On my own behalf and on behalf of Seanad Éireann I welcome Mr. Joe McCartin, Member of the European Parliament for the Connacht-Ulster constituency since 1994. Prior to that Mr. McCartin served in both Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann since 1973. Our acquaintance goes back a long way. We were both elected to the agricultural panel of the Seanad in 1977 and we served together in this House. It is a privilege to have Mr. McCartin here today to address the House under Standing Order 52(A).
Address by Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP.
Mr. McCartin, MEP
I am happy to be here. I was not always enthusiastic about the idea that had much currency at one time, that Members of the European Parliament should have a right to speak in the national Parliament. I never felt strongly about it. In fact, I have always believed that one level of democracy has as much legitimacy as another. At local government level, representatives have their seats, competences and functions. The same applies at national and European levels. With regard to the idea that MEPS should have the automatic right to speak in the Dáil or the Seanad, I believed it was an effort to assert that the national Parliament had the last say, regardless of the constitutional decisions that have been taken and the compentences we have decided to share with neighbouring countries. It is a hangover from the traditional family situation where the father took the decisions and that never changed.
However, the world does change a great deal. I have always believed deeply in the European ideal. I was excited about it from the first time I heard about it. At the time I was a young member of Macra na Feirme. I recall my disappointment when Ireland was not accepted as a member because the British application went wrong. According to Professor Joe Lee's history, "Ireland 1912-1985", our first application was not studied by the European Union. The then Government did not reveal that. Although the European Union at the time was still quite vulnerable it did not believe that Ireland had reached a point where it could join and be an equal member of the partnership of European countries. It was a failure of understanding on its part but it is a great tribute to the Irish people that Ireland has come so far.
In any case, I was disappointed that Ireland could not join. I have not forgotten what I said when I first spoke on Europe in this Chamber. I said I was not working to replace the old god of nationalism with a new god of Europe. I wanted to see democracy for mankind and I saw a united Europe as a first achievable step in that. I still believe that. I was never greatly impressed by the question of sovereignty. While we enjoyed our sovereignty over the years we had no hesitation in sending our children to the hiring fairs of Europe and North America. It was a poor sovereignty that created a situation in which we could not provide livelihoods for our children.
Some people want a federal Europe, others talk about a super-state while others refer to a Europe of the nations. I am not interested in any of those concepts. The European Union is the greatest effort at human co-operation ever undertaken. The question is how to organise it. Obviously, we are committed to organising it on a democratic basis. What is important now is the decision on the compentences we wish to give the European Union. Subsidiarity was written into the Maastricht treaty. This means that decisions should be taken at the appropriate level of government. I regularly tell young people that when I started my career there were two levels of government; now there are three.
Some duties, competences and offices of government can be more usefully discharged at European level. It is obvious that there should be common regulations relating to trade, the environment, fisheries and the free movement of people. Those regulations can be more efficiently made through the governments of Europe setting up democratic institutions for making those decisions. However, that does not mean we cannot look at those policies from time to time and decide to re-arrange competences.
Regional policy will always exist. It must always be in place because economic development will ebb and flow and regions can become poor. In a huge Single Market it is obvious that there will always be a need, just as there is in member states, to make an effort to redistribute wealth and opportunity within the regions. We need a strong regional policy.
I do not foresee the agricultural policy, as it currently exists, being needed forever. Agriculture will evolve over time into something more like a good rural development programme. The present direction agriculture is taking will keep the policy in place for the next ten years or a little longer. The size of the budget is not in question. The commitment of resources to the Common Agricultural Policy is not likely to be withdrawn in the foreseeable future. However, it will be used more as an instrument for the enhancement of rural areas and to prevent desertification and the depopulation of huge areas of the member states. Things can change as time passes.
The agriculture industry in Ireland has been particularly fortunate in that the CAP fitted, as we used to say. The policy was not necessarily economically wise or socially just. In fact, one could not describe it as one or the other because it gave a great deal to the rich and much less to the poor. Small farmers got less than big farmers. Nevertheless, Ireland happened to produce the right products and the policy suited us. People have regularly forecast that Ireland will become a net contributor to the EU in three or four years. That has not yet happened. The reason is that Irish agriculture still attracts a level of assistance from Europe that puts Ireland's net position well into the black. In fact, Ireland is the biggest net recipient of European funds at present. It is approaching €400per capita, which is a large amount.
