraordinary way of making savings.

I hope with our new economic outlook that we will look positively at the entire country. Since the new Leader programme and EC support are helping to promote farm holidays and tourism, we should aim to provide the best possible transport infrastructure, not only to the West of Ireland but to the midlands and other underdeveloped areas as well. If we are going to spend multiples of £30 million bypassing successive provincial towns, It would be a good idea to install a few fast rail links across the country at the expense of one or two of those towns. Naas was the first town to be bypassed and the towns were much opposed to it initially. Eventually it went through, but in the last few years the same bottleneck has returned, but within the next 12 months the bypass of the Waterford/ Kilkenny road will come into operation affording them some peace again. There has been a huge increase in road traffic and were it not for the input from the European Development Fund all of our road network would be the same as the roads in Cavan.

People who say we get no benefits from the EC cannot be looking at the quality of our roads when they are driving around the country. An amount of money has been wisely spent on upgrading the infrastructures giving numerous relief from heavy traffic so that people there do their shopping and business without battling through passing traffic.

Every Government have significant problems in trying to establish an order of priorities. This week the Birmingham summit takes off, one which we should watch with considerable interest here. It is difficult to know whether the current Presidency of the Community, the United Kingdom, will make strenuous proposals to bring the Community and Europe out of the current monetary depression. Unless somebody makes a proposal it is going to be difficult to do that.

On top of that we have the problem with the Uruguay Round in the GATT negotiations. The Sky television debates of the presidential election in America last night would not inspire anyone with confidence. No matter what we say about Europe, even if one were listening to two or three different languages, there would certainly be a better performance from any single country of the Twelve than what went out on public television from America last night or early this morning.

One would do better in Cusheen.

That first performance left much to be desired. We should look positively at the system evolving here in Europe. Our contribution as a small insignificant nation is one of being honest broker. Our input has always been good. Our Ministers have taken the European role seriously, which we can be proud of. When one sees people performing as the Americans do it should give us hope that we will do well when we are pitted against them in negotiations.

I hope that our Ministers will work extremely hard to ensure that the conclusion of the GATT negotiations will not mean yet more reductions in Irish farm incomes. It is important that as an economy we accept the democratic views of Europe and maximise on policy changes. We must produce whatever is required and ensure that we get our share of the market. We are fit to do that.

I am opposed to the concept of a two-speed Europe. That concept has not emerged over the past couple of months but has been there for the past 20 years. It was even proposed by Mansholt himself back in 1972 or 1973 and we need to be eternally vigilant to make sure that does not happen again. If it did we might find ourselves side-tracked and perhaps forgotten about. I ask the Minister when replying to this debate to reassure the House that the Government will oppose the concept of a two-tier Europe vigorously and defend the status quo. The Maastricht Treaty seems inimical to the growth of a two-tier Europe but powerful factions within the Community have consistently tried to bring about a two-tier situation.

This year has been dedicated to health and safety at work and under the aegis of the EC, many programmes have been launched to enhance living and working conditions throughout the European Community. Next year I understand that the theme of improved housing for the aged and disabled will be adopted. In preparation for that our Department of the Environment might highlight the figures of our most recent census which indicated that the number of retired people in this country at the end of the present decade will have increased by almost 80 per cent over the last 20 years of the century, a frightening figure considering that Government agencies are not providing services, geriatric beds or adequate special housing facilities.

As the concept of the extended family is fast dying in this country there is going to be a problem with caring and housing aged and retired people in the next six or eight years. We should be providing for that eventuality and next year the Department and the Government have a glorious opportunity to make plans, and to highlight the dangers inherent in the situation.

I noticed recently a proposal from the Commission to introduce yet another transport tax. I would like the Minister to explain this to the House because hauliers are already at a disadvantage with two seas to traverse to move our produce to the heart of Europe. Transport costs and road tax are more expensive here than in Europe and now we are going to be hit with a further tax that would place our exporters at a considerable disadvantage. I would like to hear from the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if our industry and hauliers are going to be exempt from this tax. It is often forgotten that transport represents 17 per cent or 18 per cent of our GNP and is an important industry although a fragmented one. Protection for transport is necessary to enable us to compete with other European countries.

Regarding cohesion and development policy and new policies associated with the Leader programme we have not had sufficient explanation and an opportunity in the Oireachtas of debating the opportunities we are told exist to avail of significant grants in the private and public sectors. Announcements have been made with the new development programmes under Minister Hyland and Minister Noel Treacy and yet it is difficult to get an explanation or the parameters of these new programmes. I wonder if the Minister during this debate would explain to the House, and to the country what exactly is involved, what can we expect and in what way we can utilise the new procedures to assist the development of rural areas. I heard the Minister announce that agricultural incomes have increased by 10 per cent.

There was a conference last Sunday in Portlaoise.

It was not open to the public and I would have been happy to go with half an invitation as it was only down the road from me. I hope the Senator had an enjoyable time.

Regarding European proposals and new initiatives, we would need to cut in on the benefits the first day they are announced and not wait for several years until the funding has evaporated or has been spent in Spain, Italy, Portugal or somewhere else. When new systems come on stream our public service is slow to get members of the public involved and I would like to know if that was dealt with at length at the agricultural conference of the Fianna Fáil Party held in the Killeshan Hotel in Portlaoise last weekend. Information should be available to everyone so that all can avail of the opportunities that present themselves. The Minister could touch on that in his reply to this debate next week.

On 1 January next changes in customs policy come into force and there has been much unease among people working in that area who are facing job losses. It would be useful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government propose to redeploy these people.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn