I move:
That a sum not exceeding £24,005,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
I propose that the Vote for Foreign Affairs and the Vote for International Co-operation be debated together, as is customary.
The sum proposed for the Vote for Foreign Affairs is £24,005,000. Most of this provision is required for the salaries of staff at headquarters and at our 40 missions and offices. Provision is also included for travelling expenses and communications and Post Office services, for repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens who get into difficulties abroad, for cultural and information services and for North-South and Anglo-Irish co-operation. In the course of my remarks I shall concentrate on five main areas of my Department's activities. I want to begin, however, by saying something about the concept of interdependence in international relations.
Interdependence, political and economic, is not just an academic theory, but an essential and unavoidable fact of life which has in many cases a direct and real impact on our lives. Some examples will illustrate this point:
A major outbreak of regional conflict in the Middle East could well have global repercussions of both a political and economic kind. On the political level, it could draw great powers into a direct and dangerous confrontation. In economic terms it could put at risk markets which are important for many countries, including this country, in an area which is the major source of the world's oil supply;
Every increase in East-West tensions tends to diminish the prospects for successful negotiations to control and reduce armaments. The accumulation and perfecting of modern weaponry diverts attention and resources from desperately needed efforts in the field of development. Essential development goals are neglected in favour of the acquisition of the latest and most sophisticated hardware. As well as this, the piling up of armaments makes our globe more insecure;
The failure of the South African authorities to tackle the evil of apartheid has repercussions which extend well beyond South Africa's frontiers — indeed, well beyond the African continent.
Like other smaller countries, be they neutral or members of military alliances, our interests can be directly affected by events happening very far from our shores, just as by events nearer home. It is out of no mere academic interest, therefore, that we join with our partners in European political co-operation in contributing to the search for a durable peace in the Middle East. Nor is there anything academic about our interest in seeing relations between the super powers conducted on a stable, predictable and co-operative basis, or about our interest in seeing the apartheid system dismantled in South Africa. It is in our direct national interest to work together with our European partners for a more stable and more secure order of international relations, for a safer and a saner world.
The second main area of my Department's work, which I shall be discussing in detail later, is our contribution to the work of the European Economic Community, itself the outstanding example of interdependence in play in international relations. The Community brings together States with very different levels of economic development, some among them net contributors to its budget, others, like Ireland, substantial net beneficiaries, but all of them benefit economically and politically from their participation in a common enterprise which is also a force for peace in the world.
In the third and fourth areas which I propose to deal with in more detail later, those of our foreign earnings and of our development assistance programme, the interdependence factor is also in play. We all know that a threat to oil supplies or a big drop in oil prices can have significant repercussions throughout the international economy. We know, too, that a secure and stable international environment is necessary if foreign trade is to flourish. We realise, moreover, a direct relationship between the efforts of industrialised countries to assist developing countries in raising their levels of economic development, and the possibilities for industrialised countries, including our own, to find new and enlarged markets in the Third World.
Earlier I made the point that our foreign policy is not developed in a vacuum unrelated to this country's political security. Neither is it pursued in a vacuum unrelated to the requirements of Irish industry and commerce. Our efforts to contribute to bringing about a more secure world are conducted in a recognition of the open nature of our economy, of our heavy independence on exports, and of the fact that trade requires a stable and secure international environment, for the economic interests of this small country are now far-flung. In 1970 over 60 per cent of our exports went to the United Kingdom. We now send almost 70 per cent of our exports to destinations other than the UK. In 1970 our exports to the Middle East were negligible. In 1985 our exports to that region were almost £400 million. In 1970 Ireland had no bilateral aid programme for developing countries. This year we shall spend almost £44 million on official development assistance.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement, the fifth area I propose to deal with in greater detail later, is also about interdependent relations, the relations between Britain and Ireland, the relations between the two parts of this island, and the relations between the two major Irish traditions. The agreement is designed to do more than facilitate the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland. It also addresses the interdependent relationship between political security and economic security. For in seeking to promote peace and stability in Northern Ireland, in establishing new bonds of friendship and co-operation between Britain and Ireland, and in seeking to defeat the common scourge of terrorism through political means, the agreement is aimed at creating a climate in which business, investment, and tourism can again thrive in both parts of this island.
In the five areas I have mentioned, the real exercise of sovereignty and the real pursuit of our national interests require a realistic appreciation of the international environment in which we live. They require an awareness of the interdependence factor, a realisation that it is where we are successfully operating in concert with others that our foreign policy will best succeed in protecting and promoting our interests.