In 2001, a total of €760 million came to Ireland through Structural Funds. Those funds will diminish, of course, but Ireland also received more than €1,700 million from various agricultural programmes. Assuming that total agricultural income in Ireland is €2 billion, 80% of the income of Irish farmers is paid directly from the European Union. I have read a paper produced by the Cato Institute in the United States, an international economic study organisation and forum for debating, which claims the subsidies that have come to the various regions of Europe through the CAP have been counterproductive. However, it recognises the immense progress Ireland has made in the Union and puts it down to the freedoms that Europe has brought to the Single Market.
We received a great deal of money from the Structural Funds. Most people in the European Union believe we made good use of that money and that Ireland is a good example of the success of European regional policy. I take a different view. There is no question we received the money. If the money had just been posted to us per capita, per townland or whatever, it would have had a beneficial effect on the economy. If one looks at the trend in public spending one will see that between 1982 and 1992, when the European Structural Funds matured from almost nothing to €1,000 million a year, the highest figure reached, the public capital programme decreased in nominal terms by €10 million or €15 million from €1,800 million. Due to inflation, the public capital programme was reduced in real terms by 30%. This was when the Structural Funds flowed into Ireland. We must acknowledge that the money did not go into the public capital programme, even though we see notices to this effect throughout the country. The money found its way into public sector pay and social welfare benefits. I discussed the issue at the time with public servants and I got wide agreement from people who understood what happened. This took place during the terms of office of different Governments.
However, our economy grew. I always believed that the Single Market gave us freedom to trade. The political assistance we got from Europe helped us to stand up to the old monopolies that had oppressed the Irish economy from the foundation of the State and gave us the lowest economic growth recorded in western Europe in the period from 1925 or 1930 to 1965. When Ireland began to open up its market in the 1960s one could see that Irish people were just as competitive and keen to make progress as everyone else. What Ireland achieved is wonderful and I do not believe we could have done it without the European Union.
I worry about the holding of a referendum on the treaty – this applied to the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Treaty of Nice and the Amsterdam treaty – because it is so easy to confuse the public. When the public is faced with a long complicated question, it sometimes tends to vote on the basis of how the economy is performing, how favourably it looks on the Government or who puts the question rather than what is the question. However, we must accept this aspect.
The question of sovereignty and our right to self-determination arises frequently. I do not have to remind older Members that when we joined the European Union we were told that we had just achieved some kind of sovereignty, independence and freedom and that we would now throw it all away. What we achieved was the right to decide for ourselves how to organise our future. The decision to join the European Union was a wise one. I was speaking last week to a pro-Europe section of the British Conservative Party in Guildford. I explained that I believed the people of Norway, who rejected membership of the European Union, had been deceived by their own government.
When Norway joined Schengen and the Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, it accepted all the rules of the Single Market. In fact, Norway accepted the laws other people made while it had no say. Later a lady approached me from the audience and said that they had a little discussion group and someone referred to Norway as the fax democracy. In other words, it was a reference to people who get their laws on the fax machine from Brussels.
Apart from Belgium and Luxembourg, Ireland is the most open economy in Europe. However, we must accept the regulations laid down by our trading partners on standards, quality and so on. It is inevitable in a single market that regulations are not always understood by the public, therefore, regulations are drawn up at national level as well as at European level. The effort Members have made in inviting us here today to explain the European Union as we see it will help to bring the message of what Europe is all about down through the political system in Ireland. It will help the message to become better understood by local people through the newspapers and local radio.
I want to refer to the European Union budget. I used to work in the agriculture area but when the former MEP, Alan Gillis, became a member I moved from agriculture to the budget committee. The budget of the European Parliament is so small that it is not very important in the context of the European economy. It does not affect to any great extent unemployment figures or the strength of the currency. There is no over-spending or borrowing. The European Union controls just 1% of GDP of the European Union. My understanding is that the American Federal Government takes approximately 16% or 17% of the national resources. Ireland currently takes approximately 35% or 36%, which is a big decrease. The average figure for Europe is closer to 40% but the European Union gets just 1%, some 40% of which is spent on agriculture, approximately 30% on Structural Funds and 5% on administration. We have a small figure amounting to approximately €5 billion – some people would call this significant.
I do not believe there is a need to organise agriculture down to the last detail at European level. The agriculture industry which I tried to defend is not the same today. We can see how it is evolving and how it will involve a different type of policy in the future. However, I would like changes in the whole area of development co-operation. The European Union contributes more than Japan and the United States put together. The European Union and individual member states contribute approximately €25 billion. Ireland contributes approximately 35% of 1% of GDP. The highest figure is contributed by one of Nordic countries. Sweden contributes 0.8% of 1%.
