Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1981

Vol. 328 No. 2

European Council Meeting: Statement by the Taoiseach.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to make a statement on the European Council which I attended, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in Maastricht on 23 and 24 March.

The Council agreed to take for its agenda—(1) The economic and social situation and medium-term perspectives; (2) Relations with industrialised countries; (3) The North-South dialogue; (4) The seat of the institutions; and (5) Political co-operation items including, in particular, Afghanistan, Middle East, the Lebanon and Poland.

At the end of the meeting the Dutch Presidency issued a summary of the conclusions, in accordance with the normal practice. I have arranged to have copies of this summary placed in the Library, for the information of Deputies.

The Council convened in the face of a sombre outlook for the Community economy. The paper submitted by the Commission brought out that the current recession is much deeper, wider and more persistent than had been anticipated. For the Community as a whole the most recent Commission forecasts suggest that the upturn in activity may be delayed until the third quarter of this year, much later than previously expected. The year-on-year change in GDP for the Community for 1981 has been revised down from an increase of 0.6 per cent to a decline of the same dimension. While some slowdown in consumer prices is foreseen, the current balance of payments outturn could be slightly worse than the high deficit recorded in 1980. One feature that was highlighted in the Commission document was the need for a concerted reaction to the very high and volatile interest rates prevailing in the United States and to the appreciation of the exchange rates of the dollar and yen.

The major Irish concerns at the Council related to employment and agriculture.

As Deputies will be aware, the number of unemployed in the Community now exceeds 8,500,000 and is still rising. This is not a phenomenon confined to any one country or even to the Community. The current recession affects every country in the industrialised world.

My approach to the Council was that, with unemployment at its current level and with the further deterioration projected for the Community as a whole, it was inconceivable that Europe's leaders should adopt a passive and even fatalistic attitude. It was unacceptable that an Economic Community should make no attempt to conduct a policy of economic management. I stressed that, if constant references to Community solidarity had any real meaning, it should manifest itself in relation to current economic difficulties. Recessionary tendencies in one country spill over into the others with a cumulative effect and only a combination of effort can counteract this process.

It must also be remembered that national governments have by treaty conferred on the Community institutions certain powers which, in consequence, they themselves cannot exercise.

This division could have the effect, unless action is taken, of restricting the power of governments and the Community to react to economic circumstances. It is imperative to ensure that this does not happen and that measures taken at national level to counteract unemployment or other economic evils are matched by compatible and parallel action at Community level. Just as recession in one country affects others, so the consequences of recovery and growth in one economy help others. The essential aim of economic policy now is to get back on to the path of real growth and to increase employment.

I wish to direct the attention of the House to the important declaration in the Presidency conclusions that the Council in Maastricht was agreed that the fight against the evil of unemployment should be conducted not only by the member states but also at Community level and that the Community must be involved in limiting the effects of recession and bringing about the return of sustained economic growth and satisfactory levels of employment. There is also the important decision to the effect that a contribution to recovery can be made by ensuring that the existing funds and financial mechanisms contribute as much as possible to the reduction of unemployment.

The problems facing the European economies in achieving growth are clearly identifiable.

The first is the high and fluctuating level of interest rates, which makes decisions on productive investment difficult. This is not a problem for any one country but requires international attention at the highest level.

The second obstacle is the level of energy prices. The cost of imported fuel is now a major factor in the western recession. For us the cost of oil has risen from just over £70 million in the early seventies to a figure estimated this year to be of the order of £1 billion. This represents a real and irrecoverable transfer of resources. There is no way we can escape its consequences at present, but we can mollify them through vigorous and concerted policies for energy conservation and substitution. The Council in Maastricht recorded their view that a reduction in dependence on imported oil and the use of alternative fuels are vital to employment and the balance of payments.

The third structural obstacle to the improvement of employment lies in the area of incomes. We had before us advice from the Commission that the expected reduction of employment in 1981 could be corrected progressively with the recovery in the second half of the year. They say that the speed of this recovery will depend on the response of the social partners to the need for higher investment and structural change, and that defensive measures and subsidies would impede the progress of re-allocation as much as aggressive wage policies. With little productivity growth and further losses in 1981 on the terms of trade, they see almost no scope for significant real income gains in the Community.