Having touched on the weight which we give to the factor of interdependence in our foreign policy, I now turn to details of five main areas of our foreign policy activity. The first of these is our participation in the work of European political co-operation, including our contribution to the work of the United Nations.
The phenomenon of international terrorism has been particularly marked during the past year, with frequent outrages being perpertrated especially against civilian aircraft and at international airports. Together with our partners in the Twelve we have been examining the political and operational possibilities of combating the scourge of terrorism with particular emphasis on State-sponsored terrorism. After an intensive round of meetings last month engendered by the crisis with Libya, the Twelve agreed on a range of political measures, including restrictions on the numbers and movements of Libyan diplomats. We also agreed to reinforce our security arrangments and initiate consultations with third countries so as to see how we can all co-operate in combating State-sponsored international terrorism in particular. We are nonetheless conscious that political solutions are necessary for political problems, some of them long standing. The Twelve are continuing their efforts to find possible avenues of progress towards a settlement in the Middle East, particularly as regards the Palestinian question.
We and our European partners remain concerned that the tragic divisions and persistent instabilities of the Middle East, whose tensions have radiated far beyond the immediate region, may yet have the capacity to draw others into a direct and dangerous confrontation.
Our concern and attention have also been focused sharply on the Middle East because of the disappearance and presumed kiddnapping in the Lebanon in April of an Irish citizen, Mr. Brendan Keenan. Following Mr. Keenan's failure to turn up for his work at the American University of Beirut on 11 April last, our Embassy began a long and detailed series of contacts with local representatives and others who might be able to help. Despite all our endeavours and the active assistance and goodwill of a number of parties in the Lebanon we have not so far been successful in securing Mr. Keenan's safe return. We continue to make every effort to do so. The Minister for Defence has, of course, availed of his recent visit to the Lebanon to raise our concerns about this case and to stress the importance we attach to Mr. Keenan's early release.
In the turmoil and the agony of the Lebanon, we see all too clearly and all too painfully the futility and folly and the desperate toll of violence and terrorism which have confounded the efforts of political leaders to rebuild their nation and to promote communal harmony. Ireland and its partners in the Community have encouraged the search for unity and reconciliation in that divided nation. We have supported calls for the restoration in full of the territorial integrity of the Lebanon. We have urged, and continue to urge, restraint on all concerned so that a peaceful solution and an end to the tragedy can be achieved.
In recent months, we also followed with concern the worsening crisis in US-Libyan relations which culminated on 15 April in the attack on Libya by the armed forces of the United States. Throughout that crisis we urged the need for restraint and emphasised the importance we in Ireland attach to the role of the United Nations and in particular the peaceful resolution of crises of this kind. I have made it clear that I very much regret that this attack took place and that civilians were killed; I regret also the terrorism that made the US Government believe it was necessary to launch this attack. For our part, we hold strongly to the view that terrorism, abroad or closer to home, can be defeated by political means.
The impact of recent events notwithstanding, the central issue in the Middle East region remains the unresolved conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Underlying this central issue there exists a tragic conflict of rights; the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries and the right of the Palestinian people to full self-determination. In accord with the Venice Declaration of 1980, we and our European Community partners have strongly supported a just, comprehensive and enduring settlement and have been active in encouraging this peaceful resolution. It is an undoubted disappointment that the hopes of progress towards a peaceful settlement which were raised by the Jordanian-Palestinian accord in February 1985 have not been fulfilled. It remains important that all concerned maintain their efforts to build on the beginning that was made over the past year, and that they seek to overcome the difficulties that have arisen.
In the case of the war between Iran and Iraq, now nearly six years old, the efforts of the UN to promote an agreed basis for a settlement, which have been supported by the Twelve, have so far proved unavailing. To restore peace and security in the region, it is important that both sides take advantage of the opportunities available to them to reach a settlement and that they co-operate with the efforts being made through the United Nations to achieve a just and honourable peace.
I have in the past drawn attention to the inadequacies of the UN system faced with a world dominated by superpower rivalries. This has had particular consequences for the ability of the Security Council, the body mandated by the Charter with primary responsibility for the preservation of international peace and security, to respond effectively to situations of crisis. If, as I hope, the period ahead sees a continuation and perhaps even a deepening of the superpower dialogue, I would strongly urge that the participants give attention to the possibilities of co-operating together to improve the functioning of this vital institution.
Our concern for the well-being of the UN system has been increased in recent months by the financial crisis which has engulfed the organisation. The origins of this crisis are quite simply the refusal of member states to pay their assessed contributions. In our view, the problems confronting the UN in the future cannot be adequately addressed until all those now withholding their contributions cease to do so.