We watch situations evolve in the Middle East and Africa and we are there with our aid workers and money. However, at the end of the day, we have no political clout. The United States of America is looked at to solve all the problems. I am not against the United States. People with long enough memories will know I voted for the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, which was not very popular at the time. I was pro the United States and always favoured Europe having a strong alliance and strong partnership with it. That does not mean the United States should tell us whether we should admit Turkey to the European Union. This is our democracy. It is our responsibility and we should not be pressurised by any other power on how to arrange the evolution of the Community.
Having said that, perhaps we could see our way to conceding what we might consider the national privilege of each individual state spending its own money on development co-operation and pool that resource. We could enlarge the contribution. The United Nations recommends a budget of 1.6% or 1.7% of GDP, that is, €60 billion to €70 billion. This is more than the entire sum spent on development co-operation in the world today. Perhaps the money could be spent within the framework of a common foreign policy. I will not push people if they do not wish to opt for common defence, although I see nothing wrong with common defence. Europe with one army will be a much safer place than the Europe of 15, 20 or 100 armies of the past. If people are not happy with this, let us have a common foreign policy which is tied into a good foreign development policy. It would not hurt the people of Europe to increase the contribution by 0.2% of 1% of GDP amounting to €60 billion or €70 billion. It would go a long way to stabilise the world and a long way in places such as the Middle East to rebuild it when peace eventually comes following the disaster created there, and for Africa.
I am not without hope. I said at the beginning that I hoped we could evolve from a democratic European Union to a democracy for mankind. We had a referendum on the Nice treaty some time ago and argued about shadow issues and the giving up of sovereignty. On the same day we voted, without a word, for the setting up of an international court which, most certainly, was a far bigger concession of national sovereignty than anything we gave up in the Nice treaty and which the United States could not swallow. We should understand that in the context of sovereignty our interests are so intermeshed that we can only make our decisions together and in co-operation with each other. If one approaches it with a positive mind, it is amazing how everybody contributes within the European Union, be it the Prime Ministers of Luxembourg or of Ireland, an MEP from Ireland who, perhaps, never went to school or a coal miner from Denmark. Ireland may not be as big and powerful as Germany but every individual Irish citizen of the European Union is as important as any other citizen in the European Union. That is what real equality is about.
We should seek to give Europe the competences needed to organise a better world which for me is most certainly a common defence foreign policy and good development co-operation. This has everything to do with foreign trade and fisheries, which are in a perilous state. There is no need for excessive interference and sometimes, for example, with the wildlife directive, I wonder whether we needed to go that far. In economic terms there are some issues where we should decide what competences attach to each level and thereby not turn off people. That said, I have seen Ministers come home and express horror at the details of some EU regulation for which they voted without reading it. Often there is a tendency to blame Europe for the unhappy details which sometimes turn up in legislation.
I always defend the European Union because we cannot guarantee its existence. For some reason or another, there are those who will propose and advocate its abolition. If they do not say it that way they will find some other way to say it, such as those who want to take in Turkey immediately. They have another agenda. They want to create some type of loose trading arrangement at European Union level. We cannot guarantee the European Union forever. It is still fragile. Blood was spilt in its creation. What is a nation state? There is no such thing as a nation state. In any event, the borders and limitations of the states of Europe were drawn out by the sword and minorities were suppressed and exterminated in many cases. The European Union gave the first rights to minority languages and religious liberties. It is the second guarantor we have here as well as in Germany and elsewhere of a higher standard of government that will guarantee the individual's safety from old prejudices of the past. I am not without hope that we can extend that.
A few years ago a person asked if I would write a short statement – everybody was being asked to do it – for a park in Europe which was to be called mini Europe. The Irish journalists had come together to decide on the statement. I said I was working for a Europe whose people are united, whose economies are integrated and a Europe that will be prepared to share its good fortune and its spirit of freedom with less fortunate people throughout the world.
Senator Higgins will commence questions. It is a wonderful privilege to see Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP, in the House. I found his address inspiring. I thank him for his contribution to the House and encourage people to read the transcript of today's debate to see what he had to say. Joe McCartin is a committed European and he has always taken unpopular stances, sometimes against his own constituents and the people of this country, because he believes in the European ideal. That is a great accolade to give someone. After 25 years service as a member of the European Parliament, one of its longest serving members, it is great to see him in the House today and still with such fire in his belly.
I am thinking about what Mr. McCartin said. It was fresh air to come in and listen to him. Given that he is retiring it is great we had the opportunity to listen to him here before that day comes because of his knowledge, experience and depth of understanding of how we can reach out to Ireland. I am delighted we have given him the right of audience to come before the House and tell not only us but everyone of the importance of Europe. He has done that beautifully this morning.