In the course of my discussions with other Heads of Government I have urged that, apart from the general need to concert Community policies and instruments, there are a number of specific proposals which would need to be put into effect.

The first is to encourage increased investment to improve the structural capacity of our economies, both to give direct employment and to create the capacity for future growth. In our conditions, with 50 per cent of the Community average GDP per capita, the need for this strategy is particularly pressing. Our economy needs large investment, new productive capacity and essential infrastructure if it is to improve in the medium and long term its relative efficiency and the standard of living of our people within the Community. Deputies will note that the Presidency conclusions accept the need for structural reinforcement of the European economy through cost restraint and a rise in productive investment and productivity. This is an endorsement of the Government's policy, reflected in the Investment Plan for 1981, of improving our productive capacity and economic infrastructure so as to avail more fully of growth possibilities as international economic activity increases.

We have been making the case that there is a need to expand the activity of the Social Fund to meet the special needs of young people in the present restricted labour market. Increased education and training, particularly in technological skills, will reduce pressure on the labour market and provide young people with greater employment opportunities as economic activity expands. Deputies will note that the conclusions indicate that, in ensuring that the existing funds and financial mechanisms contribute to the reduction of unemployment, particular attention should be given to the possibilities of providing advanced technological training and education for youth.

We have also stressed the need to protect and preserve, in the present abnormal but temporary recession, jobs in industries whose viability in more normal market conditions is proven. The industrial and competition policies of the Community have an obvious and powerful role to play here.

I suggested also that it was for the Community to promote, in consultation with the social partners, the technological and innovative development of industry. The conclusions of the Council endorsed this approach and called for co-ordinated efforts to foster the development of high technology and innovative enterprises.

The conclusions refer to the proposed joint Council of Ministers of Economic Affairs, Finance and Social Affairs to consider general economic and social problems and, in particular, unemployment. The Council stressed its conviction that a thorough preparation of such a Council is of the highest importance.

An important overall conclusion was that in the present economic situation intensive consultation with the social partners is of vital importance. As I have stated here many times, continuing and intensive consultation with the social partners in dealing with the economic situation is a fundamental policy of the Government.

The discussion on a Common Fisheries Policy was disappointing in that no conclusions were reached. The outstanding problems seem to be disproportionate to the need to develop this policy, in the interests of fishermen generally and the cohesion of the Community. It was agreed in the end that there should be a further attempt to settle the outstanding matters and that a meeting of Fishery Ministers should be held tomorrow, Friday.

Our concern with agriculture and the effect of recession on farm incomes throughout the Community, and, in particular, in our own country, are well known. What is happening in agriculture is aggravating the Community's greatest failure to date — its continuing inability to reduce the serious regional imbalances within its borders. This failure has created doubt in some minds as to the political will of Europe to progress towards its fundamental aim of closer union.

Conscious of the serious fall in farm incomes in many of the member states the Council, in an important and positive conclusion, requested Ministers of Agriculture to continue and intensify their discussions on the proposals on agricultural prices and economies for 1981-82 with the will to reach agreement by 1 April. It is urgently necessary that they should comply with this directive.

Now that the Customs Union is complete and with good progress on the common commercial policy the basic defect manifesting itself is the limited resources of the budget. It is surely unrealistic to expect the budget, amounting as it does to less than 1 per cent of the GNP of the member states, to make any significant impression on our problems. Even less can it be expected that the budget, within its present limits, can meet the inevitable further demands on its resources which will follow enlargement.

We would view with the utmost concern any attempt to dismantle the achievements of the Community by undermining the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP is enshrined in the Treaty itself, and currently protects the livelihood of eight million farmers and farm workers who are an important force for social, economic and, hence, political stability throughout the Community.

