I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report: Developments in the European Communities — 40th Report.
Fortieth Report on Developments in the European Communities: Motion.
I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House.
I am glad to have the opportunity to address the Seanad and I wish you, a Chathaoirligh, and your colleagues every success in this session. I am mindful of the remarks made in the last ten minutes and I will try to bring Senators up to date with regard to present developments despite the fact that the debate is technically anchored in the report before the House. I trust that I will satisfy Senator Farrelly's desires for information on GATT because as a rural Deputy I am mindful of its importance.
During the last year the Community passed through a difficult period. When the Maastricht Treaty was signed on 7 February last year there was a degree of confidence that a new and challenging stage in European integration was underway. Since then the ratification process encountered problems of acceptance in a number of member states.
The crisis in the European Monetary System, a key element of Maastricht, was a severe disappointment. However, after a period of turbulence the new alignments have settled down and promise more stable conditions for the future.
I feel that this period of difficulty is passing. The go-ahead from the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe yesterday removed the last obstacle to the Treaty coming into force. It now seems likely that the Treaty on European Union will come into force on 1 November 1993.
While the ratification of Maastricht furnishes the backdrop against which developments in the Community will take place in the years ahead, the immediate agenda now focuses on the conclusion next year of the enlargement negotiations with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway and the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round.
These are challenging issues which have to be pursued against a backdrop of economic recession. Nonetheless it is indicative of the strength and purpose of the European Community that, notwithstanding the unfavourable economic climate, we are determined to make real progress in these two areas. We intend to bring the GATT Round and the enlargement negotiations to a successful conclusion in accordance with the timescales originally envisaged.
There are many substantial areas to be negotiated in the process of enlarging the Community to a membership of 16. Good progress is being made in the negotiations. The Government is particularly conscious of the implications in the institutional area of enlargement, in this regard interest has focused on the position of small member states and their relative share of decision making power.
This debate goes to the heart of the Community's unique institutional structure which protects the position of the smaller member states in a number of important ways: an effective guarantee of at least one commissioner per member state; a weighting in the voting strengths in favour of the smaller member states; a similar weighting in European Parliament representation and the right of all member states to hold the presidency on equal terms.
No formal proposals have yet emerged for arrangements which would alter this balance. Indeed the European Council at its meeting in Lisbon in June 1992 concluded that this current "enlargement is possible on the basis of the institutional provisions contained in the [Maastricht Treaty] and declarations." This conclusion was reaffirmed when we met in Copenhagen in June of this year.
However, it is clear that in some quarters, particularly in the larger member states, enlargement is seen as an opportunity to bring about fundamental changes in the existing balance in the Community. I totally reject any move in this direction as it runs counter to European Council decisions. It is strongly opposed by the majority of member states and Ireland and others have made their opposition clear.
The existing institutional arrangements have evolved over time and serve the Community well. They contain a balance between the interests of large and small member states unique among international bodies. This balance was an important political consideration for Ireland when we made our decision to join the Community. It has served us well over the years. I question whether it is opportune at this time to get involved in a new institutional debate.
The Community spent nearly four years engaged in the debate which produced the Maastricht Treaty and its ratification process. The negotiation and ratification process has been a bruising experience for the Community. It has required the expenditure of much political capital and energy. A further debate on institutional development will only distract attention from the more pressing and priority tasks confronting us.
The most obvious priority must be economic growth and the reduction of the unacceptably high levels of unemployment throughout the Community. The European Council in Copenhagen recognised this priority, belatedly some critics might say with justification. It is a priority which Ireland will be pursuing vigorously.
Our contribution to the Commission's White Paper on a medium term strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment, which will be before the December European Council, has been placed in the Oireachtas Library and has been made available to Senators. In Ireland's contribution, we single out unemployment as the challenge to be met and call for concrete action at Community level to deal with it. Unemployment must not be viewed as a problem to be overcome by the member states alone. It is one for the Community.
As I said before, unemployment is not an issue of figures and aggregates. Unemployment means misery and despair for millions of people throughout the Community. It is an issue which has to be addressed as a much more relevant priority than a barren debate over institutional issues going over ground well covered in the Maastricht negotiations and which can be examined again, as was the original intention, when we come to review the treaty in 1996. That review will be more soundly based if we can look back on a successful implementation of the Maastricht Treaty.
We cannot ascribe the current problems facing the Community to institutional frailty — especially not to frailty in a Treaty which has yet to be given a trial. Our citizens will not welcome a new wrangle about the respective roles of larger and smaller member states. Such a wrangle will do nothing to improve the Community's well being or image among its citizens. They will rightly expect Ministers to concentrate on issues requiring immediate attention, such as unemployment and economic growth.
A major discussion on institutional issues will not facilitate the completion of the enlargement negotiations. A fruitless debate on the relative positions of larger and smaller member states could well erode support for membership among the electorates of the applicant countries. Such an outcome would not be in anyone's interest, especially not of some of the larger member states which have genuinely espoused the enlargement of the Community as a major item on the agenda for the 1990s.
I base Ireland's case on the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit. The current enlargement is possible on the basis of Maastricht. There is no evidence smaller member states acquit themselves less well in a Presidency or within the Commission than larger ones. There may indeed be some evidence to the contrary.
We are willing to participate constructively in the evolution of the Community's position on institutional development in the enlargement negotiations. This position should be prepared in the normal way in the Council as is the case with other important dossiers such as agriculture and regional policy. If there are real concerns as to how efficiency should be maintained in a Community of 16 states, the Council is the correct place to air and resolve these concerns. I would have doubts about special arrangements for the institutional dossier. I see no need for a Dooge committee, for example. The conditions which required that committee, chaired by an eminent former Member of this House, do not apply now.
My comments on the issue of larger versus smaller member states apply to this round of enlargement negotiations. I am not prejudging a debate on the institutional structure of a Community which is further enlarged. That possibility could create a new set of circumstances and change will be required to maintain the effectiveness of the Community and of the European Union. However there is time for that debate and there is no need now to prejudge its outcome.
The Community has achieved a unique level of integration. This has been possible because of institutional arrangements designed to ensure the interests of all member states are satisfactorily accommodated. This principle has served us well, whether in a Community of Six, Nine, Ten or Twelve members. It will also serve us well in a Community of Sixteen.
Last July in Brussels the regulations for the European Community Structural Funds were adopted. The implementation of the Community's 160 billion ECU programme — equal in real terms to three times the Marshall Aid programme — will impart a major stimulus to the attainment of cohesion, the promotion of growth and the creation of employment. Progress towards these objectives will help to overcome disparities in national economic performance in advance of European Monetary Union.
On Monday the Taoiseach launched our National Development Plan, the most comprehensive and far-reaching programme for national development in the history of the State. The National Development Plan is a £20 billion programme which draws together spending from the public and private Irish sectors and from the European Community. The plan has many essential and complementary aims. It articulates and advances the intention to meet the European Community objective of economic and social cohesion, to support the competitiveness of our economy, to overcome poverty and social exclusion and to encourage the full participation of women in the plan's measures.
However the single overriding aim of the plan is job creation. Throughout its lifetime, from 1994 to 1999, up to 200,000 gross jobs will be created in industry, services, natural resources and construction. The plan has four core elements: first, investment in the growth potential of the economy in industry, agriculture, natural resources and tourism; second, investment in infrastructure to extend the productive capacity of the economy; third, development of skills by committing more than £3 billion to education and training; and fourth, fostering local development and community initiative.
Over the period of the current Structural Fund programme from 1989 to 1993, Ireland succeeded in narrowing the gap between our level of development and the EC average. With this plan, given the breadth of the consultative process, the cogency of its strategy and the value of its objectives, we can go further. The objectives of the National Development Plan lie at the centre of an ambitious but pragmatic economic framework. The aim of this Government is to maintain sound economic policies to continue with our progress in convergence.
Despite the turbulence in the currency markets last year and the subsequent suspension of the narrow band of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, Ireland's practical commitment to European Monetary Union remains. A return to the narrow bands is not envisaged in the near future. We will strive to maintain exchange rate stability and to sustain the policies that have brought us closer to the Maastricht targets.
The second stage of European Monetary Union is scheduled to commence in January 1994. This involves the establishment of the European Monetary Institute, the forerunner of the European Central Bank. The special European Council meeting on 29 October is likely to address the location of the EMI. We support the transition to the second stage in line with the Maastricht deadline and take the view that the special European Council should reaffirm the commitment of the Community to the objective of European Monetary Union.
The interests of small states can often be better served as a member of a larger and more powerful group, provided the ground rules are such as to protect the interests of all its members. This is especially true in the context of international trade where there is a growing trend towards the formation of large trading blocs, such as the European Economic Area, the North American Free Trade Area and the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation group.
It can also be seen in the current GATT negotiations where Ireland can make its views known in the Council of Ministers, which sets the policy to be pursued by the Commission in the negotiations. The EC, as the world's biggest trader, carries a weight in these negotiations far greater than the sum of its individual member states and gives Ireland a voice it could never hope to have on its own.
The contribution to growth and economic confidence by a successful and early conclusion to the Uruguay Round trade talks has been highlighted. The talks have been under way since 1986 and are already far past their deadline. They cover the further liberalisation of world trade, the strengthening of GATT disciplines and their extension to new areas such as trade in services. An effective deadline of 15 December for the completion of negotiations has been set and intensive efforts are under way to meet this deadline. The Irish and EC approach has been to support an early, global and balanced agreement to conclude the round. As a small open economy, dependent on exporting, we value the boost to world economic activity a successful agreement will provide and the greater certainty it can inject into the world trading system.
At the same time Ireland has continued to insist an agreement cannot be reached at any price. We have highlighted our concerns about the Blair House EC/US agreement in the agricultural area, related particularly to proposed cuts in export subsidies. We have had intensive and productive discussion of these difficulties within the EC followed by contacts with the US which are continuing today in Brussels. We are hopeful these ongoing negotiations with the US, as well as the parallel discussions in Geneva on subjects such as market access, services, textiles and dispute settlement, will result in a global and balanced outcome by the end of the year.
In recent years Europe has gone through a period of tumultuous economic and political change. Ireland together with its EC partners has worked intensively to consolidate reform and achieve greater stability and prosperity in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Extensive aid has been made available and the EC has entered into association agreements with six of the countries most advanced in the reform process. Last week in Brussels I had the pleasure of signing the last of these two agreements with the Czech and Slovak Republics.
At Copenhagen last June the European Council adopted a wide ranging group of measures aimed at furthering Community relationships with Central and Eastern European countries. Greater trade liberalisation was granted, economic integration is to be broadened and a regular process of dialogue at high level, notably on political topics, was agreed. The vocation of these countries to join the Union was recognised explicitly and both sides will gear their activities in coming years to achieving this goal. In this context the Union has also to take into account its own momentum towards integration.