I join with the Cathaoirleach, Senator Brian Hayes and Senator Ormonde in welcoming Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP, to the House. I have followed the flight path of his career since his election to the European Assembly in 1979. I have never known anybody who has had such a comprehensive grasp of the complexities of Europe. The marvellous exposé he gave in the space of 20 minutes, in which he covered so many areas and raised so many issues, showed what was fundamental to his political make-up. That vision and idealism was again portrayed. We thank him for the 25 years of excellent service he has given Connacht-Ulster and Ireland.
I wish to ask a few brief questions. One of the problems that people here recognise is the perceived distance and failure to connect on the part of the public with Europe. Does Mr. McCartin see the new European convention bringing about a process of integration, understanding or connection? Regarding Objective One status, on which Mr. McCartin lobbied strongly and organised deputations to the then Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies to have the border, midlands and western region categorised within it for funding, the Indecon report of the half way review of the national development plan appears to indicate Ireland is still not getting the largesse to which it is entitled. I strongly believe Turkey should be a member provided it meets the human rights criteria and that its economy is in order. Does Mr. McCartin favour such an approach? He mentioned the urgent need for a common foreign policy. Does he see the creation of a new European foreign minister, which is part and parcel of the new Convention, as being successful and will it bring the urgently needed process of a common European foreign policy a step closer or make it a reality?
I thank Mr. McCartin for his eloquent and thoughtful address. I was concerned that he said the EU was still a fragile institution. This shows how important it is that we support it. He said also that the EU had guaranteed minority rights. For women here, while we were in a majority, it guaranteed rights for us such as equal pay. The stability of the European Union is important. I was interested to hear him stress the importance of subsidiarity. We are frequently inclined to blame things we do not like on Europe without remembering we have subsidiarity in the enormous number of ways we interpret EU directives. I am glad Mr. McCartin mentioned this.
I was very glad to see the changes being made to the Common Agricultural Policy, and our Minister was absolutely right in promoting decoupling immediately. It must be of great concern to all Agriculture Ministers that changes have not yet been made in the United States despite the fact that Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowan farmer who is Chairman of the Committee on Finance in the US Senate, has tried to have some changes made in the way financial support is given to US farmers. It is awfully difficult for farmers within the European Union to compete with the subsidies given out in the United States. Is there any way the European Union can support Senator Grassley's efforts? We seem to have terribly little influence on what happens in the United States. A very good example is the way in which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Tony Blair, felt he had considerable influence on the President of the United States, yet when the President visited the United Kingdom last week, not one thing seemed to change, including the steel tariffs. Does the US Administration regard us as very junior partners or have we, as a bloc, much influence on what happens in the United States? Some of the actions of the United States are totally against the World Trade Organisation rules.
I welcome Mr. McCartin to the House, thank him for his very informative and positive contribution on Europe and wish him well. Senator Higgins raised the issue of the distance that exists between the public and the EU institutions. One issue that arose in the Seanad during our examination of Seanad reform is whether we could play a bigger role in monitoring European affairs. Today's debate is part of this process. Does Mr. McCartin have any thoughts on how our national Parliament could link up better with the European Union and the Irish MEPs. Should we adopt any structures in that regard?
I, too, welcome Mr. McCartin to the House. It was a pleasure to hear his inspiring contribution. The quality of representation we have in Europe encourages me greatly. Furthermore, I was hugely impressed by his enthusiasm and passion for Europe given that it is so many years since he was first elected.
It is not so much the mastery of the nuts and bolts of Europe that I want to talk about – I have no doubt that Mr. McCartin has done the post-doctoral course on that – but the appreciation of the historic entity that is Europe and its moral and rational basis. It is now unthinkable that Germany and France would engage in a war such as those that resulted in the death of millions in the last century. It is now unthinkable that the countries of eastern Europe would engage with the countries in western Europe other than in dialogue. One hopes this spirit and philosophy can be extended to the Balkans and further afield.
I share Mr. McCartin's suspicion of the nation state, which has been an agency for great evil in the world over 150 years. As economic entities are getting bigger there is a necessity for political entities to get smaller. I support Mr. McCartin's view on subsidiarity. I believe subsidiarity means devolution not to national capitals but beyond those into the regions.
I was lucky enough to be taught by a man whose ideal polity was the Holy Roman Empire and for whom the sun rose on Christmas Day in 800 when Charlemagne was crowned in Cologne Cathedral. The empire actually crashed to pieces at Ravenna seven centuries later. This poses the question of what is Europe. De Gaulle had a view of a Europe extending from the Atlantic to the Urals. I do not think it included us at the time but, nevertheless, we will be charitable to him. Where will the borders of Europe be? Presumably, one cannot adopt new countries indefinitely but there must be some degree of permeability. I am interested in hearing Mr. McCartin's views on what will happen in respect of the Mediterranean and north Africa.