At the same time, we accept that there are certain products under the CAP which have run into a situation involving both cost and market difficulties. Solutions to these difficulties must be sought product by product and not by way of attempting to impose a single rigid formula which will inevitably not be appropriate for the very different problems that present themselves. In principle, we believe that a solution to the present problems of the CAP must meet a number of conditions:—

(1) it must be in conformity with Article 39 of the Treaty and with the established principles of market unity, financial solidarity and community preference;

(2) it must not be disproportionate, in scope or in duration, to the real problems of the individual product sectors; there should be no permanent, institutionalised co-responsibility system;

(3) it must not add to the problems of farmers who are already in difficulties; in operating the policy the Community must have due regard to the need to protect farm incomes and in particular to take account of the effect of rising costs of production on farmers;

(4) it must not carry risks of deterioration in the general economic situation of member states particularly as regards employment;

(5) it must not act against the overall objective of regional convergence in the Community, and in particular it must not prevent member states whose productivity in particular sectors is substantially below Community level from reaching that level; and

(6) it must, as regards exports, respect the Community's role as a major agricultural exporter, and, as regards imports, ensure that a fair share of the necessary burden is borne by third countries whose supplies to the Community also contribute to the difficulties.

We also support the reduction and ultimate elimination of MCAs which act against a fundamental principle of the Community in the distortions they cause in the system of free trade within its borders.

I mention these principles now because they are relevant to the examination being conducted by the Commission under the mandate of 30 May last of the problems arising from the settlement of the British budgetary difficulties.

The Council also decided that the location of the Community institutions should remain as they are.

Discussions in the political co-operation framework focussed mainly on East-West relations, in particular, the situation in Poland. We talked about Middle East questions, including difficulties facing UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon. In addition, the European Council provided a useful opportunity to review relations between the Community and the new US administration.

On Poland, we reaffirmed the position stated at the last meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on 2 December 1980. We stressed that the Polish people should be free to face their internal problems in a peaceful manner and without outside interference. Any other attitude would have very serious consequences not only for Poland but for the world. We also indicated our readiness to continue to give economic support to Poland.

The Council underlined that the problem of Afghanistan remains a threat to the stability of relations in the region and worldwide. We once again stated the requirements for a political solution and welcomed the UN Resolution of 20 November 1980 and the proposal put forward by France as initiatives worthy of support.

The Council heard an interim report by the Netherlands Foreign Minister on the satisfactory results of his Middle East mission which is aimed at a comprehensive, just and durable settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He will continue his contacts with the various parties concerned and we will consider the matter again at the next meeting of the Council at the end of June.

As regards the Lebanon, the Council gave strong support to the efforts of the UN Security Council to ensure that obstacles will not be placed in the way of UNIFIL in the full discharge of its mandate in Southern Lebanon. As Deputies will be aware, three soldiers of the Nigerian UNIFIL contingent were killed in a recent incident and it is important that effective action be taken to avoid a repetition of such attacks.

As regards the North/South dialogue, the European Council stressed and reconfirmed the advantage of opening concrete negotiations between the industrialised and the developing countries with regard to serious international economic problems. With an eye to the international conferences foreseen, we instructed the General Affairs Council to examine the Commission proposals and to report to us at our next meeting in June. That meeting will, of course, precede the meeting of the World or Western Economies Summit in Ottawa and accordingly will provide a timely opportunity for finalising the guidelines for the Community's participation in the Summit meeting.

The Ottawa gathering will in turn facilitate an exchange of views with the United States, Japan and Canada. As regards the reference in the Maastricht conclusions to forthcoming international conferences, there are a number of these but attention is principally focussed on the Summit Conference on the North/South dialogue which is to be held in Mexico next October. This will be an event of the highest importance in the context of this dialogue which the Government believe must be pursued on a consistent and equitable basis.

On political relations between the Community and the United States, there is satisfaction with the expressed intention of the new US administration to pursue a consistent policy and to consult closely with its friends in Europe.

In essence, I believe that in spite of all the difficulties and in particular the disappointment over fish, the Maastricht Council was a useful meeting. There were a number of important conclusions. The meeting was well ordered and, apart from the discussion on fish, dealt in a businesslike and positive way with all items before it. Our thanks are due to the Presidency for this. The decisions on the economic and social situation, particularly in the recognition of unemployment as a Community problem, are valuable in the specific nature of the recommendations they make for dealing with the fundamental economic issues and the recession facing the industrialised world today.