Over the past year we maintained our involvement with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, the UN Inspection Teams in Iran and Iraq, the United Nations Force in Cyprus and, of course, we continued our sizeable commitment to UNIFIL. In addition to expressing appreciation to the members of the Defence Forces for the discharge of their tasks in a manner which brought great credit to their country, I want to pay a particular tribute to Lieutenant-General Callaghan, who has recently relinquished his post as Force Commander of UNIFIL after a long and distinguished period of service in that taxing position. We wish him well in his new appointment as Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organisation.
The conditions in which our UNIFIL contingent in southern Lebanon operate continue to be far from ideal. Unless there is a rapid improvement in the level of contributions to the UNIFIL fund the situation of troop contributors will become even more difficult than it is at present. The Government are actively pursuing with those concerned a resolution to the financial difficulties facing the force.
A necessary requirement for the success of a peace-keeping mission is the co-operation of the parties to the conflict. That co-operation continues to be withheld, particularly by those forces active in the area which depend on Israeli provisions and support. We have registered through the appropriate channels our concern at incidents of harassment which occurred during the year. The Government will continue to accord the highest priority to the safety of our personnel in this difficult and often dangerous situation. We will maintain our efforts both through the Secretary-General and in bilateral contacts to secure the full implementation of UNIFIL's mandate. We will also continue to highlight the need for the Security Council, as the authors of the mandate, actively to involve itself in this difficult issue. In considering our position on continued participation in the force beyond the expiry of the present three-month mandate in July, the Government will be giving very careful thought to developments in these areas as well as to the views of other troop contributors and of the Secretary-General.
An intense international spotlight has been directed to the many hundreds who have died in continuing civil unrest since the introduction of a new Constitution in South Africa in 1984. The origins of the problem, however, go much further back. They are rooted firmly in the odious system of apartheid under which the majority black community are systematically oppressed and denied any political outlet for their frustrations. The Government in South Africa, though promising reform have yet to demonstrate their will to make a fundamental alteration in the basic structure of the apartheid system. They still refuse to engage in any genuine political dialogue with the leaders of the black community.
South Africa continues to defy the United Nations by maintaining its control of Namibia. Elsewhere in the region, South Africa continues its policy of aggression and destabilisation of its neighbours. Last week its forces attacked targets in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It intervenes militarily in Angola and supports the UNITA movement which is in arms against the Government there. In Mozambique the activities of anti-government forces continue with South African support to generate a serious situation despite the 1984 Nkomati accord under which South Africa undertook to curb its support for the rebel MNR movement. Other countries of the region, including Lesotho, have been the object of threats and pressures from South Africa. All of these events have led to a hardening of international opinion against South Africa and have prompted different countries and groups of countries including the Twelve to take stronger measures against South Africa. We welcome this. We have long advocated a stronger international line against South Africa.
The Government decided in March to impose restrictions on imports of South African fruit and vegetables. The Government will continue to work at the United Nations for the adoption of further mandatory measures against South Africa to supplement that already in force on the export of arms. Within the framework of European Political Co-operation, we shall continue to work for the adoption by the Twelve of a stronger policy towards South Africa.
In view of their role and responsibilities in preserving international peace and stability, it is essential that the two superpowers maintain a dialogue at all times. The Summit meeting between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev in November gave new hope for an improvement in the conduct of East-West relations. I hope that the optimistic climate which prevailed during 1985 will in 1986 permit definite progress on outstanding issues, both in bilateral relations between the major powers and in the broader areas of East-West relations and disarmament. We take encouragement from the fact that the arms control talks on nuclear and space weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union are continuing at Geneva. Although we obviously do not take a stand on the negotiating positions of either party, we hope that it will be possible to build on aspects of the proposals put forward there so that much-needed arms control measures in these important areas can be adopted at an early date.
In those East-West negotiations in which Ireland is a participant, such as the CSCE, we continue to work with our partners in the Twelve for positive results which would help to foster understanding and co-operation with the countries of Eastern Europe and which would at the same time reflect the importance we attach to ensuring respect for all the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. We continue to contribute to the work of the CDE Conference at Stockholm which is aiming at agreement by this autumn on a set of confidence and security building measures to reduce the risk of military confrontation in Europe. At the third CSCE follow-up meeting which is due to open in Vienna this November, we look forward to a thorough review of progress in implementing the Helsinki Final Act provisions and we hope for agreement on a balanced set of new provisions concerning all aspects of the Final Act.