Senator Tuffy asked how the citizens of Europe could be engaged in the affairs of Europe. What are Mr. McCartin's views on this? Given the enormous field that will have to be covered because of the slight reduction in the number of Irish MEPs, how will this be managed? I thank Mr. McCartin for his contribution, which I found very encouraging and inspiring.
I, too, thank Mr. McCartin for attending. He was one of the first to respond when we issued the letters of invitation when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges agreed as a policy that MEPs be invited to address the House. Our Standing Orders already make provision in this regard.
Mr. McCartin's address was amazingly full of vision. The passage of 25 years has not dimmed the reason he put himself forward as a candidate in the European elections and went to Europe. It is most inspiring to find somebody who has served for 25 years in a democratic milieu who has retained a sense of enjoyment regarding Europe, particularly a sense of purpose and vision. We are all the better for it.
This exercise has been very good because we are beginning to see the calibre, strength of character and purpose of those who represent us in Europe. This is good because they were all a mystery to us beforehand. Mr. McCartin stated in his contribution that he viewed each institution, such as the county councils, the regional councils, the Dáil or Seanad, and European institutions, as separate entities representing democracy and that he was never one to trumpet the rights of MEPs to appear in a parliament. However, we would like to trumpet it because we feel this House can form an appropriate forum in which to hear the views of our MEPs. Mr. Pat Cox and others have already addressed the House.
A clear pattern is emerging regarding the idealism people feel in terms of the job they took up. I often wondered how MEPs put up with the incessant travel and the early morning flights from Dublin or Knock Airports to Brussels. A Member of the House in the Fine Gael ranks will be or hopes to be emulating Mr. McCartin in this regard after the next election. Given that tiredness and the sense of being away from one's country, friends and family are part of being an MEP, I realise that a sense of vision is required.
Mr. McCartin struck a chord and was correct when he said Europe is the finest example of human co-operation. It was set up in order that there would never again be conflicts such as the First and Second World Wars. Channel Four has a very good Saturday evening programme on the First World War and the scale of the slaughter and bloodshed during that and the Second World War when the armies were far more technically advanced. The European Union was founded on idealism, hope and aspiration, threads which have kept the countries of Europe together. Now, with the growth of the Union, where will it end? Mr. McCartin will deal with that in his reply to Senator Maurice Hayes's question on the same point. How can we manage a larger Union? We long for the new members to join, having supported enlargement because we were the beneficiaries for so long and wanted to give other countries, particularly those which had come out of serfdom and communist control, the chance we had and to see them glow brightly. Many are descended from ancient civilisations and would have had culture and education long before other countries. We welcome them and look forward to the opportunity to meet them during our Presidency. How will the Union manage itself in a larger environment?
Mr. McCartin was a keen member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture during his time in this Parliament. He spoke about how the "CAP fitted" Ireland even though there was a certain inequality within it. He also mentioned the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the vision of rural regeneration which is now agricultural policy. Will Mr. McCartin tell us on what committees he served in the European Parliament and the headline policies which emanated from them?
I thank Mr. McCartin for coming to the House. This is a very good exercise for the Oireachtas and before Christmas we will meet as many MEPs as are keen to talk to us. Many are coming and we hope to repeat the exercise next term. Mr. McCartin is not a member of my party, but that is not the point. On behalf of the people of the west, Connacht-Ulster and the country at large, I thank Mr. McCartin for his commitment to, and relish for, his purpose. He has given freely of himself to the EU on our behalf.
I too welcome Mr. McCartin and thank him for his most informative and interesting presentation. He spoke about a united Ireland and co-operation within Europe, but serious problems remain here with regard to getting people interested in the affairs of Europe. We are the greatest beneficiaries of the European Union but still people do not seem to be interested in what happens on mainland Europe. Is this because Ireland is an island nation or are there other reasons?
Much of it is our own fault. There are situations in which national politicians and the Government blame the European Union for various laws and regulations and for the red tape and bureaucracy. This is very evident in the Department of Agriculture and Food, which tells people that it cannot pay a grant because of a detail in their applications and the guidelines are set in Brussels. People are frustrated by the bureaucracy at the centre of democracy in the European Union. Yesterday we heard a note of arrogance creeping in from the larger nations in the EU, when Italy did a deal for France and Germany with regard to managing their economies under the Stability and Growth Pact while the smaller nations co-operated and took the business of the European Union and the guidelines set by the Commission very seriously. Mr. McCartin said at the end of his presentation that there is a fragility in Europe and I see that in the dominance by the larger nations.