I do not intend to dwell on the sense of humiliation felt by evey Irish man and woman at the spectacle of our Taoiseach allowing himself, through his own and his Minister for Foreign Affairs' deliberate ambivalance and double talk, designed to fool people for electoral purposes, to be placed in the position of being publicly ticked off by the British Prime Minister at an international gathering and emerging with his tail between his legs. Not only would that not happen when we were in Government, it could not be conceived that it would have happened; because our diplomacy was concentrated on securing results and not on public relations and also because, whatever battles we had to fight with the British Government — and there were many on a multitude of issues — we were particularly careful not to allow ourselves to be wrong-footed by them. Having said that, I pass to the substantive economic issues of this European Council meeting.

As far as our interests in the Community are concerned they must be preserved by us playing a constructive role in the resolution of problems, even problems that do not directly concern our vital interests, for example the Lomé Convention on the democratisation of Portugal and the Euro-Arab dialogue and by espousing the cause of European integration. We gave these policies high priority during our period in office and this brought us the goodwill of other member countries who contrasted our constructive approach with that of the UK. We should also use the goodwill thus secured to ensure that our problems will be treated sympathetically. It was thus that Deputy Mark Clinton secured for Irish farmers many benefits that we would otherwise not have obtained. It was thus also that we secured from our partners recognition of the special position of Ireland in relation to the fishery problem and the need for the enormous expansion of the Irish catch at a time when the fish catches of all other countries were to be cut. It was thus also that we secured a two-thirds increase in our share of the regional fund by comparsion with what was originally proposed.

Since this Government came to power, I have seen little evidence of any similar strategic approach to the question of our relations with the other member states. Our attitude seems to be a mixture of the passive and the poor mouth, precisely the combination which intelligent diplomacy should lead us to avoid. Looking back over recent years I have found it hard to detect from the accounts, given in the press or by the Taoiseach to the House of these meetings, any serious effort to advance our vital interests by securing the support of other countries with similar interests or by playing a positive and constructive role of a kind that won for us the goodwill of other member states.

As far as this European Council is concerned it is clear that there were several objectives which we should have been aiming to secure. One relates to the highly controversial fishery issue, where the possibility still remains despite the action of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Minister for Fisheries, in throwing away, within a fortnight of coming to office so much that we had gained in October 1976, of securing at least a 12 mile band around our coasts together with a privileged position in areas beyond that, especially off the west coast. I am not clear as to what steps, if any, the Taoiseach took at Maastricht to advance our case in this respect. No press report I have read in any Irish or English paper has anything to say about Ireland and fisheries—all the talk now is about the British position, and all the concessions seem to be sought by Britain rather than by this country. There may be more to this than meets the eye but to the interested observer it is not evident that any serious attempt is being made to retrieve even part of the damage done by the disastrous blunders of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs in the early weeks of the present Government's period in office. Indeed the Taoiseach's silence on this issue in his speech comfirms my suspicions that no action was taken in regard to our fisheries position at this Council.

On the agricultural front we have both short-term and long-term interests to pursue and to protect. In the short term we must be concerned to ensure both that the price increase emerging from the forthcoming Agricultural Council meeting or meetings will be on the scale commensurate with the level of inflation that this Government have imposed upon this country by their disastrous economic policies. I concede that this may be difficult to obtain. The Government's actions in allowing inflation here to rise to and remain at a level around 20 per cent, now 21 per cent, greatly weakens their capacity to argue the case for farm price increases of the scale needed to protect our farmers' incomes. This is because the Government's failures have left us open to the argument that we ought to clear up our own mess ourselves rather than expect Europe to bail us out. Nonetheless, even allowing for self-imposed difficulty, one would have hoped that the Taoiseach would have used the opportunity at the Maastricht Summit to press our case strongly in relation to farm price levels, and in particular to secure the support of his fellow heads of Government for a serious special package for Ireland to replace the derisory proposal for £16 million a year over two years which is all that his Minister for Agriculture has so far been able to extract from the European Commission. If the Taoiseach did raise and press these matters I would have thought that he would have told us something about his efforts and achievements since then, but there has been silence in respect of this whole area.