As strong advocates of arms control and disarmament in the nuclear field we are happy that the Irish delegation was able to make a significant contribution to a final document which the Third Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference succeeded in adopting by consensus last September.
There has been a general improvement in the political situation in Latin America in recent years. In several Latin American countries civilian governments have been restored. The civilian Governments of Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Uruguay come to mind. We express our support for them in their continuing efforts to improve the lot of their peoples.
A notable exception to this trend is Chile, where a form of government continues to operate which systematically violates human rights and basic civil liberties. The Twelve have publicly welcomed the September 1985 "National Accord for the Return to Democracy" which was subscribed to by a broad spectrum of Chilean opposition political opinion.
The situation in the Central American isthmus continues to be characterised by economic deprivation, human rights abuses, and armed conflict between Government forces and insurgents. Our policy and that of our European partners is that a lasting solution to the conflict in Central America can only emerge from within the region itself. Consequently, since its inception in 1983, the Twelve have fully supported the peace initiative of the Contadora Group of countries which comprises Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, and with which a Support Group composed of Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay is now associated. Based on the principles of self-determination and the right of each country in the region to determine its own destiny free from outside interference, the Contadora process represents the best chance of a peaceful, global and verifiable solution. This applies, of course, to the specific case of Nicaragua, with whose Foreign Minister I had discussions in Dublin on 29 April.
I very much hope that the countries concerned can without undue delay reach agreement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement for the region. The Twelve have declared their willingness, if required, to furnish the appropriate aid in support of the Contadora process.
A heartening development in Asia in the last year has been the formation of a new Government in the Philippines by President Aquino. We wish President Aquino well in her task of promoting national reconciliation. Elsewhere in the region we support the continuing efforts of the UN Secretary-General to bring about a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan; we also support the efforts of ASEAN to resolve the conflict in Kampuchea.
There is an aspect of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs which I deem it right to bring to the attention of Dáil Éireann on this the major annual occasion when I report on the activities of the Department.
I have, since the Estimates for the Department were last debated in this House, become aware that there have been for a number of years, probably since 1952, a substantial number of high-level military overflights of our sovereign air space which, although they have complied with our air traffic control requirements, have not complied with the diplomatic clearance procedures laid down in the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, which provides that no foreign military aircraft shall fly over or land in the State save on the express invitation or with the express permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The unauthorised high-level overflights involved military aircraft mainly from the US but also from Canada. They were assumed by the relevant foreign authorities, and indeed by our own air traffic control authorities, not to require diplomatic clearance. Lowlevel overflying of our airspace or landings at our airports by foreign military aircraft appear to have complied fully with both our air traffic control and diplomatic procedures. The precise number of unauthorised high level overflights over the past 34 years is not possible to determine with accuracy at this stage but in 1985 it is estimated that about 3,000 such overflights may have taken place. I should emphasise that there was no attempt to conceal the flights from Irish air traffic controllers.
I should also emphasise that in the case of most of our international partners the requirements of our legislators has been punctiliously observed. The House will agree, however, that the neglect of compliance with these requirements by any country for whatever reason is clearly a state of affairs which could not be allowed to continue and the House will, I hope, also agree that it is appropriate that I should bring the matter to its attention at this stage and in this way. I have reminded all diplomatic missions in Dublin of the need to comply with the provisions of international and of domestic law regarding diplomatic clearance of military aircraft and I have now instituted new procedures to ensure in the case of those countries which overfly Ireland most frequently that they are fully alert to these requirements. I am satisfied that the arrangements now in force are such as to ensure full compliance with our legislation.
In investigating the authorised high-level overflights, informal consultations took place, inter alia, with the US authorities. In the course of these consultations it came to attention that among the recent unauthorised high-level overflights of Irish airspace were a small number involving US tanker aircraft in the days immediately preceding the recent US action against Libya. These were at the time bound for destinations in Europe and were not scheduled for the operation against Libya. I am satisfied that during this operation, there was no overflight of Ireland by aircraft involved in the US action.
The second area I wish to discuss today is the European Community. The past year has been an important one for the development of the European Community. Since the adoption of the Solemn Declaration on European Union at the Stuttgart Summit in June 1983, the member states had been committed to a relaunching of the Community. The report of the Dooge Committee, which identified a number of priority objectives for the Community and the means to their achievement, constituted the principal basis of discussions at the European Council in Milan. The European Parliament, inspired by the tireless work and imagination of the late Altiero Spinelli, adopted its own Draft Treaty on European Union and thereby clearly signalled its strong support for advancing the integration process. Furthermore, several budgetary and other problems which had for some time been preventing progress in the Community had in recent years been successfully confronted; and the enlargement negotiations with Spain and Portugal had been successfully completed. The European Council at Milan was therefore able, for the first time in many years, to devote its full attention to the functioning and future of the Community.