Events in Russia remain preoccupying. At the General Affairs Council in Brussels last week Community Ministers reiterated their support for President Yeltsin and the reform process and underlined the importance of rapid restoration of peace and democratic order. We also had the opportunity to hear a report from the Commission on progress to date in the negotiations under way to link the EC and Russia through a partnership and co-operation agreement. The Council agreed to accelerate its work with a view to concluding these negotiations before the end of the year.
The European Community has also been playing an active and constructive role in supporting the peace process in the Middle East following the breakthrough represented by the signing of the Israel/PLO agreement. The Commission responded rapidly to developments in early September by presenting to the Council a large package of proposals covering assistance, contractual relations and regional co-operation.
Ireland supports this comprehensive and diversified package, which will enable the Community, which is the largest international source of assistance of the Occupied Territories, to play its full part together with the international community and the Gulf countries in an ambitious co-operation programme embracing the economic development of the West Bank and Gaza. We in Ireland intend to play our part in this process by doubling our bilateral assistance to the Occupied Territories next year.
The importance of the European contribution to international affairs is well illustrated by the new opportunities opening up in the Middle East. The courage of Mr. Rabin and Mr. Arafat deserves political and economic support from all of us who have so much to gain from a resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict. The Twelve, acting together, can and will be a major factor in providing such support, whether as donors to the Palestinians in encouraging the continuing negotiations within the peace process or in helping Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbours to learn from the European experience of regional economic integration.
In South Africa, the elections next April are a source of hope to all South Africans and to the Southern African region as a whole. At the same time, as Nelson Mandela explained to the Taoiseach and myself on Sunday, there are important hurdles still to be crossed in South Africa. Here again, a sustained interest on the part of the EC can be of great value to the peoples of South Africa in the conduct of free and fair elections, assisting economic development and maintaining the pressure on all elements of South Africa to accept reform and democracy.
As I announced in my speech to the UN General Assembly, the Government has decided to respond to these favoured international developments by strengthening our already good relations with Israel and the Palestinian people and by opening an embassy in South Africa.
I have given the above outline of Community developments so as to bring the Seanad up to date on this important aspect of Government policy. An ordered and progressive evolution of the Community and of our participation in it is crucial to the continued well being and indeed, the prosperity and development of this country. We have a fundamental interest, therefore, in ensuring that our Community policy is widely understood and appreciated. I hope my statement will contribute to this process and assist the Seanad in its own deliberations on developments in the EC.
I welcome the opportunity to speak and, like Senator Quinn, I find it difficult to understand as to why we are discussing a report which is a year and a half old but thankfully, we are being allowed to diverge from this report, which is much appreciated. The Tánaiste has used this opportunity to give us an up-to-date position of the current situation. He dealt with the process of enlargement in great detail. We are aware of the possibility of the four EFTA countries shortly joining the EC, but this is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. There are national difficulties in each country and the majority of opinion in some of them is against becoming members of the EC.
In his speech, the Tánaiste dealt specifically with enlargement and institutional change and I am not sure that the position adopted by him today as regards us not taking part in institutional reform or change in Europe is necessarily a wise one. There are major forces within Europe who are currently conducting a debate on institutional change and for us to bury our head in the sand on this issue at this stage would be extremely unwise. As a small member state, we cannot allow a debate in Europe at any level without us being aware of it and actively involved in it at all times so that we can put our position strongly on any proposed changes.
Serious discussion is currently taking place on enlargement and institutional change in Europe. One argument being strongly put forward by some parties in Europe is that before enlargement can take place there has to be agreement on institutional change. By institutional change they are referring to fundamental changes in relation to Commissioners, their numbers, the process of decision making, removing the veto and having a majority vote. These matters are relevant to Ireland and we cannot afford to ignore them.
The Tánaiste today has adopted a specific stand — this matter will not be discussed; we will not involve ourselves in it; the process through which it should be dealt is the Council of Ministers. This will be an extremely unwise approach if a debate takes place outside the Council and gains such momentum within the other organs of the Community that we will be unable to put our case by the time the matter arises at the Council.
The argument concerning institutional change and enlargement could be usefully conducted and there is an opportunity for Ireland to link up with the four countries who are applying — Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria. They are small countries with similar problems and interests to ourselves. Recently I attended a conference in Europe where all four clearly stated that they were not happy to have agreement on institutional change as one of the preconditions to their entry. I would agree with the Tánaiste in so far as the mechanism is there for enlargement through the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, pressure is being exerted and there are forces abroad that are pushing that line. Rather than saying that we are not taking part, we should be aware of what is going on, interlink and communicate with parties and countries of similar concerns to ourselves and become a united force against any measures that may harm us.
I understand that part of the discussions about Commissioners will be that the larger member states who currently have two Commissioners may have that number reduced to one. The final details have not surfaced yet but active discussion is taking place. Will it be proposed that the smaller member states may not have a Commissioner or only rotating Commissioners? We should have clear and strong views and we should articulate them not just on a party basis but on a united front.
This is an opportune time for the Government to present a Green Paper on the developing Europe and the Europe of the future. A discussion should take place on these fundamental issues, where all parties and interest groups here can make their contribution and have their say. They should be aware and alert. At a later stage we should not find ourselves in a situation in which we were not actively involved in formulating.
For instance, Denmark is adamant that institutional change cannot be a precondition to enlargement. Sweden and Norway also hold that view and are extremely concerned about the implications of EC membership and the effects of GATT and CAP on their agricultural development. They operate a similar type of family farm operation to Ireland and they are concerned. Norway is concerned about fishery potential and the future of this industry. We should be forging strong links with these countries. Of the four, it appears that Austria is the closest to agreeing conditions of entry with the EC and is the most anxious to become a member as soon as possible.
There is another issue that could become a hot political potato in Ireland, that is political union and security. Norway, Austria and Sweden are very anxious about the security element and wish to be involved in a European union for security purposes. Their background is different from us. Norway is also anxious to become involved with NATO. These are matters we must discuss. We must take an active position, be clear on our approach and not just react to situations as they arise. We should anticipate what is about to happen, be prepared and have a particular viewpoint.
The current debate on the GATT negotiations is extremely important. I am not sure that the European Community is doing us justice as far as those negotiations are concerned. I am concerned not only about the position of Europe on this issue but the position of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Tánaiste. It was unfortunate that the Tánaiste suggested the Government could be bought off by EC compensation and the US negotiator made the same suggestion at the same time. It was a little more than coincidence. It did not strengthen the position of the Irish negotiating team or Ireland's case at European or US level. It is not surprising that the US negotiators are playing hard ball at this stage because when senior people — the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Tánaiste — negotiate in such an amateurish and ineffective way, the other side will take full advantage. In the final analysis the people who are affected are our farmers. It was no coincidence that there was a huge number of farmers here yesterday lobbying Members on what is taking place. One wonders what the future holds for them, particularly for the medium to smaller farmer.
We have something in common with the countries applying for entry. We have medium to small family farms that need to be sustained, yet we have no active policy on how that will be pursued. We seem to accept it as a fait accompli that this is what the future holds; we will accept it and we will be paid compensation from Europe to get these people out of agriculture. If and when that happens rural Ireland will be literally depopulated and the entire social fabric of a community will be taken away — the support systems, the social services, schools, post offices, Garda stations etc. This is an extremely important issue and we are not addressing it.
No Minister has seriously tried to present a plan to save rural communities. The Leader programme has been introduced and is making great efforts in this regard but it can only skim the surface. Unless specific direction, support and policy are introduced and actively implemented by Government the various programmes will only skim the surface of the problem and we will make minor adjustments to what will eventually become a major social issue.
At a meeting yesterday somebody remarked that it was a pity so many railway lines had been lifted 30 years ago because today they would be an enormous advantage in certain areas. There is no point 20 years from now saying it was a pity that in 1992-93 the Government did not have the foresight to realise the disaster that would be face rural communities because it did not negotiate more vigorously at European and GATT levels.
In relation to monetary union, as a member state, we must address how important it has been, the benefits that have accrued and how we are positioned for the future. Last year for about two months small and medium industries faced difficulties because of the exchange rate mechanism, and subsequently the IR£ was devalued. There were many jobs literally on the brink. In future we must make sure that there is a certain band under which the exchange rate mechanism can operate to ensure that no major disasters follow because of movement in any direction. One has to question the position of Germany at that point and how committed and closely bonded the Community is to it at a European monetary level. It is important that the Irish Government have a clear view of the position of Europe regarding political and monetary cohesion.
The Community was not prepared for the taking down of the Berlin Wall and East Germany coming into the union. When it happened it became a matter for the Community but the Community was not ready. In future, before the Community involves itself in a major political development, it will have to analyse and work out the cost and the best way to deal with it.
A number of eastern and middle eastern European countries have applied for membership of the Community. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary have been offered the prospect of accession, not immediately but at some time in the future. We have to look at the importance of that issue in relation to the current situation in the Community. Is the EC, as it stands, ready and prepared? Has it the political strength? Is it becoming closer and more politically involved? Are its structures capable of dealing with such an expansion? Will an expansion of the EC at that level dilute or strengthen the importance of the Community? I suggest that before we proceed with any further expansion or enlargement we should seriously examine the current political, economic and monetary strengths of the union as it stands. We should see if the level of political will and commitment that existed some years ago is as strong now as it was then.
This is very important because if we enlarge the Community too quickly without ensuring closer, political bonds among the current member states, we will weaken the Community's effectiveness. In Europe today we cannot afford a weaker European Community. We need a Community that is becoming politically and economically stronger and has a worldwide identity. It is important that as a member state on the periphery we are aware of and alert to that fact and we should not allow ourselves to be marginalised or minimised. We must remember that Ireland has always been to the forefront and has actively supported the thrust of the EC since its accession in 1973 and it is equally important that we watch our position for the future.
There are many issues that could be raised here today. I am not an economist or an expert on currency. I will leave that to a former Minister for Finance.
We also have to seriously look at the institutional changes. I am concerned about the Tánaiste's approach to this issue, he is unwise to ignore what is happening in certain parts of Europe. The Tánaiste and the Government should be prepared to take strong and well argued positions on anticipated issues, which could be done by presenting a Green Paper on Europe.
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy T. Kitt, has been effective in this capacity and he should consider the matter. Will the Minister of State ask the Tánaiste and the Government to consider presenting a Green Paper on Europe so that we may openly discuss these issues and take a definite stand on them? All sections of society, the academic and business world, unions, farmers, various professional groups and ordinary people could have an input.