Neither, in the press nor in his speech — four pages of which are devoted to the discussion on agriculture — is there a reference to the Taoiseach's actively doing something about it at the summit.

The Taoiseach is telling us here what needs to be done and what the other countries should do but there is no evidence that he told them our needs or put our case to them. There is no point in preaching to us because we are converted. It was in Maastricht that the preaching should have been done and there is not the slightest evidence that the matter was even raised by the Taoiseach. Indeed it is difficult to trace any indication of any serious contribution made by the Taoiseach to the discussions at Maastricht. The impression that the average newspaper reader has, apart from what he has heard from the Taoiseach's brief discussion with the British Prime Minister, is one of an Irish Leader sitting silently and missing his opportunity to press for serious consideration of the critical economic situation in our country.

One of the problems here may be an inhibition on the part of the Government in explaining to our partners — just as they have been inhibited in explaining to the Irish public — how serious a crisis has been created in this State. The extent to which our present economic difficulties are due to the domestic policies of our Government rather than to factors outside our control is something that other member Governments may well be aware of so that any attempt to seek their support for our economy generally, quite apart from support for the specific difficulties of the agricultural sector, could meet with a rather cold reception. It may have been the fear of this that prevented the Taoiseach from pressing strongly, as one would have hoped he might have done, for a reflation of other European economies which are not as financially constrained as ours and where the pursuit of saner economic policies has left room for reflationary action which, if taken, could after six months or so begin to benefit this country.

The communique certainly suggests very little is going to be done by the other member countries to revitalise the economy of the Community as a whole. The references in it to the economic situation are, to say the least, discouraging; when one reads such language as "continuation of prudent monetary policies" one cannot draw much hope for action that would expand economic growth — which now appears to have disappeared within the Community as a whole, being replaced by a forecasted marginal decline in output during the current year. When one reads that "short-term demand stimuli will turn out to be ineffective" one can hear the death knell being sounded for many industries here which depend for their survival on a prosperous and expanding European economy. One wonders why the Taoiseach agreed to this proposition and why he did not press the argument that precisely what is needed at present, in countries that are not constrained by financial disarray and excessive borrowing as we are, is the application of short-term demand stimuli, instead of which he agreed with them that there should not be such action taken as a result of which the economies of these countries will remain depressed and we will have corresponding difficulties in pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.

In another paragraph of the communique, one can read an implied criticism of this country — I refer to the statement that "high and divergent inflation rates will outstrip both the prospects of growth and of the economic cohesion of the Community". It is difficult to see this as other than a warning that the continuation of inflation at the rate that this Government's policies have produced will make it difficult for the IR£ to hold its value in the EMS. One would like to have heard from the Taoiseach in this debate, and we shall certainly seek from him in the now widened debate on the Finance Bill, some indication of what measures he proposes to take to reduce our high inflation rate now 3½ times what it was in 1978, and to reduce the threat both to the prospect of growth in this country and to the maintenance of the value of our currency within the European Monetary System.

The references to unemployment in the communique are equally discouraging and do no more than repeat what has been said at so many other previous European Councils. I took the opportunity to glance back through the record of the European Councils over the years 1979 and 1980 to see what they said about unemployment. They acknowledged in March 1979 that priority should be given to improving the employment situation which continues to give rise to concern and they went on to invite both sides of industry to take the appropriate measures to develop their dialogue at Community level. In November 1979 they recalled that they discussed the serious unemployment situation in the Community and stated that a more co-ordinated approach to employment problems should be defined, requesting the Commission to submit proposals and measures which could be framed to promote more incisive Community action to do with the unemployment problem. At the following European Council it was agreed that the reduction of inflation was an important means of combating unemployment but that efforts within the Community to reduce structural unemployment should be stepped up and better co-ordinated. Three months later at Venice they affirmed "in the face of the increasing disturbing employment situation...particularly as regards young people...the priority and need, in some of the member states, for short-term structural measures in the context of an active employment policy", and went on to talk once again about the need to "ensure a better coordination of employment policies at Community level." At the December 1980 meeting, the European Council said that "it was particularly concerned at the rapid increase in unemployment in the member states of the Community". It went on, after reference to the need to reduce inflation, to say that "the various Community instruments must continue to serve first and foremost policies aimed at reducing structural unemployment and at improving infrastructure and the economic situation in the less favoured rural regions", adding, that "a special effort should be made in the Community and in all member states to assist young people to find employment, and to ensure that training is geared to requirements".