We have much in common with the applicant nations in terms of heritage and culture. I have visited many of those countries, including Slovakia and Slovenia, where the people are very nice and sincere. Will the EU development projects move towards those nations and will we become further isolated within the enlarged Union? If the local elections did not coincide with the European elections, the turnout would be less than 40% in European elections and this would send the wrong message to our colleague nations in the EU. We are propping up the turnout at the European elections by calling the local elections at the same time.
The television channel, CCN, reports on the news in each state in the United States. We should promote a European channel on all the networks throughout the Union to enlighten and inform people about what is happening in the European Parliament and in the various member states. We should work towards this as it would give us a greater insight into their cultures and so on. Again, I sincerely thank Mr. McCartin for coming here. He has always been a common sense politician. I admire him and his great grasp of European affairs.
I too greatly appreciated and enjoyed Mr. McCartin's contribution. Having watched and taken an interest in the affairs of the European Parliament for over 20 years, I admire Mr. McCartin's independent mind, within the framework of his party. Regardless of whether one agrees with him, no one could doubt his political courage. We are not elected to this or any other House or parliament to be political clones. Each of us has a contribution to make and Mr. McCartin has made a very clear contribution.
My view of the nation state is somewhat more benign than his view. The independence of this country is, in a sense, based on the concept of the nation state, but that was a reaction to empires and the European Union is a sort of synthesis of the better elements of both.
Yes, it is.
It is a union of states and citizens that brings the two together in a very benign form.
Although the final decisions on the European constitution have not been taken, the parameters are reasonably clear. Does Mr. McCartin believe it likely, unless something very unexpected happens, that there is anything in the outcomes expected within the next month or two that would make it necessary for us to oppose adoption of the constitution? Would he take the view that as things are progressing we should continue to support our participation and full membership?
Yesterday's decision by the Finance Ministers should not be seen entirely as an issue of large powers versus small powers and whether they are treated equally. Perhaps one of the reasons the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, took the position he did also involves the question of how much central control the EU should have over budgetary policy. On that issue we might be more on the side of France and Germany than appears in public discussion. Mr. McCartin might comment on this aspect.
My colleagues and I welcome Mr. McCartin back to the House. He has been an MEP of extraordinary energy and as a constituent of his in Connacht-Ulster, I express on my own behalf and that of his constituents great thanks to him for the enthusiasm with which he always upheld the European concept. Throughout the years when we rarely glimpsed an MEP, one could be assured that Mr. McCartin would turn up at various meetings whether political or public and would defend to the limit the concept of Europe. Although there may be downsides to defending it and although many changes brought about by EU directives and regulations, or by decisions taken in Europe, may not initially have been acceptable in this State, he nevertheless felt compelled to defend Europe and did so with great determination and honesty, which we welcomed at all times.
Mr. McCartin was one of the few people who some years ago took on board and piloted the concept of Objective One status for the BMW region. He lobbied extensively in his own constituency and at national level as well as in Europe. The outcome was of tremendous benefit to all concerned, including Governments over the years, in improving the lot of the western areas. We can see that continuing in the years ahead.
It is my belief, expressed in both Houses of the Oireachtas in the past, that there is an over-zealous attempt to implement all the EU directives and regulations that have come in over the years. There is a lack of equality in the way they are interpreted in the various countries, by various Government Departments and by the civil servants in those Departments who have tunnel vision in terms of how things must be done, with very serious consequences. In no place has there been such crude and severe implementation as in the special areas of conservation directive for whose imposition we principally blame Dúchas, perhaps incorrectly because Dúchas is blamed for many things. Its implementation under legislation introduced by Ministers and Governments over the years seems cruel. I remember Mr. McCartin being a member of the European affairs committee when a senior executive came before it and said that these directives were never intended to deny people in any way the opportunity of making a reasonable and honest living within their environment. Tragically, the application of some of these directives, or aspects of them, has been over-zealous in Ireland and has curtailed the capacity of people to continue to make a decent living in areas with very few natural resources.
Will Mr. McCartin comment on the over-production we heard about four or five years ago regarding the butter mountains, wine lakes and so on? Have they disappeared, or is it merely that criticising them has gone out of fashion? Changes coming in from Europe will mean changes for the whole pattern of agriculture and rural living in Ireland. Is it not amazing that we can see some of the best land in this country left idle, growing weeds or nothing at all? Something is wrong somewhere. Perhaps Europe has been very good for us, but there is something wrong when we leave dormant our best productive land. I ask Mr. McCartin to comment because he has vast experience in agriculture.