One must be impressed by the attention given by the Seanad to this issue. We discuss motions such as developments in the European Community and give the impression that we are serious in our consideration of important elements. However, we must acknowledge that the attention of the Members to this issue is a sad reflection of our role and responsibilities. The role and relevance of the Seanad — I will return to the role and relevance of the European Community — must be considered if other matters receive priority when issues such as this are debated.
Is it more important to provide county councillors with football tickets instead of playing a meaningful role in Seanad debates? What is the role of the Seanad if we avail of the opportunity to absent ourselves during a debate of this nature? That is not good enough because the issues at stake are of considerable relevance. I regret having to make that observation, but it is our responsibility to do so. I hope this will change in the future. We can be blasé about these matters, after all we have been elected, the job is done and we are in our places. We must justify our position, otherwise we do not deserve to be here. The attention of the country today — and this is relevant to the European Community — is focused on Lansdowne Road. It is the biggest event of the week as far as Ireland is concerned — and I make no critical comment on this. I share the interest and preoccupation of the sporting public in this event.
I presume the Senator will be there.
When in Government I would have been there, but I doubt if I will now.
Perhaps the Senator could get one of the councillors' tickets.
I will be there or I will watch the match on television. I understand this preoccupation and I share the determination of the people to succeed in this great European event.
Another significant decision regarding the Maastricht Treaty by the German Federal Constitutional Court hardly rates attention which says something about the lack of conviction in the European Community and the failure to communicate with the people of Europe as to the priorities being pursued. That says something about the relevance of the European Community to the people and their immediate concerns. They perceive a lack of conviction, direction and consistency in the Community, its impact on their well-being, especially in the area of unemployment, is not positive and vigorous.
The Tánaiste's comprehensive introductory speech — and I am glad he did not confine himself to the period of the report — lacked one essential element, a critical analysis of the relevance and effectiveness of the Community over the past two years and, particularly at present. It was bland and smacked of bureaucratic reporting on what happened as distinct from the political muscle required at a time when there is a lack of conviction and urgency in the Community.
The Tánaiste would have been entitled to use the occasion to say we are not happy with the lack of direction in the European Community. I intend to underline a number of areas where there was conviction and leadership during various periods when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Finance. I do not attribute this to my contributions, but rather to the convictions of the leadership.
We should use the occasion to state this fact, otherwise it will be left to the comfortable, detached and secure personnel of the institutions, particularly in the Commission at the Berlaymont. Will we allow them to carry on without relevance to unemployed people in Seán McDermott Street, Cork, Galway, Mayo, Kerry, etc., or to farmers who must wrestle with CAP and GATT? We should be critical of these issues and I propose to address them today — this is the last time I will refer to Landsdowne Road — because the human condition responds to leadership, direction, purpose and teamwork. The attitude to the Irish team, whatever the result, is significant because people see commitment, purpose and determination.
Is that leadership evident in Europe today? Can one point to any inspiring figure in Europe who is getting the message across to the Irish and European people? I cannot identify any such person. In fact, it is significant that the President of the Commission said yesterday the European Community is going through a period of moroseness and uncertainty. He is right, but it is not just his role to comment and observe. It is his role to point to the practical, realistic, direction to take us out of that period of uncertainty.
If one looks at the relevance of the European Community over the period of its history, and I wish to dwell briefly on this, its impact was in direct relation to the impact on the peoples and countries that formed the original Community. When the original European Coal and Steel Community came together there was solidarity within the Community because of the necessity to bring about cohesion — that was when cohesion really meant something — and to ensure that we would never again have internecine warfare in what became the European Community. There was a purpose, a direction, a dynamism, a leadership and all the godhead figures, Spaak, De Gasperi, Schuman, were part of that direction and purpose which gave the whole European Community which we were so anxious to join in later years its purpose and dimension. It is a far cry from that today.
In later years, during the periods when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Finance, this was still sustained, and the European Community had a purpose in terms of internal cohesion and laying down the guidelines towards economic and monetary union. In the leadership and strength of people like Helmut Schmidt and Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, who brought about the EMS in 1978 and 1979 and who launched many of the initiatives which are still waiting implementation, there was a central leadership in Europe which was the precursor of what we all thought would be a new dynamism under the current President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who brought to his role and office a great sense of new purpose and dynamism. I acknowledge that but why has it been lost in the meantime? The conviction and purpose of the early days are not evident in the European Community of today, and are not inspiring the people of Europe who see the institutions and discussions, these interminable meetings in Brussels, matters which are apparently the regular preoccupation of the officials of the European Community, as irrelevant.
People wonder what relevance the European Parliament has for ordinary people. Are the people served by the meetings of the Parliament, by those who go to Parliament? Are the Commission's meetings directly relevant to the needs and well-being of the people at every level in our community? Not to the extent that they should. Let us give some reasons, it is not just a judgment on my part. Under the Maastricht Treaty we were supposed to have a single currency by 1999. Before a member state could become locked into the single currency that country's currency must have been a narrow band currency for at least two years. This is what Delors and the Heads of State and Government said we must do. However, instead of moving towards a common currency they have moved further away from it than we were 20 years ago.
Is it any wonder that the people of Europe, those of them who even follow these events, are totally confused and lack any degree of confidence in the European Community? Our currencies are floating freely. The European Monetary System was launched as a precursor to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. In 1979 at Bremen when we became a full blooded member of the European Monetary System all but two countries adhered to the discipline of the narrow band currencies. Now, 14 years later, when we are supposed to be making progress towards a common currency in Europe and the European Union, not one of us is within the narrow band of currency fluctuation. Is it not time that we admitted we have abandoned the aims we set for ourselves as recently as the launch of the Maastricht agreement?
I do not mean that Ireland has abandoned these aims, I mean that the European Community and leaders have done so. They should admit they have departed from the original aims and set new priorities, directions and targets. They have not done that. Is it any wonder that there is a lack of respect, a lack of feeling for a Community that meant something real to the peoples of Europe and ourselves when we joined in the 1970s?
Let us look at another event which was not even touched on, I regret to say, in the Minister's speech. I am talking about the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the tragic events in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the failure of the European Community to do anything positive and meaningful to prevent that terrible human tragedy. We should not have witnessed genocide in Europe. We were weak, ineffective and purposeless in the face of that awful tragedy which is still going on, although not to the same extent.
There is a point at which our level of acceptance of tragedy is such that we are not impressed unless the level of suffering is greater than the day or week before. I regret that the war was not referred to by the Tánaiste, because it concerns the Irish people. Many of our people were ashamed because the European Community——
That is right.
——was powerless to intervene, or not sufficiently motivated to ensure that what was happening on our own doorstep within our own Continent, would not be tolerated. If we are looking at it purely in terms of economic impact, it is literally on the direct trading line within the European Community. There is no way that the Greeks can get to the market of Europe internally without coming through Bosnia-Hercegovina as it is on the direct route. It is almost as if there was an outbreak of war somewhere between here and Portlaoise, and we were trying to pretend that it did not affect traffic between Dublin and Cork. It had a major effect on the internal trading of the European Community, and we had the capacity to be quite blasé and say it was not affected.
It is important that we should not be blasé any more about Europe being a matter for the Commission officials and the European Parliament. Terms like cohesion, solidarity, and——
Subsidiarity.
——do not mean much in Belmullet or in Cork.
If we got the chance to have the by-election they would.
That is right. The secure EC bureaucrats who are on levels of pay, salary and security a long way from Belmullet or Dublin know what subsidiarity means, but are they fired with the determination to put it into effect? I do not intend to give a definition of it now, it is their business to do so.
If I seem to be critical it is only because I was one of the young idealists who joined the Eurpean movement here in the early days when I came into this House in the 1960s. I believed then and believe now that Ireland's role in Europe and the relevance of Europe for us bound us together. I believed that our cultural links could be re-established and that has been done, it has been one of the great successes of the European Community. We have matured as a nation, we have found that we are not just caught up in the Anglo-American mainstream of culture, but have a role and relevance in a broader Europe. We can gain respect and play a role in Europe and the outside world. We have done that to a large extent, but it is because of that close link we have the right to be critical in the interests of a Community of which we are part. We owe it to every person and country in the Community to point out where we think it is losing direction.
Recent polls throughout the Community show, for instance, that 71 per cent of the Germans, who were always the powerhouse of the European Community, have no interest in monetary union. They disagree with it and think it a mistake. On the other hand the Commission — and the Maastricht Treaty for which the Irish people voted — says that monetary union is a central part of the whole process.
The same poll result is reflected in Denmark and France, never mind Britain. If we asked people at home what they feel about it now I think we would get an interesting reaction. Some 71 per cent of the Germans said it was a bad idea, and if it is, will we come up with a better one? We have to listen to our people. Support for monetary union is falling throughout the member states.
Let us look at the developments in Europe and then see how we can make Europe relevant. The main development in Europe, apart from the horrific events in the former Yugoslavia, has been the adjustment from the totalitarian regimes of communism in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and elsewhere in recent years. Let us think like the Germans or the French for a short while if we want to get an impression of where Europe is going. We cannot see it from our own point of view all the time. The Germans are next door to Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland which are their immediate markets. They are closer to them than Ireland and much closer than Greece, Spain and Portugal, historically, culturally and economically through trading links. Will we ignore the fact that the Germans, understandably, will have a higher priority in their attitude towards Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia than they might have towards the peripheral regions of the European Community? Let us recognise some basic facts. Their trade links with these countries were established long before there was a European Community. I know it was interrupted by the totalitarian experience of Communism over 40 to 50 years but it is back again, with new attitudes towards Russia and the possibilities there. A little bit of honest reappraisal will do nobody any harm. Let us look and see if there is a new momentum, a new priority, and if so, what is its relevance to Ireland and what role can we play in it? It seems that everyone wants to ignore these realities and complain about institutional reforms and other matters. Institutional reforms will not set the people of Ireland on fire. It would if you said that the German, Dutch or French commitment to the EC budget is changing and that we will have to reorganise our approach in the light of those changing priorities. They are changing and we do ourselves no service by pretending that the game is the same as it was last year or two years ago, it is not. We could complain about the German attitude but that will not solve many problems. In my last official engagement as Minister for Agriculture nearly two years ago, I heard Helmut Kohl telling the Agriculture Ministers of the world that he was happier facing the budgetary problems in anticipation of German unification than he would have been without them, which was the case the previous year with little or no prospect of German unification. It was a straight, honest statement to the world from a German who informed us of his priorities. Will we ignore this or do we think that Germany will be more concerned about Ireland, France, Italy, Greece and so on?
I am worried about the failure to address these realities and allowing the EC Commission, which is meant to be and was originally the driving house and the executive function of Europe, to engage in almost platitudinous exercises, giving the impression that matters will proceed as heretofore. They will not; we can keep programmes going for a certain while but they will be unable to proceed if the political direction and priority changes in the member states. In that event the EC Commission or any other organisation will not be in a position to proceed with programmes. This is the question I wish to see addressed as a matter of urgency and honest appraisal.