Now, at the latest European Council Meeting the heads of government tell us again that "the high and rising rates of unemployment, especially among youth, are a cause of deep concern." I do not know whom they are impressing but I do know whom they are depressing, the peoples of their countries. The constant reiteration of clichés followed up in no case over a period of two-and-a-half years by any action of significance is undermining confidence generally throughout the Community in the effectiveness of the Community as an instrument of common economic policy, and I think it is time that someone said this plainly at a European Council Meeting. I regret that the Taoiseach did not appear to have had the courage to do so.

The simple fact is that this European Council Meeting has yielded nothing of value from the point of view of this country, or indeed of the Community as a whole. Nothing was settled or decided in the sphere of fishery policy, agricultural policy or employment policy, all of which are vital to us. As I have had occasion to say in the past, one is forced to question the utility of regular meetings of this kind which, occurring whether or not there is something ready for decision, something that would produce practical results, only have the effect of depressing the peoples of Europe and undermining their faith in the Community. That was the view I held when the proposal was first put forward in October 1974 for these regular meetings. I pressed that view but was overborne by the larger countries which thought these meetings would provide them with an opportunity to boss the smaller countries — as has tended to be the case.

The simple fact is that the Community does not have at its disposal the resources to take any action that would be likely to have perceptible effects on the economies of members states. The present budgetary limitation, of 1 per cent of member states' VAT, leaves the Community so under-financed that it is simply a joke to pretend that it could take effective action in the economic sphere, and its attempts to co-ordinate the economic policy of members states which even without those resources it could, in theory, do, have notably failed because of the unwillingness of individual countries, including Ireland, to accept the need for co-ordinated economic policies. The scale of resources that would be required by the Community in order to intervene effectively in the economic situation is many times greater than the resources now available to it, which are so exiguous that the relatively small sums devoted to agriculture, themselves no more than, and in many cases probably less than, member states would be providing to assist this sector by means of national policies were there not a common agricultural policy, loom so large in this tiny budget as to have become the focal point of attack by those vested interests which are hostile to, or uncaring for, the need for a prosperous agricultural sector within the member countries.

What action did the Taoiseach take at this European Council Meeting to raise the crucial question of lifting the 1 per cent VAT limit, which at present hamstrings the Community in its efforts to act effectively in the economic sphere? Whatever short-term alleviation there may be of the effect of this limit by virtue of an improvement in agricultural prices reducing the cost to the Community of disposing of surpluses, the fact is that we are within a year or at most two years to the point where this limit will be a serious constraint on the further development of the Community. What support has the Taoiseach sought or secured from other member countries who may share this view — and some of them do — to get this limit removed, as it must be if the Community is not simply to fade away in the years ahead as it becomes increasingly ineffective through the inadequacies of the resources available to it? What diplomatic campaign has this country mounted on this issue and what success has it had? These are the kind of questions to which the House is entitled to answers and on which it has not been given any information whatsoever by the Taoiseach or by his Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I am afraid that under the present Government the Irish contribution to the Community has become negligible and negative. Any reports, reaction or feedback I have had from other countries in Europe, from people involved in the political process or in the European Commission have tended to confirm that. The contrast between the active policy pursued by Ireland during the period of office of the National Coalition and the passive policy. Only a return to the positive and active diplomacy of the period meet when I go to Brussels as well as to other European capitals. The prospects of our securing from this source the kind of assistance needed by a peripheral economy such as our own are fairly limited for the time being in view of this passive policy. Only a return to the positive and active diplomacy of the period of the National Coalition Government can give us any hope of securing from the Community the kind of assistance which this country needs and to which it can rightly lay claim if it makes its own positive input to the working of the Community, as was done during the early years of Irish membership in accordance with a carefully thought-out and concerted strategy which produced concrete results that have been singularly lacking during the past four years.