I welcome Mr. McCartin, whose constituency borders the Leas-Chathaoirleach's area of the Shannon and midlands. I know from my dealings with many people down through the years of Mr. McCartin's term as an MEP that when he spoke on agricultural matters, people listened and took great heed of what he had to say because he always dealt with what was relevant to the people who mattered on the ground.
I was heartened to hear Mr. McCartin's comments on rural development. As a man of great experience, he put down a marker in this area. We have concentrated greatly on urban development in Ireland, but Mr. McCartin noted an opportunity for agriculture and the farming community, for farmers to continue on the land long after our time as public representatives.
I support the comments of Senator Jim Higgins on the BMW region and Objective One status. Qualification was purely as a result of disadvantage in the area, of which my constituency of Laoighis-Offaly is part. It is crucial that the area retains Objective One status. Mr. McCartin may have some influence in that regard. There is one slight problem in that part of the area is not regarded as fully disadvantaged. There is an anomaly there and farmers are losing out. I will comment later on the wildlife directive.
Mr. McCartin expressed views on the Committee of the Regions, which could be a very valuable body if it was used more to look at legislation and help our MEPs. The number of MEPs in this country will fall. The members of the Committee of the Regions are members of local auth orities who have their fingers on the pulse in dealing with all local authority matters. Their positions should be made full-time, with a specific remit of ensuring that legislation is properly vetted by the country they represent.
I thank Mr. McCartin sincerely. Although I am from a different political party, I have always admired what he had to say on Europe and agriculture. Mr. McCartin is not standing for re-election as an MEP and it is a huge blow to this country to lose someone of his experience and ability in Europe.
I welcome Mr. McCartin to the House and I thank him for his most comprehensive, informative and interesting address. As many Members have remarked, it was truly inspirational.
I have three questions. Mr. McCartin touched on the enthusiasm for Europe in some areas which we may have thought somewhat misguided, such as the habitat directives. A certain section of Europe has had too much regard for such protection. I am not saying such habitats should be wiped out by chemicals or pesticides, but there is over-emphasis on insects, snails and plant life. Ridiculous situations arise where areas adjacent to national and secondary routes are designated as SACs. Those roads need to be widened in the interests of safety, the paramount concern. The plant and insect life will survive in adjoining areas that are more worthy of preservation. This has been too extensive, intrusive and damaging to the people. The correct balance was not struck. As Senator Burke said, Dúchas took this up with too much enthusiasm and went overboard. I welcomed the Government decision on Dúchas, but it should go further and put the entire service under the remit of the Office of Public Works. It is misplaced in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
There is a frightful hullabaloo about stem cell research. What is Mr. McCartin's view of that issue? It is an important matter to many people in this country because of our interpretation of the constitutional position.
I do not think Turkey is ready to be a member of the European Union.
Neither do I.
There are serious outstanding questions on human rights and on the role and power of the army. Everyone in business in Turkey and many others in Europe would like to see Turkey join the Union and I would not keep the country out unnecessarily, but it is not ready to join. I met a Turkish businessman in London and he told me that the Turkish business community did not worry about the Government because the army keeps a check on politicians. That is wrong in a democracy.
Mr. McCartin, MEP
I thank everyone for their kind welcome. I found it heart-warming to return after so many years and find such a universal welcome. I have noticed that the longer a person's days go on, the nicer people are to one.
As opposed to all political lives ending in failure.
Mr. McCartin, MEP
I quoted the late William Butler Yeats, a former Member of this House, in Sligo. In the poem "Youth and Age" he said:
Much did I rage when young,
Being by the world oppressed,
But now with flattering tongue
It speeds the parting guest.
I am not becoming cynical, far from it, but Yeats was no fool.
Another philosopher came to mind when we were talking of people's interest in the European Union and politics generally. Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher who predated Christ by 400 years and was earlier than Confucius, said when disorder comes to the land, patriotism is born. The opposite is also true; when the land is in good order, people become complacent. When I first went to the European Parliament, I met many people who had been in the war, whose parents had disappeared and whose homes and property had all been lost. I met Germans who carried a heavy burden of guilt over what had happened to the Jewish communities in eastern Europe. Today we have moved further away from that and young people do not talk about it as much. Europe is not very fragile but it might be more delicate than we think because the passion for unity and structures to ensure peace might not exist to the same extent today. Young people may have forgotten the basic reason behind the creation of the European Union.