The GATT negotiations involve a delicate and difficult balance for the Government. I was directly engaged in those negotiations in Heysel two years ago when we resisted and refused the demands of Ms Clara Hills and her conegotiators to conclude the negotiations. The Irish and the French prevented a conclusion to the GATT negotiations two years ago. I suppose it is easier to prevent something happening than it is to facilitate the development of what is acceptable. However, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Desmond O'Malley and I blocked an agreement then for almost three days and nights.
I mentioned that it is difficult to achieve an acceptable agreement and this is where the balance now under consideration must be found. I agree with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs that we require a global and balanced settlement. On this he must have the full support of the Government and Members in this House. I interpret him to mean that we require an agreement that does not specifically focus on agriculture but which is comprehensive and wide-ranging across a whole series of issues.
The Americans displayed a remarkable capacity to ignore the protective practices in their financial services and an even more remarkable capacity to insist on their right to keep that out of the negotiating arena. This is not consistent with what might be described as a global and balanced settlement. The Americans managed to focus attention on the export refund as if it was the only element in the whole range of issues to be discussed under the GATT. Clearly it is an element but a global and balanced reduction should be agreed and I support the Government in its attempts to achieve this.
We have a vested interest in liberalised free trade. We are an open trading economy and, more any other country in the EC, we depend on open access to markets. Therefore, we must be seen to be supportive of a new liberalised world wide trade environment. These discussions cannot be conducted in the public domain because very delicate adjustments cannot be achieved in such circumstances. In view of this I do not insist that I should be in any sense privy to whatever adjustments the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to this morning but I express my confidence that there will be a satisfactory outcome as a consequence of the attitude which the Government has been adopting. Nevertheless it is important to get the balance right from our point of view. We need free, open trading more than any other country in the EC but we must have a special concern for our main industry.
If our approach is to be dependent in terms of production patterns, and I talked to farm organisations when I was Minister for Agriculture about this, on intervention mechanisms and the mechanisms of the EC to the extent that the market driven policy becomes less important than access to intervention, then I would not support it. In this respect I have another significant recollection from the last meeting I attended at the Anuga Trade Fair at Cologne two years ago. The buyer for the best premium chain of supermarkets in Berlin was in attendance. This chain pays the premium prices in Europe. Berlin pays 20 per cent more than anywhere else because it has always been subsidised by the German Government. For example, a professor will get 20 per cent more remuneration in Berlin, a student will get a 20 per cent higher grant and the wages are 20 per cent higher than in Frankfurt and elsewhere. This was the situation at least up to German unification. At this trade fair a buyer from this top class chain of stores told me he could not afford to buy Irish beef because he could not compete with intervention. On my return I told the farming organisations that this farce could not continue. If the GATT brings about a change in that kind of activity it will be doing so in the interests of establishing an effective policy, but it must be done in a balanced and realistic way.
The EC is an important dimension in the GATT and free trade. If competitiveness was to be the only criterion in terms of the world economic order and the socio-economic balance, we have the answer in the form of more technology, namely, by replacing more and more humans with computers and robots. We can become more competitive in this way and send our goods out to the markets of the world but at what price? It is evident that the totalitarian and communist system has been a disastrous failure. However, we must ask whether the capitalist system, which is supposed to be promoted strongly in the GATT, has been — or is — successful. Will rampant free trade, based on competitiveness alone as the criterion, help or hinder the people we are supposed to serve? When one examines it one must acknowledge that the development in technology and computer information systems and so on which makes us more competitive is done at a human cost.
One has to sympathise with the Government at this point. They must gear us to be effective and competitive but at the same time ensure that competitiveness is not achieved at the expense of reducing employment. This is happening at present, it is happening in the case of Alcan. There is no point complaining about multinationals. We should recognise the reality that such companies are telling us we must stay competitive and to do so we must reduce labour costs which, in effect, means reducing the numbers employed. This is a huge challenge for all Governments, including ours.
Some experiments are being conducted at present, notably in Spain and, I presume, by some of our universities and academics — I see Senator Lee in the House. The concept and role of economic systems have to be re-examined. It is time we became directly and actively involved in this reappraisal, otherwise the price of being competitive will be too high. Major consideration will be given to these issues at the EC Summit in Brussels in December where a strategy for growth and employment will be debated. Since 1972 I have probably attended more summits than any other person in this country. I know the mood that exists at summits and the way they are conducted. I hope this one will not be conducted on the basis of papers being submitted, conclusions being reached and statements being made on those papers. More urgent action is required for a strategy for growth and employment because critical questions must be discussed.
The Tánaiste referred in detail, and properly so, to the institutional reform that may be necessary as a consequence of the enlargement process to accommodate Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. There is a library in Europe of reports on institutional reform; it is a veritable fountain for those interested in researching such reports. I can name many of them — the Tindemans report and the report of the Trois Sages, the Three Wise Men, etc. There is a plethora of them. We are not short of reports and we are having another one.
The difference, apparently, is that all the previous reports dealt with the fact that the dominance of the Commission by the bigger member states should be reduced. Those of us who were members of the Council at the time made sure that the reports maintained this direction with the result that we were proposing a reduction in the number of Commissioners with the bigger member states having one commissioner rather than two. All the reports recommended this but it was never implemented. When we consider institutional reform now the opposite is recommended — reducing the role and representation of the smaller member states. This runs counter to the purpose of institutional reform as we knew it and would be very damaging to the Community.
Let me give another example: it is being suggested that the Presidency arrangements should be changed so that smaller member states would not have the same significance as some of the larger ones. I am thrilled to hear the Tánaiste take a vigorous position on this. It can be said loudly and clearly that core elements in the development of the European Community since we joined over 20 years ago occurred when Ireland held the Presidency. Let there be no doubt about that. Things which could not have been achieved under a French Presidency were achieved under an Irish Presidency. The Irish Presidency begins after the conclusion of the French Presidency as Ireland comes immediately after France in alphabetical order. An example is the Lomé Convention. My immediate predecessor stormed out of the discussions on the Lomé Convention because he could not achieve agreement as the French were seen as a former colonial power. He was enraged, he stormed out and said, you take it from here. This was before our Presidency started. As a small country we had a role to play in the context of the Presidency and we discharged that role. We should remind those who are suggesting that small countries do not have the same significance as larger ones that they are ignoring the reality of the European experience in recent times if they pursue that line.
The Tánaiste, understandably, made considerable reference to the fact that the National Development Plan is being backed by the resources of the European Community, the Government and the private sector. I will not speak about this in detail as we will be having a further debate on it.
I want to make one observation at this point. I made it before but it must be repeated. All the other elements, such as agriculture and infrastructure, are vitally important. The European Community, as it was evolving, did not have a common education policy for good reason; education was not regarded as an essential feature of employment creation.
The Social Fund evolved through training schemes. Our Department of Labour, as it was then called, became expert in drawing down funds from the Social Fund. We became so expert that we were consulted by the Greeks, the Portuguese and the Spaniards, when they joined the European Community, as to how money from this Fund could be maximised. I am sure that is remembered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments. We maximised our receipts through the training agencies, notably AnCO as it was then called and FÁS as it is now called.
I want to lay down a very important marker. In the National Development Plan £3 billion is provided for education and training. I hold the view that the balance should be very definitely shifted towards education at all levels and away from training. We have built up empires using moneys from the Social Fund. We have interview systems and schemes, people travelling for interviews and being interviewed; the private sector could probably be better in this role. If I want a man or woman with specific experience I do not need to go to a State agency to tell me the kind of person I need. There are so many of these agencies that one could be going around in circles. Can we not see this for ourselves? Is only happening in my area? Is it only happening in Tipperary? Meanwhile at every level of education, primary secondary and third level, which is the real basis of the knowledge required for permanent employment, we have problems. I understand why, historically, we could not draw down from the Social Fund for education, but now we can.
We all recognise the problem of high unemployment and the fact that schemes can remove people from the register so that the numbers unemployed do not appear so high. All governments must have regard to that. However, the reality is that long term sustained employment will be best achieved through education rather than programmes.
One recent development which I welcome is the move towards peace in the Middle East. I have not said it up to now but the record will show that during our presidency of the EC we played a major role in this process. The first time the PLO could even be mentioned as a party to the eventual settlement was when I had the privilege in 1979 as Minister for Foreign Affairs to represent the European Community at the United Nations. It took some time within the European Community to get this agreement because two countries in particular did not want the PLO to be mentioned, said that these principles had to be accepted by all the parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I am glad that the principles which I adumbrated then — and I must get the record from Iveagh House — are those on which the agreement which has now been reached between the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel is based. I say that as a tribute to the excellent professional service provided by the political directorate of Iveagh House, their political antennae and sensitivity to all the views and attitudes. They helped vigorously to get agreement from the nine members, as it was then, to make that statement. One could say that it was almost the foundation stone of what has now been achieved. That is a measure of what a small country can do during a presidency and of the consummate professionalism in our public service.
Today's football match will be watched all over Europe, particularly in Denmark and Spain. Perhaps there is a message in that. We can show a sense of urgency and direction by making an impact in whatever way we can and creating an awareness of Ireland — our separate identity, character, culture and food. When that awareness is there the rest will follow, irrespective of the changes in the European Community or GATT. It is important to have enough confidence to beat the best of them and we can do so on all fronts.
I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. I suppose we can count ourselves lucky. The previous speaker referred to a great event today, I suppose that is why we are honoured by the presence of the Tánaiste and his Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, who are welcome.
The Tánaiste mentioned the currency crisis, the national plan, GATT and peace in the Middle East and parts of Europe. I would like to make some comments in connection with these issues, the way we are dealing with the overall problem and the problems which arise from decisions taken in Europe on a number of these issues. I was a member of the Council of Europe for four or five years. At that time 23 countries were represented and today 28 or 29 are represented. That organisation plays a major part in bringing together other states who are not members of the European Community but who want to be members and it begins discussions at Council of Europe level.
I was a member of the Council of Europe when the Social Charter was discussed and there have been many developments since then. It begs the question how the UK can decide to opt out of the Social Charter. Situations develop at summit meetings where agreements are made but are not signed by all the countries. This has resulted in the development of Europe not moving as fast as we would have liked and the recent débâcle of the currency crisis.
I want to mention the currency crisis, the problems which it caused and how it was dealt with. Since then many people are not happy that it is safe or satisfied that a similar problem will not occur again. The way in which the currency crisis was handled here left much to be desired. It not alone cost the State £300 million, it cost every person who had a mortgage or a loan from a financial institution a substantial amount of money which they are still repaying. As a result, the buoyancy and growth which we would like to see in the State has not taken place. That débâcle was handled so badly that it is hard to believe we still have the same Minister for Finance who told us we could not afford to devalue our currency. However, at the end of the day there was no other choice when substantial amounts of funds had been lost.