The Taoiseach referred in his speech to several other matters. He listed on one line the failure to take any decision about the location of the political institutions of the Community, a failure that is impeding the work of the Community and leading increasingly to unrest among the staff who find it impossible to work in three locations at once. It is about time this matter was tackled. Obviously vested interests are concerned in several of the member states. It is up to countries like Ireland who do not have a vested interest in where the capital of the Community is to be to help find a solution in this regard rather than stand back and let the quarrel continue, leaving the Community increasingly ineffective as its staff trundles backwards and forwards between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, becoming increasingly frustrated as a result of this.

I welcome the reference in the communiqué and in the Taoiseach's speech to the situation in Poland but I am concerned about reports that have come in since then of a hard line German attitude to the terms of financial aid to Poland. I hope the Taoiseach and other heads of government will ensure that aid is given to that country on a basis that will really meet Polish needs and that it will not be given on the basis of a primary concern with narrow banking criteria.

In his speech the Taoiseach referred to the North-South dialogue and the differnt fora in which the discussions will proceed. I hope we can make a positive input to this dialogue, as was done when we were in government, and that in co-operation with countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, who share our concern, we can ensure through these fora that the Community's input to the Summit in Mexico, where we shall be represented as part of the Community, will be a positive one. We should ensure that situation will not arise as happened in 1976 when, after several years when the Community had given a lead in the matter, it slipped backwards under pressure fom the United States to a negative attitude at Nairobi which has done it no good since then with the Third World, and which has done a disservice to our relationship with these countries and to the cause of the more equal distribution of resources worldwide.

I do not see any reference in the communiqué or in the Taoiseach's speech to El Salvador. If this matter was not discussed I regret that fact. I would have hoped there would have been a discussion on it and that a joint approach to the United States would have been agreed. On this matter I have had occasion more than once to congratulate our Minister on the efforts he has made in this area. I do not fault the Government here at all. It may be, although we cannot know it at this point, that there was a discussion on this subject at Maastricht but that it was decided not to make public reference to it because a private diplomatic approach to the United States might be more effective than public statements. I have no reason to believe that is the case; I am merely speculating that it could be the case. If so I would be happy with the approach adopted.

In the absence of any information on the subject I can only express concern as to whether this meeting did consider the situation in El Salvador and the danger to European-American relations which it constitutes and considered approaching the United States with a view to helping the situation in El Salvador, helping the human rights situation, helping to achieve a solution to the internal problems of that country through mediation and helping to ensure that equipment and arms are not furnished to the military government of that country by the United States. If that was done, I am glad; if it was not, I regret it. I can understand that even if it were done the Taoiseach might not be able to refer to it here and it will have to be left to historians to discover whether the Summit dealt with that important issue.

I should like to thank the Taoiseach for his report. He has done his best to attribute some importance to an occasion which was in every respect a waste of time and money. I have very little to say about this latest example of EEC summitry because there is little or nothing to say about it.

As to the substance of the meeting, neither the fisheries policy nor the agricultural price package was advanced in any way and once again the Heads of Government have ended up by sending these matters back to the Council of Ministers.

A number of worthy but quite practical statements were made on world political issues. We must welcome the statement on the situation in the Lebanon, but can anyone say that all the public relations and all the expense were justified? The Summit decided to press ahead with the Spanish and Portuguese applications for membership and that must be supported fully in political terms, but can we honestly say that this first Summit, after the welcome entry of Greece to the Community, did anything to suggest that there is either the political will or the economic or social policy to make enlargement work?

The Summit decided not to do anything about the absurd situation regarding the seat of the European Parliament. The costly Parliament circus is to continue back and forth between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and this is the kind of thing which gives the Community a very well deserved bad name.

Having said all that, there was a major issue facing the top people at the meeting and they did nothing about it. The Community's economic crisis is deep and its effects on ordinary men and women and their families are severe and getting worse. More than eight million people are out of work and almost half of them are young people. What had the Summit to say to them? We have heard the ten political leaders mouthing the usual platitudes about concern and high wage demands. We have heard nothing at all about a genuine Community response to the crisis, nor about any form of analysis of the basic causes of the crisis.