Senator Maurice Hayes mentioned the emperor Charlemagne. When we debated Europe in the early days, I asked why we were afraid of Europe when we had sent saints and scholars throughout Europe who assisted with its development as a continent. Charlemagne loved the Irish monks. A French person told me that Charlemagne valued les moines errants, the wandering monks, and encouraged them to come to his empire. The composer Robert Schumann proposed that Saint Columbanus should be the patron saint of Europe because he was the first man who viewed it in its entirety.
We survived in the United States and secured our identity not by waving the crom béal or dancing jigs and reels, but by becoming part of America. Our strongest asset in the European Union is our ability to go there with the self-confidence that brought St. Columbanus to northern Italy, where he founded cities, and that brought 500,000 Irish Wild Geese to fight for causes other than their own.
We should not be nervous about Europe – it is part of what we are. I am not one of those who recognises separate nations; it is a long time since such entities existed. Marianne Elliot, in her book, The Catholics of Ulster, said that when St. Patrick came to Ulster, the Ulsterman was already a mongrel and that when the Normans arrived, there was only one clan that could be identified as pre-Gaelic. I have looked at the past of Europe and what we have created is much better.
When I mentioned Turkey, it was not out of concern that it is a threat or danger to Europe but there are those who readily say that we should take in Turkey in the sure knowledge that it might make the institutions so unwieldy that our democratic structures could not handle a Union so changed by such a large and difficult economy.
Senator Maurice Hayes asked where the limits lie. I am not anxious to place geographic limits on Europe. I do not know who designed its borders, but Cicero said that the Romans lived around the Mediterranean like frogs around a pool so Europe would include north Africa. My vision is of a democracy for mankind, but we should not try to raise that idea too fast. We must be patient and enlarge only as we can handle it. We must not be pushed by outside forces or agendas into creating a Europe that is ungovernable and with which we are not happy.
There were many other questions, on agriculture and other things. We must recognise that agriculture is about the production of food. The new agenda will confine the production of food within those limits of environmental damage, animal welfare, of course, and the welfare of the human labour employed. However, the borders between what we call organic agriculture and viable, competitive agriculture are becoming dimmed. The bottom line will be that the food we produce must be safe. It must be produced in such a way that it is traceable so we know where it comes from, allowing us to establish what it is. We must not damage the environment, which is the position we should approach it from. Holland, with 1% of Europe's land, produces 7% of Europe's food. If France was as intensively cultivated as Holland we would need no more land to produce enough food. There is more land in Europe than we need for the production of food. At one time I was lecturing former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, about Irish land. I wanted a programme of afforestation, or whatever it was at the time. He told me the sums at that time did not justify the investment. He said that just because the land was there did not mean we had to make any particular use of it. The land is there for the good of mankind. It is not necessary to have rye, wheat or vegetables growing in every field; we can leave it for human enjoyment. The Common Agricultural Policy will ensure we get good food at the right price and that the environment will be safe and enjoyable for humanity.
Of the European Union's budget, 40% goes on agriculture, 30% on Structural Funds, about 7% on internal policies, research and so on. The big danger is that we will have a Europe that makes laws and all we will see coming from the European institutions are directives. They are over there telling us what we may or may not do, which is fine – that has to be done – but national governments will appear with the goodies and it will appear that Europe has no goodies. John Healy of The Irish Times said we were destined when we went to the European Parliament to live a remote and lonely existence because there was no pork barrel in Europe out of which awards could be made for the political effort that sent us there. We will have to be very careful about the people of Europe perceiving the European institutions as a factory for the turning out of directives. The €6 billion or €7 billion that was divided in the early days for actions in favour of women, the handicapped and the poor of the inner cities, may not be important in an economic sense, but we must reserve some place in the European budget for those actions which will help to connect Europe with its ordinary citizens as well as explaining its necessity to them.
I said I did not believe in MEPs coming to Parliament to talk to Members, but it is important that we are available to explain issues and if Members want to talk to us. I had a dual mandate for a long time and I do not remember, when speaking on agriculture, having any particular audience in the Dáil any more than if I was not a Member of the European Parliament. The special expertise of MEPs, while they were still Members of the Dáil, was not recognised in any way. I do not remember the political establishment in Ireland consulting me about particular things. Everybody is too busy with their own patch. We should remember what Chancellor Kohl said, namely that henceforth we will live our lives according to three reference points – our home, our homeland and the European Union. Those three reference points will have to be attended to in our political objectives and planning in the future as we cannot afford to neglect our home, our homeland or Europe.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I thank Mr. McCartin for coming here. He is the longest serving Irish MEP and it is a great honour to have somebody of his experience in the House. I thank him on behalf of the Seanad.
Sitting suspended at 12.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.