The next aspect I wish to discuss is the developments in the CAP and the changes which affect Ireland. I mention this because many decisions are taken without fully taking into consideration their seriousness for a small economy such as ours. The beef, dairy, sheep and grain sectors make a large contribution to the economy. Changes in those sectors have been accepted and were not vigorously opposed by the Government or the present and previous Ministers for Agriculture. The policy introduced by the then Commissioner MacSharry of setaside — to leave land fallow for a year without producing any crop and to pay farmers for so doing — did not take our land and weather into consideration. Heavy losses were incurred this year by those producers. It is a pity that an Irishman negotiated an agreement which affected growers to such an extent. The bad year has wiped away the surpluses we were producing to make a contribution to the Community.
We accept the proposals in the CAP agreement in relation to the introduction of a slaughter premium for beef nine months ago and they will be discussed in the context of GATT. The first animals were slaughtered nine months ago to be eligible for this premium. However, five months after the date on which payment was due, thousands of farmers are owed substantial amounts of money which has already been paid by the European Community to the Department of Agriculture or to the Government. This money is still in the Government coffers. Most, if not all, has already been promised as repayments to financial institutions. The Government failed to implement proposals introduced and agreed in Europe.
There are many other similar situations in the agricultural area and I hope we get an opportunity to discuss them with the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh. He blames everyone else for failures in different areas but, since he became Minister he has failed to deal with the problems and to represent the people he is supposed to represent.
The Government has allowed a situation to develop from the different proposals CAP brought forward. We are now opposing the GATT negotiations because a number of these areas will be seriously damaged and will have a major effect on the economy. We are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Given the National Development Plan introduced this week, is the Government committed to the protection of agriculture and agricultural incomes? What progress can be made in the industrial area? This morning the Tánaiste mentioned the creation of a possible 200,000 jobs. The Taoiseach said the number may be in the region of 55,000 and, if we are lucky, it could be 100,000.
We are receiving £8 billion from the EC, £4 billion from the State and a further contribution from the industrial sector amounts to £16 billion. If we had £16 billion, it could be used in a way which would have a more beneficial effect on job creation than that proposed in this plan. We could reduce the national debt by £16 billion, income tax by 50 per cent, bring the tax rate of 27 per cent plus PRSI and other costs, which amount to approximately 38 per cent, down to 20 per cent and the tax rate of 48 per cent plus PRSI at 56 per cent down to half that amount. I talk to employers and people in industry every day of the week and it is a sad reflection on this country that their ambition at the end of any given year is to reduce their workforce because of costs. That is the reason job creation has not increased. Before the ink is dry on the National Development Plan the Taoiseach is talking about the creation of 50,000 or 100,000 jobs without accepting that many jobs will be lost in the interim period when GATT and the other agreements are made.
This is my personal opinion, therefore people cannot say that Fine Gael has changed its policy. Some of the items I mentioned should be considered in the long term so that people will have money in their pockets. Development is needed on the same scale as that experienced in Denmark which has reduced income tax rates.
Another point I wish to make relates to development and the concept of Europe in the future. During the debate on the Maastricht Treaty and its proposals we mentioned the prospect of a single currency. It is obvious that the main players in the field have convinced their partners that this would not have any long term benefits for them. I had an opportunity this time last year to visit Germany to see the changes and the cost of reunification for individuals and the country. Therefore, their first priority is to ensure that it works. Will the single currency issue be back on the table at the next summit in Brussels? It would benefit this country if there could be some input by the next century. When the system which has allowed Ireland and the weaker countries to receive substantial funds collapses, it will become more difficult to make the grade, as we found out last year during the currency crisis. If there is another currency crisis it should not be handled in the same way.
I am conscious of time, I want to give Senator Lee the opportunity to speak as he has a lunch engagement. A system has developed in Europe and these proposals are coming forward vis-a-vis the smaller and weaker states who have a lesser say in future developments by not having a Commissioner representing their countries. These matters must be resolved to the satisfaction of the weaker countries.
I would be the first to accept what Senator O'Kennedy said about the contribution which this country made to many agreements, proposals and discussions and to progress in the EC. I agree with the compliments he paid to the civil servants who have worked for 25 years, from the time discussions took place prior to and since our entry to the EC. The GATT negotiations may have an important effect if they are not handled properly by this country. It is important to have a place at the table of the Commission and other places to ensure that Ireland and other small countries are represented. In a few years' time we do not want to be left outside when the bigger players in the Community are making the decisions. We would be left outside discussions by the bigger players in the Community and would have to take what is dished out to us, which would be an enormous disadvantage to a country like Ireland, considering the progress we have made under all Governments and Ministers who played their part since 1973.
There are many other issues which I could mention and I am sure that during the course of this session we will get an opportunity to discuss a number of them. The National Development Plan will get an airing and I have no doubt that Ministers will be parading it up and down the country over the next number of months and years. I hope that the larger number of jobs mentioned will be created following the expenditure of such large funds. The people I represent in small businesses and other areas feel that a more constructive way of ensuring real investment in the State would have been to deal with the cost of employing those numbers of people. Some Ministers have already said this is only one aspect of the total policy in so far as the future of the country is concerned. There should have been some reference in the plan of the Government's commitment to reduce the cost to the employers.
Large numbers of people are paid very low wages due to costs and large numbers of companies are not prepared to employ more people and reduce their staff because of costs. This system will continue on the basis of what we have seen in the plan. Unless the budget produces something different from what it produced in the past, we will always have a problem where employers who want to increase their workforce will decide to employ one fewer rather than one more. That is the biggest single factor against large numbers of people being employed here. Until such time as the powers that be decide that this is one of the real problems and it is tackled, the number of people on the unemployment register will continue to increase.
I will be relatively brief as I just have some random remarks. I agreed broadly with Senator O'Kennedy's comments. It is without doubt a naive question — what is the purpose of these reports? I do not mean in the sense of regretting that we are discussing it long after its sell-by date; it does serve a purpose as a retrospective filler for Seanad debates.
Earlier speakers dismissed it as merely history at this stage. If I may enter a defence on behalf of history, it is not history; it is chronology. It is a record. History implies at least some effort at interpretation and analysis, neither of which is to be found here although I appreciate it had to be written to a certain brief. However, I would like the brief to be marginally more adventurous in offering something one can get one's teeth into when debating the report as distinct from debating issues that cross one's mind arising from the report.
Senator O'Kennedy — and it is interesting that it comes from the Government benches — regrets the lack of reference to Yugoslavia in the Tánaiste's speech or at least in the circulated version of it. I share that regret. I would like to think that a sense of decency prevented the Tánaiste from mentioning it because the section on Yugoslavia in the report reflects the worst features of this type of report. It is a piece of unctuous waffle which tries to convey the impression that the EC is doing something serious about Yugoslavia. We all know it is a horrible story and this cold diplomatese — however necessary it may be for the drafter; I am not blaming the drafter — reads virtually obscenely in this context if one can be so detached from the human horrors that have occurred and continue to occur there.
It would be far better if one were to simply accept that the EC carries no weight for practical purposes and foreign policy in an issue of this sort. The hollowness of the rhetoric of a European civilisation has been exposed by Yugoslavia. In so far as European countries contribute to solving the problem of former Yugoslavia, the contribution will come through them as individual states pursuing their own foreign policies and not through the EC even though it may be dressed up as such.
For practical purposes the EC has, putting it mildly, been ineffectual in the matter of Yugoslavia and that has been one of the main factors contributing to the decline of public confidence in the EC and in public respect for declarations about the unique value of European civilisation and its contribution to the world and so on. It would be appropriate if there were explicit reference to the EC in Yugoslavia in the reply to the discussion.
I turned naturally, given my own interest, to the section on education and found a rather engaging opening paragraph describing education policy which manages to stretch to a second page. It said that an informal meeting of Council of Education Ministers took place in Funchal, Madeira, on 10 April 1992 and that challenges in the field of higher education provided the sole item on the agenda of the working sessions. Then the drafter, as if it was suddenly felt that the intellectual exhaustion occasioned by that solitary item on the agenda would not justify a trip to Madeira, added hastily: "However, the issue of a revised statute for the European Schools [and I presume they are the European schools around the Community] was discussed informally." One can imagine the thrill of excitement which ran through Madeira at that discussion. I would like to know what follows a statement like "challenges in the field of higher education provided the sole item...". Is the higher education sector informed? Is there consultation, debate or discussion subsequently? What follows from meetings of that sort?
What are the challenges? Perhaps it is unfair to ask that they be spelt out in great detail but there is at least a half page left blank in the section on education. What challenges were discussed? What do the Ministers think are the prime problems confronting higher education and the major contributions it ought to make to their idea of a European Community?
I note further down that the informal Youth Council which met the following day adopted the draft conclusions prepared by the Presidency wherein education is recognised to be of major importance in relation to environment issues. It continues: "Environmental education therefore should be considered an integral and essential part of a European citizen's upbringing; it should have an interdisciplinary perspective; and it should be the mechanism to link schools to their social and physical surroundings." I have no quarrel with that but we produced a Green Paper on Education shortly after that recommendation. Despite the exhortations of the Green Paper that we now educate ourselves to be citizens of Europe, a worthy ambition given the rather spotty record we have in educating ourselves to be citizens of Ireland, I do not recollect any specific or detailed reference to the role of environmental education as an integral and essential part of a European citizen's upbringing on the scale which is implied here. I have no doubt there is some reference to environment in the appropriate place in the Green Paper because there is a reference to everything in the appropriate place in the Green Paper.
I just wonder if there is any feedback from these meetings to the formulation of domestic policy in areas where they seem particularly appropriate or whether there is a lack of continuity between discussions and draft conclusions reached at these meetings and domestic consideration of the implications. Given that education policy is becoming more important in the Community, it would be instructive to see how precisely the thought process developed in the context of the Community is related to policy formulation at home.
Senator O'Kennedy spoke about the importance of enhancing support for education as distinct from training. I have not, the Minister will be horrified to hear, read the National Development Plan. I will as soon as the circumstances of a busy working life permit. I would like to think that there is a shift to some extent of that sort. One of the arguments the Senator advanced was that training generates its own empires. Of course, it is not entirely unknown for education to generate its own empires and it would be interesting to follow through that thinking through in detail.
Education can contribute significantly to economic and social development and to creating a reasonably civilised and stable society but how it does that is something about which we have sparse details. We must think more about the ways in which education can contribute to those laudable objectives and, while I warmly approve in principle, we have much homework to do both in this country and in the Community to work through exactly how this is meant to happen. It is certainly far more complex than simply pumping resources into whatever the current hi-tech fashion is and then deciding a few years later that it was not perhaps the most appropriate way after all and one is obliged to chase the next fashion.