The fact is that the European Community today is the victim of its own philosophy. It was believed that free trade would produce growth, full employment and prosperity. In the world of the eighties that is a foolish and quite baseless belief. The European Community today is experiencing the results of the failure of the present economic and social system. Widespread unemployment, lack of any real hope of improvement, growing regional imbalance in coming years and dangerous social pressures all add up to an unacceptable situation. A Community with vast resources is seen to be unable to fulfil adequately its responsibilities to its own people, never mind to the world at large.

What is needed now is a concerted Commuity programme for economic recovery. Nothing like that emerged from the Summit. The Community must advance towards a new phase of development based not on simplistic faith in the private sector but on the pursuit of communal goals. It is now surely obvious that solutions do not lie in the traditional area of fiscal and monetary policies and that they demand management. There must be a change in direction and emphasis. Policies must relate directly to the eradication of the fundamental causes of the crisis, which include maldistribution of resources and undemocratic control of the key centres of the economic system. Amongst the elements of policy which must be stressed are strong planning procedures with democratic involvement of the interested parties, selected sectoral growth policies, long-term investment policies with central control, especially in relation to multinational companies, long-term employment plans for key economic sectors, a coherent programme for energy conservation and development and proper balance between economic, social and environmental goals.

The crisis is so great that there must be a total commitment of political will to the planned pursuit of full employment and that commitment is at present totally lacking. While it remains a missing element there must be a serious question mark over the future of the Community. Unless the Community is seen to be relevant to the real needs of its people — and what need is more urgent than the needs of over eight million people for jobs? — it will lose more and more of its little remaining attraction for the men and women of the ten countries. Unless the Community makes itself relevant to these needs it does not merit the support of anyone within it.

It would be appropriate to look at the domestic background against which the Taoiseach attended the Summit meeting. In his speech the Taoiseach said that the major Irish concerns at the Council related to employment and agriculture. This Summit was to concern itself mainly with unemployment and other economic difficulties within the member states. This country has probably the worst record in all sections of our national economic life. Today an inflation rate of 21 per cent has been revealed and that probably puts us at the top of the chart of member states. The number of unemployed on the live register stands at 126,000 and they will be joined by approximately 50,000 school leavers this year. Agriculture, our main industry, is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. People who are trying to make a livelihood from fishing are today picketing this Parliament as we discuss the Summit. Our national finances are in a state of total chaos. State Departments, local authorities and health boards have had to cut back on essential services because of the economic policies pursued by this Government. Every Member of this House who has any contact whatsoever with his constituents knows precisely what that means. For instance — and this seems to be a relatively small thing but it is an indication of the economic state of this country after three and a half years of Fianna Fáil — an old person who needs the care of a chiropodist cannot get it——

The Deputy is getting away from the statement before the House.

——because the cutbacks effected do not allow transport to be made available for that purpose.

The Deputy's remarks are not relevant to the statement before the House.

I thought we were talking about the economic situation within the Community of which we are are a member.

We are dealing with the meeting of the Heads of Government in the EEC. The Deputy is now anticipating——

The way I will remain in order——

——a debate that will take place, I understand, next week.

So that I will remain in order would you care, Sir, to list what was discussed by the Heads of State at the Summit?

I am aware of what was discussed but we cannot——

Was the economy discussed?

——go into the detail in which the Deputy is now engaging.

Fair enough. I will finish on this point. Inflation, unemployment, the plight of our agricultural sector, fisheries, our national financial position, balance of payments, the plight of the 50,000 school-leavers who will be looking for jobs in June next, none of these matters — and this was the only thing that emerged from four consecutive news bulletins — none of these matters, either individually or collectively, according to a statement by the Taoiseach, was this Government's first priority. According to the Taoiseach, their first priority at the Summit lay somewhere else.

How seriously could one be taken by one's fellow Heads of State if one states, at the Summit itself, that none of those matters — unemployment, balance of payments, inflation — was one's first political consideration. I want it known that all of those things are this party's first political priority, our first political consideration.

Top
Share