There is ample scope for thinking more deeply — both here and in the context of the Community — and even contributing to Community thinking on how one can most effectively promote investment in education in a way that will help resolve a number of the serious problems confronting us. Simply shifting money from one area to another does not do it unless the mechanisms, purposes, techniques and objectives are thought through more clearly — certainly in the area of higher education — than we have done hitherto.
I was intrigued by the Senator's reference to the importance of rethinking the role of work and of the potential contribution of the higher education sector to thinking in that area and in trying to confront the problem of unemployment which has wriggled its way to the top of the agenda in the Community. I do not have much confidence in White Papers on unemployment or in meetings on unemployment — although it is desirable to have unemployment on the agenda — leading to anything in particular unless one can go far beyond the measures that have been adopted, by and large unsuccessfully, in trying to cope with unemployment throughout the Community. The idea of a significant Irish contribution there, given our record on unemployment, must send a shiver down the spine of Europe if we try to foist on the continent the solutions that have proved so singularly unsuccessful here.
I accept that there are specific problems here. However, the idea that coping with unemployment will be significantly helped by meetings of this type seems delusory, although meetings might advance significant thinking. I have seen nothing in the public print media or in the reported views from Brussels about adopting American labour market techniques and practices which leads me to think that neither Ireland nor Europe has any solution at this stage. The glib and facile references to the success of unemployment policy, or rather the absence of unemployment policy, in America and the constant citation of the American single digit unemployment figure — as if that is the answer to Europe's almost double digit unemployment level — seems to be grossly over simplified and fails to take remotely adequate cognisance of the great differences in the way unemployment is measured on both sides of the Atlantic and a host of other factors which have little to do with employment practices.
That seems to be a soft option and a cop out from serious thinking about how one confronts unemployment either in this country or throughout the Community. If we compare ourselves with America we must do our homework on the reality of America. We cannot simply pluck a statistic of 6.7 per cent or 6.6 per cent because it is at the bottom of a table and say we can achieve that by copying their policies and that will suffice for comparative purposes. I would like to think that in discussing unemployment a more sophisticated approach will be adopted than simplistic assertions about how successful America has been in the area of job creation and in solving the unemployment problem.
I will finish with a comment on Senator O'Kennedy who has provided — and I thank him in absentia— a great deal of the raw material for my contribution. He referred to the obscurity of the concept of subsidiarity and asked specifically what subsidiarity meant in Cork. I can answer that. It is not a very fair answer but in Cork subsidiarity means getting Dublin off Cork's back. It is a grossly over simplified interpretation of what subsidiarity ought to be.
However, let me be more serious. This is the one country in the Community which ought to know what subsidiarity means. For 30 years, from Quadragesima Anno in 1931 to when such thinking began to go out of fashion, subsidiarity was a reasonably familiar concept in both the teaching of Catholic ethics and in much public discourse. While subsidiarity may have its critics the principle is that everything should be done, as far as possible, by those who are closest to the coalface; that power should not evolve upwards if it can be effectively exercised locally and should only go up when it cannot be exercised locally, and power should be exercised as close to those affected by it as possible. That is the essence of the concept of subsidiarity.
In practice this country diverted from that more than any other country in the Community so it is perhaps understandable why one should not be as familiar with the concept today and why it should seem to belong to an alien culture. In fact it was, at least in principle if not necessarily in practice, a component part of public discourse in this country for a couple of decades — which now might as well belong to the first century B.C. or A.D. — 30 odd years ago. Given that subsidiarity has been introduced by Jacques Delors, who incidentally comes from almost the same intellectual background, Ireland ought to be in a position to make a more coherent contribution to European thinking about the meaning of subsidiarity, however far it diverges from our own practice. If we are seeking to make a positive contribution to European discussion that would be one theme on which we could reflect with interest.
My final point is that I fully understand the position adopted by the Tánaiste in his statement on the proposals for institutional reform which, from an Irish point of view, are potentially threatening and which basically mean shifting the balance of decision-making authority in the Community in the direction of the larger states. I share his concern. He is right to adopt this position, at least at first, but Ireland should not be totally negative about proposals for institutional reform. The current institutions, contrary to what the Tánaiste says, do not work particularly well. They may not work badly but they can certainly be improved. Obviously one must be careful in the changes one would consider introducing. However, I do not think the sole response to the proposals emanating, or likely to emanate in the future, from Germany in particular should simply be negative or "out, out, out" which tends to be the tone adopted here.
While one might not welcome those proposals, one should ask if there are ways in which the institutional structures of the Community can be streamlined or their functioning can be improved so that they do not damage our perceived national interest but may contribute, if only modestly, to improving the Community. The Community is not working as effectively as one would like, even though one may say it is a minor miracle that it works at all in many respects. I would like to think that we would not be wholly negative in the contribution we make to that particular discussion.
Since we are speaking about developments in the Community in 1992 I will not delay the Seanad in discussing the content of the document because much of it is irrelevant to what is happening today. Every time one reads this publication, Developments in the European Communities, one gets more pessimistic about what are called developments. It would seem that elements of life in the Community are being lost — unemployment, the lack of employment and the lack of cohesion in the Community in tackling those major problems. If we do not tackle those problems everything in this and in other documents and reports goes out the window. If the combined brains of the Community are not able to tackle that problem, every other element in the development phase is geared toward spending money on projects to pay for the lack of employment. Unless we tackle the employment problem there is no point saying that we can tackle any other element effectively because we would be trying to catch up all the time.
We introduce more taxes to pay for more and more training courses in which there is no training. There is an element of work and an element of education but there is no training for jobs because there are no jobs. A situation has developed in the Community where a huge number of people are making millions of pounds developing courses which will give degrees to people who cannot get into what were the normal third level institutions. The papers are full of institutions setting up and purporting to give degrees to people if they pay £4,000. Some of these degrees may be recognised in the United States, perhaps bricklaying in southern California or in Carolina, but they are of no use to people looking for jobs.
All these institutions are doing is creaming off money from those who cannot afford it to give people a so-called third level education and a degree which will not get them a job because these institutions are not recognised by the education authorities. People with a B.A. or a B.Comm. from some of these institutions will not have a hope of getting a job. Employers will look at the educational establishment where they got the degree, will consider it a "grind school" and deem it of no use.
Even those coming out of recognised establishments at present are finding it extremely difficult to get work. This was brought home to me recently when the MBS course was started in the Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business. Of the first group of students who came out of the school only two got jobs. About 90 per cent of them had jobs, before they started the course and were sponsored by companies, but of the other 10 per cent only two got jobs and they had 2.1 or 1 results in B.Comm. degrees from recognised universities. The worrying thing about this is that of those who graduated only two got interviews in Ireland. They got job offers immediately in Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere. The point I am making is that they were immediately snapped up by companies outside this State. The money expended on them and on the MBS course was funded by the EC so it might be said that they do not have to get jobs in Ireland. They can be sent to Europe so that the European input can be satisfied.
Education versus training was mentioned by Senator Lee. I suggest that we look at what education is supposed to do. In the old days education was broadly based in the sense that it was geared towards academic subjects and if one did not have an academic bent one could go to vocational or technical school. There was a run down of the concept of the technical and vocational schools as everybody wanted to get into the academic school and as a result many people went away from technical vocational education. They are coming back now to an extent but what happened was that the vocational and technical schools got the people who could not get into the ordinary school or college. As a result teachers were looking after many children who needed remedial teaching in a sense because they could not get into other schools.
In my locality St. Kieran's College and the Kilkenny vocational school amalgamated certain classes. What happened was that most people tried to enrol in St. Kieran's College and it was only when the enrolment vis-a-vis the number of teachers was allocated, that they opted for the vocational school. As a result the vocational school standards in certain areas went down and the amalgamation has not worked as it should.
There is a need to provide education for living in the sense of providing a job for oneself. We have to return to educating people to get the skills which will enable them to get jobs. If that is not done we will be in trouble again. There is a need to integrate the concepts of education for living and education for work but adequate resources are not being provided to get back to the basic concepts that existed years ago.
If someone is going into farming there is no point their learning Latin, Greek or higher mathematics. Logarithms will be of no use to them.
Latin is useful from a botanical point of view.
Senator Dardis, Senator Lanigan is making a point so please let him.
I would say that 90 per cent of people do not know and do not care about the Latin names of roses but that does not matter because what attracts them is the colour of the rose. I agree that one might need to know the Latin names if one is going to the Botanical Gardens and there was a time when one needed to know Latin when going to the church, but that no longer applies.
There is a need within the European context for someone to sit down and be naive again when it comes to the concept of education, especially if that naivety will produce jobs. Too many people have sat on too many commissions trying to tell us how to work our education system and that system has failed in the sense that it has not provided work for the people who have gone through it. Europe has to return to the simplistic ways of providing training or education.
I do not know where Senator Lee got his information on American labour market techniques and the fact that we are slavishly adopting their practices to reduce unemployment. We are not following the American labour market techniques, and we should not. We have to be realistic when it comes to how much we can pay people. There is a problem at present because we have many people on low wages. The family income supplement comes out of our allocation of European funds and is paid to people on low wages. However, when a 3 or 4 per cent increase in wages is granted those on lower wages cannot afford to take it because that will bring them into the tax net and as a result they may be £14 a week worse off as FIS is not taxed. This means that the wages of the earner in a family of four, in receipt of the FIS and with a gross earned income of £150, would have to jump from £150 to £225 per week for him to get a net gain. There is an anomaly there. It is a ludicrous situation and should be addressed because a lot of the money we get to pay social benefits comes from Europe. It has been suggested that an energy tax should be introduced. This would mean that those who use their cars most would pay most. That might suit some people but it has major implications. It would dramatically increase costs for people who use their cars frequently. Gurus in the Department of Finance who use the DART to go to work might see no harm in such a tax but it would cause problems for people in the country who have to use their cars daily because there is no public transport. The concept of an energy tax is anathema to me. At present 85 per cent of the cost of petrol or diesel goes in direct and indirect taxation to the oil producing country, the oil company or our Government. In my opinion the energy tax must be forgotten.
Another major issue in Europe is patent protection. Anyone who researches and develops a particular product should get protection for the product or the idea. Under new patent laws relating to the European motor vehicle industry, every item in a newly designed vehicle can be protected by patent for up to ten years. This would mean the price of vehicles would jump.
The EC is trying to foist this on us at a time when the cost of vehicles is too high and the European motor industry is under pressure from the Japanese and other competitors outside the EC. That pressure will increase in the future because plants are being moved to eastern Europe where costs are lower. Because these are new plants the technology will be more modern and the production lines will be better. In Ireland we are seeing the beginning of this, with 1,000 people in Tallaght being put on protective notice because Vauxhall has lost much of its market to eastern European, Korean and Japanese companies. If the EC does not introduce legislation to protect the industry rather than the suggested patent protection legislation, the EC motor industry will be devastated.
An area of major concern at present is the EC's relationship to the rest of the world through the United Nations. The Community has not played a major role in the UN's work. Unfortunately too much unilateral action is taking place within the UN. The United States had started to assume the role of world policeman until some of their soldiers were killed in Somalia. They are now reconsidering that role. As a result of Operation Desert Storm the US thought it could simply go somewhere and solve a problem. In Operation Desert Storm, they left all the problems behind them. The Americans then headed to Somalia. We regret the death of their soldiers there but more Irish people than Americans have been killed on UN duties in the last 15 to 20 years.
The US also supplies, directly or indirectly, many of the warring factions all over the world with armaments to continue their fights. The warring factions in Somalia are also supplied by European countries such as Germany, France and Holland. No one can deny that. If the activities of the European and American arms manufacturers were curtailed and there was a set-aside in the arms industry, as in agriculture, the world would be a safer place.
The North American Free Trade Area poses dangers Europe has yet to confront. On the US side of the CanadianAmerican border, the Americans are offering parity between the US and Canadian dollars, whereas the official rate is about 1.75 Canadian dollars to the US dollar. In southern California preparations for the free trade area are also being made. This will create difficulties for Europe unless we reach a consensus on our future.
There can be no more unilateral decisions such as that to drag east Germany into the European Community without consultation. The cost of that move to the whole Community has been enormous. The Germans are finding the cost is beyond them and if that is so, it has major economic consequences for those of us on the periphery.
Transport liberalisation is mentioned in the report. The concept may be good but it is not beneficial for us. Our transport industry is the most highly taxed in Europe. The cost of putting a vehicle on the road and maintaining it is too high, not because the parts are too expensive but because there is too much taxation on the motor industry.
Someone who assembles and supposedly manufactures a product in Ireland should not have the preferential 10 per cent tax rate on his profits. The transport industry does not share that benefit, even though it exports its products from our factories. Until the transport industry receives the same tax breaks as manufacturers for getting into Europe, we are adding unnecessary costs. Hauliers should receive concessions on that part of their work outside Ireland.
The EC has the potential to be a world power but we have not reached that stage yet. There are so many differing opinions on the direction of Europe and so many conflicting nationalistic ideas that the aims and objectives of European Union have been lost. Unless the Germans, British and French decide they are part of a united Europe it would be wrong to feel it will develop internationally.
As I said at the beginning — and I will conclude on this remark — jobs, as stated in the National Development Plan should be the first priority. Europe failed in regard to a job creation policy in the past and it is time that we went back to the basics and tried to resolve that dilemma. Many commentators tell us that our macroeconomics are marvellous, yet the numbers who are on unemployment benefit or social welfare is growing all the time. If one conclusion comes from this debate, it should be that the EC should rethink their jobs strategy — it should not be beyond the ability of the best brains in Europe — because it has not been adequately addressed in the past. Until it is addressed, all that we have done in terms of national investment or investment from Europe will have gone to waste. We will have too many disadvantaged people around and we will not be able to sustain the lifestyle they deserve.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Browne, to the House. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy FitzGerald, was here earlier and it would have been tempting to embark on a long and detailed analysis of the National Development Plan, or what may be more correctly termed the national spending plan, because it contains more about spending than development. In his address this morning, the Tánaiste invited, by his remarks, some comments on the plan. However, in deference to the House and because we are to spend two days debating it next week, we should not prejudge that part of what he had to say. I described the plan yesterday as the Government's letter to Santa Claus, so we will come back to this letter next week and hope that Christmas will bring good news.
I fail to understand why we are debating the fortieth report of developments within the EC because neither the Tánaiste nor anybody else referred to the content of the report. I raised the matter on the Order of Business this morning, a Chathaoirligh, and your latitude in respect of what we can talk about is encouraging. It begs the question as to why we should not have termed it "Statements on Developments in the EC" because this report does not seem to have much relevance to what we are discussing today, but that is a minor detail.
The Tánaiste referred to GATT and stated that it can be seen in the current GATT negotiations that Ireland will make its views known in the Council of Ministers which sets the policy to be pursued by the Commission in the negotiations.
I do not contest the accuracy of that statement because, as far as I am aware, it is the responsibility of the Commission to make the treaties; the Commissioner for Trade would have conducted the negotiations in regard to the Blair House agreement. What increasingly puzzles me is that the Council, who have had more than Ministers of Agriculture present at their long meetings, send an emmissary — Commissioner Brittan — to the United States with a remit to readjust the treaty. I would not like to have his job because I can see him coming home to his political masters, telling them that he did his best but that the Americans were not interested in listening to him and they in turn will come home to their various national electorates and say that they are also sorry. They will say they sent Commissioner Brittan to deal with this issue on their behalf but that he did not do it very well and it is not their fault. They will also state, when the agreement is concluded, that they are sorry about Irish and French agriculture, but that world trade is more important than these aspects and they will proceed from there. That is a cop-out by politicians. It is up to them to conclude and conduct these negotiations and if it was possible to send Government Ministers to the United States to discuss the future of Digital — they were correct to go — it is even more important to send them there to make it clear to that Government what our priorities are in respect of this matter. It can be done at a diplomatic, as well as a direct political level, but it is not good enough for those making political decisions to find scapegoats when those decisions do not go their way.
I am prepared to accept, and the Tánaiste has made this clear to us, that the conclusion of the GATT agreement is essential for a small, open economy like ours. We depend on trade, the liberalisation of trade is to our advantage and our national self-interest is, therefore, evident in that context. However, the nature of the agreement is at issue, not the need for an agreement itself. Our unique dependence in the EC on agriculture is evident from the fact that it provides 20 per cent of all manufacturing employment in this country. Several references were made to unemployment and it is my view and that of my party that if the GATT agreement goes through unmodified, unclarified or unchanged, there will be significant consequences, both for farming and for employment within the food industry. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, conceded that point.
In terms of safeguarding our national interest, it is essential that elements of the Blair House agreement are adjusted and that the Government takes a more hands-on role in this matter than it has in the past. There is the problem of frontloading, the reductions in agricultural exports and the associated problem of seasonality of output which need to be addressed within the Blair House targets. This year — I will come to a separate aspect in a moment — grain farmers in this country still have significant acreages to attempt to harvest — I say "attempt to" harvest rather than harvest. That puts the matter in context for the individual.
The Tánaiste correctly spoke about the misery and stress associated with unemployment, but there is misery and stress in agriculture too and it is the responsibility of the Government to alleviate it as far as possible. I am sure no Government of whatever complexion would duck that responsibility. All these technical arrangements within the EC to reform the CAP and arrangements being made to bring forward the GATT agreement shows that we are in the hands of the man above. These surpluses can easily become deficits. The amount of surplus grain in the EC, in terms of total tonnage, is large, but in terms of the number of days' supply it is small and it would not take much to change this. We could argue the case for having a reserve; even though it is surplus, it is costing money to have it in storage and the taxpayer is bearing that burden, but without that reserve, we could be in a dangerous position.
The Government must try to ensure that the changes arising from the Blair House agreement on agricultural output do not exceed those already built into the CAP reform programme which anticipated GATT although there have been several instances where people said the two things were separate. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was predicated on going forward and reaching an agreement on GATT and the two things were connected. My point is that the Government needs to crank up its efforts to ensure that the Blair House agreement does not damage us to the extent that the farming organisations and I believe it will. There is a vital national interest at stake which must be defended. It is legitimate for us to point out the extent to which our economy depends on agriculture and there should be some degree of renegotiation.
When I raised the matter yesterday on the Order of Business with the Leader of the House about a special debate on agriculture because of GATT, the problems within the beef industry and the very difficult harvest, he pointed out that these matters could be raised today within the ambit of this debate. I accept that it can be done but I do not want to go on at length about agriculture when there are other aspects of this debate and of the Tánaiste's address which need to be addressed. It is necessary to point out, as the Cathaoirleach is aware, that members of the farming organisations were here yesterday lobbying about the action needed to alleviate the problems evident in the cattle industry regarding intervention, grading and so on. I do not have to go into detail, I am sure the Minister is quite familiar with the action farming organisations are demanding in relation to this matter.
If we are to pick up one or two central points, one of them must be the worry about the weight of carcases and the regulations which were introduced to put a ceiling on the weight at which cattle can be slaughtered. That has very serious effects for us, more than other member states. It is legitimate for the farming organisations to call on the Government to seek a derogation for Ireland from the 380 kilogramme carcase weight limit to allow 12,000 tonnes of intervention support for heavy cattle this autumn. Again, thinking of the weather and the problems it is causing people, I know farmers who had to bring their cattle into sheds much earlier than normal and now they have this additional burden. We need to get our act together and do something to alleviate their distress.
I could go on at some length about these matters but it is not my intention to do so apart from raising one further point, which is to question the way the slaughter premium and grants are paid. We are now awaiting set aside payments for cereals, they are due shortly. I cannot come to terms with the fact that it takes so long to process these application forms and to get the money out to people. In the case of the slaughter premium, it is not as if it is Government money, it is Community money and I cannot understand the delay. It seems that computers have brought us in a reverse direction. There were men with quill pens sitting at high desks in cobwebby offices at the time of Dickens and they seemed to be able to get things done much quicker than this so-called sophisticated technology.
I wonder about the merits of this technology and the will to ensure that these payments are made. They are of critical importance to people. For instance, people are depending on some of these payments for educational fees. If the calculations are correct approximately £0.75 million in interest charges has accrued since those slaughter premia became due. That is a severe burden on individuals and on the industry.
To move from agriculture to the other aspects of the European Communities, I wish to deal in particular with enlargement of the European Communities, to which the Tánaiste referred this morning. A federal Europe is the way forward, I have thought that for some time and continue to do so. I was a very strong advocate of the Maastricht Treaty but we have difficulties at the moment. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism was meant to bring us forward to European monetary union and if the train is not off the tracks it is certainly seriously stalled at this stage. We need that commitment to enable the Maastricht Treaty to achieve European Monetary Union. I am not as confident as the Tánaiste appears to be that we will achieve those targets in the time scale defined or within the defined parameters. There seems to be divergence within the Community at present rather than convergence.
I welcome the prospect of enlargement but it will create institutional problems. I do not share the view expressed by the Tánaiste that there is no need for a second Dooge committee to review the situation. I accept the Tánaiste's point that the interests of small states must be protected within the Community in terms of its institutions and that that is part of its strength. I accept that it must be maintained and that we must defend our position within that context. However, that does not preclude a serious debate on the institutional framework and the way the Community is advancing. Senator Lee made the point that the institutions seem to be grinding to a halt and that there is a need to unlock or get rid of the log jam which seems to exist at the moment. I do not see why a Dooge committee cannot be set up which would look towards the 1996 intergovernmental conference scheduled under the Maastricht Treaty. At least then we would have some proposals to put on the table.
We have a road map for the economic development of the Community within the Maastricht Treaty but we do not seem to have a political road map to chart the way forward over the next ten or 20 years. In the inevitable event of enlargement, it is also inevitable that institutional framework must change. If there is a 16 member Community, I would be in favour of having 16 Commissioners. However, if we get to the point where it is a 16 member Community will there be a parliament of 1,000 or 800 members? The principle of proportionality which has been there since the beginning is very good and must be defended. However, it does not preclude the establishment of something like a second Dooge committee.
Everybody starts from a base of five Members in the European Parliament and it is proportional from then so that the smaller member states like ourselves are protected. Let us assume that we get to the point where we have the so-called micro states of which Luxembourg is one. If Malta join the Community will we find ourselves in the position that we cannot reach agreement on something because it decides a measure is not in its interests? That will lead to the train grinding to a halt or even coming off the tracks. If such a situation existed it would be possible to obstruct progress. A solution to that would be that four-fifths of the member states who vote would represent four-fifths of the population of the Community, otherwise the Community will have difficulty regaining the vigour which existed before the Maastricht Treaty. A similar system to that in the US could be devised where Rhode Island, a small state, and California, a large state, have an equal number of votes in the Senate. I have an open mind in this regard. It is important to debate these issues. A Dooge committee would be useful so that we could engage in discussion in advance of the conferences due to take place under the Maastricht Treaty. I was surprised Senator Lanigan did not refer to the Middle East, Gaza and the Palestinian state. He is more familiar with this than I.
Senator Norris has taken over.
On the basis of Senator Norris's world tour yesterday, he is probably an authority on every place. I apologise, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for straying.
Regarding Gaza and the Palestinian settlement, it is marvellous that Palestine and Israel have reached agreement. However, the Community has a responsibility to support that initiative. I visited Gaza and the West Bank and if they are to survive as independent entities — I deliberately use the term "independent"— they must have finance to allow them to operate a proper economy. From what I saw, this is not the case, the people have a subsistence way of living and do not have outlets for their products. If the European Community is to back up its words about peace in the Middle East, it must put its money where its mouth is and try to help the development of that economy.
The Community cannot be happy with the way it conducted itself in relation to events in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. The Tánaiste referred to bringing stability to Eastern Europe. He said that "Ireland, together with its EC partners, has worked intensively to consolidate reform and achieve greater stability and prosperity in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union." When one looks at that part of the world, one can see that a bad job has been done. The Community has washed its hands of the problem on its doorstep. At present, there is instability in the Soviet Union. What has the Community done to consolidate reforms and achieve greater stability? I cannot think of anything.
Over the past number of years we have developed as a result of the European Community. We must recognise that our position in the Community has been of benefit to us and that the development of our infrastructure has been, to a large extent, assisted by funding from the EC. As a nation, we had no choice but to become involved as partners in Europe. The people made the correct choice when they voted in favour of EC membership and the Maastricht Treaty. However, we must examine what we are doing and where we are going.
According to the Leader of the House, next week we will be discussing the National Development Plan. We will debate the £8 billion from EC funding, the £4 billion from the Exchequer and semi-State bodies and the £4 billion from the private sector. This is of importance to all of us. We must be careful how we spend that money. There will be no further opportunities to obtain such funding. It must be properly spent, otherwise we will have missed a glorious opportunity. However, that is a matter which will be discussed next week and I look forward to speaking on it.
I am concerned about the development of bureaucracy in Europe. Any bureaucracy is dangerous, irrespective of how one tries to gloss over it. Although we have heard about beef mountains, wine and milk lakes, there is now a great danger of a paper mountain and we must play our part in ensuring it does not develop in Europe because it is unproductive and will lead to job losses. Governments in the Community must not get tied up in red tape.
In Ireland efforts have been made to decentralise Government Departments and decision making. That approach has been adopted in recent years. We are in danger of allowing important decision making which should take place at national level to be taken at European level. Powers are devolving from Parliament, from which we voted in the Maastricht Treaty. However, we must ensure that we do not end up with a huge bureaucracy in Europe.
Many people in Ireland and across Europe feel that, as individuals, they are oppressed and strangled by red tape and regulations. We need to guard against this, to make sure that it does not happen. I will give some simple examples: recently Members may have heard about colourants or additives to food, jam was one of the items mentioned. A European Community regulation has been enacted preventing the use of these additives and a number of Irish food producers stated that it could lead to up to 5,000 job losses if it is rigidly enforced. When that sort of red tape percolates to that extent and regulations are brought in for regulations' sake, it is time to shout stop.
There is an impression that people in Europe are trying to come up with ideas and regulations to push legislation through the different parliaments, then through the European Community and, finally, through the European Commission, but what is really happening is that the ordinary person trying to conduct his business is oppressed. All electrical goods will be standardised, a hotel in Paris will have the same type of plug as in Birr or anywhere else in the European Community. People will be put to the expense of trying to adapt all these items to facilitate the different hotels and the different types of fittings. That is not what the European Community is about. If one goes to a hotel and it happens to have something different, one makes the necessary changes without asking the whole country to change because of these regulations.
We must be seriously concerned about aspects of the food industry, the standardisation of containers, the weights of food, packaging and the amounts of different items that go into food. Let it be clearly understood that more standardisation means that supermarket groups and monopolies will take over at national and European level. One supermarket group can come into a big town and buses will travel to it from adjoining villages and towns. Most items can now be bought in the supermarkets as some of them are multinationals and have big stocks. While this is happening the villages and the countryside as we know it is slowly but surely closing down. It would be no harm for some of our Ministers to explain in Europe just what is happening in Ireland. The more we standardise the more we will build up the multinationals and damage the infrastructures of rural life. This is not just happening in Ireland, it is happening in each member state in Europe. This is a serious policy matter which must be examined by the different Governments and the European Commissioners. If we do not look at these regulations then we will have vast cities and little or no life in the countryside. Because of our approach to standardisation and conformity, initiative, enterprise, talent and individuality is being stifled. Darina Allen, who is well known internationally for her food, has been on record in regard to the many small butcher shops, delicatessens, bakeries, and places where country butter, home made jam and free range farm eggs are produced are slowly but surely being closed down by these regulations. Standardisation is stifling initiative and that is not part of the European ideal. We are a small nation and it will affect us more than the bigger countries because we depend on our individuality. We must protect the rights of the individual.
I wish to turn to the situation in regard to agriculture. A farmer in Ireland needs to be an accountant, a solicitor, an agricultural instructor, a secretary, an engineer and a water diviner. The level of red tape in completing forms to apply for European Community grants is mind boggling. I have filled in many of these forms for farmers over the last number of years and I do not know why we cannot devise a simpler system of application. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not in the House because I would like him to know what happens to farmers who have been refused grants for making the smallest mistakes. This applies also to the year following that in which the offence occurred. If any court in this country tried to do what the European Community is doing, if any court tried to bring in those sort of laws they would find themselves in the European Court of Justice. The wife and daughters of a sick farmer helping to run the farm were refused all grants because minor mistakes were made in filling out forms. Eventually they were paid after a long row with the Department of Agriculture.
I wrote to Minister Walsh many times and I received a reply from his Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, saying that he is looking into the matter. I again wrote to Minister Hyland and I received a further reply saying the matter is being further investigated and that because of European Community regulations the family is being refused these grants. It is outrageous, intolerable, grossly unfair, unjust and inequitable that people should be refused grants because a minor mistake has been made in completing a form. No government should try to stand over something that is unfair and unjust. I have already furnished the details to the Minister and I will give him a copy of this debate to show that I raised the matter here. I intend raising it again on the Adjournment because I feel so strongly about it.
We are building up a bureaucracy and that is dangerous. Even in agriculture there is a danger of this happening. I am also worried about the delays in paying out many different grants. At present, more than 16,000 farmers with winter fatteners are waiting to be paid the £14 million winter beef premiums which have been due for over four months. If that happened to any other section of the community there would be a row raging in the Dáil and Seanad over it. It is wrong that farmers should be waiting for these payments, which come mainly from EC funds, for over four months. This matter should be looked into.
On 1 November 1993, £130 million special beef and suckler cow premiums are due to be paid; I hope they will be paid on time. However, anyone who is due any kind of grant should get it on time but that is not happening at the moment. Agriculture is still a major industry. We can speak about building up tourism and new industries but we must ensure that we retain agriculture, our most important native industry. The Irish cattle industry is in danger of losing a market of over 200,000 head of cattle if the Blair House agreement goes through. Between lower prices and the loss of that market, one is speaking about a loss of £250 million, a vast sum. We have to see what efforts can be made to amend the agreement. The American, Australian and New Zealand Governments will not help us because they have a vested interest and will be fighting tooth and nail to ensure the deal stands.
Beef and cattle production is ten times more important to Ireland than for most of our EC partners, yet we are in danger of losing about 25 per cent of our entire EC beef export market if the GATT deal goes through. The European Community has failed to obtain export markets for our produce and has not shown initiative, energy or enterprise. We should be seeking new export markets for our beef products. There is an increasing demand for beef in Japan and Korea and that is where we should be looking.
In the past so many of our people died from famine that we should give a lead to ensure that the EC can sell or dispose of food to nations where millions are dying. During the famine here, other countries did not know what was happening but, to our shame and the shame of the European Community and the wealthy western nations, we know what is happening all around the world. We see the starving people on television, we hear about famines on the radio and read about them in the papers, yet we allow it to continue and the situation is getting progressively worse.
There is a serious problem as regards cereals. A considerable amount of this year's wheat crop has not yet been saved. It is essential that some effort be made by the Government at EC level to see that compensation is paid to the farming community for these losses. There is something seriously wrong with the setaside system. Farmers want to work and produce food. The system where farmers are obliged to spray land to kill off growth because of EC regulations needs to be examined. The European Community cannot stand over this system when we should be trying to gain markets for our cereals. We should be encouraging farmers to produce food rather than paying them not to do so. That is wrong.
We talked about Big Brother in the past, but now we are going to have an investigation into what lands are setaside. Something is seriously wrong and this matter needs to be looked at. We must continue to produce cereals. In the long term there could be a shortage of food. We must be careful that that does not happen. There is enough famine in the world without the EC paying people not to produce food and further aggravate a serious situation.
Although this report is out of date it does contain some up to date changes. In so far as it goes, I would support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.