The Milan European Council decision to convene the intergovernmental conference came against the background of the increasingly urgent and widely recognised need for the Community to ensure that its industry was placed on a footing to compete effectively internationally, notably in the development of advanced technology. The clearly related need to improve the decision-making mechanisms of the Community in order to enable it to function effectively was also widely accepted.
It is noteworthy that Ireland, alone among the more recent member states, joined the original six Community partners in calling for the intergovernmental conference to be convened. Against the background which I have described, and especially in the light of the successful and unanimous outcome to the conference, I have no doubt that we were right to have supported the convening of the conference.
As far as the conduct of the conference is concerned, Ireland played a very active and, I think it is fair to say, constructive role. We broadly supported progress in all of the many areas under discussion. We sought, while ensuring that our own particular interests and concerns were met, to achieve substantial progress in the direction of European integration. We put forward specific proposals of our own, notably with a view to incorporating provisions on economic and social cohesion in the EC Treaty; and we supported as appropriate the proposals of others.
The outcome of the conference can be regarded as broadly satisfactory from Ireland's point of view and signifies some progress towards the goal of European Union. The Single European Act, which resulted from the conference, brings together in one document amendments to the European Community Treaties and provisions on co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy. The Act has been signed by all member states and is now subject to ratification by them in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The necessary legislation to permit ratification of the Act will be brought before the Oireachtas in the coming months. This will provide the opportunity for a full debate on the Single European Act and its implications. I would, however, like to avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate and expand on some points relating to the Act which the Taoiseach and myself have already made in this House.
No one would claim that the Single European Act represents the major leap forward towards European intergration which the European Parliament, among others, had called for. One the other hand, it represents a significant advance; it is a realistic blueprint for the next stage of the Community's development. Essentially it amounts to a compromise which is both imaginative and realistic, given the different points of view of the individual member states.
As far as the Treaties establishing the European Communities are concerned the Single European Act represents an advance on three fronts. First, it offers scope for significantly improving the functioning of the Community's institutions. It does this by considerably enhancing the role of the European Parliament in the Community decision-making process, by strengthening the Commission's management and implementing powers, by providing for increased recourse to voting by qualified majority in the Council, and by making minor treaty amendments to improve the functioning of the Court of Justice. These provisions, taken together, should contribute to a more efficient execution of Community business as well as to an important enhancement of the role and stature of the European Parliament. At the same time the existing inter-institutional balance is being broadly preserved.
Secondly, the Single European Act includes treaty provisions which will assist the achievement of two complementary goals which are fundamental to the nature of the Community and essential for its long term success. These goals are the completion of the internal market by a target date of 31 December 1992, which will be facilitated by the new provisions for qualified majority voting in the Council; and the reduction of the economic disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, which will be facilitated by the new treaty provisions on economic and social cohesion. Ireland has a considerable economic interest, as an export-dependent country, in the early achievement of a single internal market throughout the Community. The provisions on economic and social cohesion, representing as they do a greater Community commitment to reducing regional disparities, are obviously very much in Ireland's interests.
Lest any misunderstanding may persist about the implications of the new provisions for qualified majority voting, I would like to assure the House there is no question of the operation of the so-called "Luxembourg Compromise"— that is the entitlement of a member state to invoke a vital national interest and to veto a proposal in the Council — being affected by the provisions of the Single European Act.
Thirdly, the Single European Act includes specific Treaty provisions in a number of new areas which had not formerly been explicitly provided for in the Community Treaties. The monetary capacity of the Community is given Treaty status. New Treaty provisions on research and technological development should provide a boost to much greater Community activity in this area, thereby helping the Community to become more competitive vis-à-vis the United States and Japan. There should be corresponding opportunities here for small and medium sized Irish enterprises. A Community policy on protection of the environment is brought expressly within the Treaty, as is a provision for the adoption of minimum standards in respect of the working environment.
Title III of the Single European Act deals with Co-operation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy. The principal effect of these provisions will be to formalise existing practices and procedures in European Political Co-operation (EPC). This is the process which has been evolving gradually in the past 16 years, by which member states, operating on the basis of consensus, agree to adopt as far as possible common policy stances on issues of foreign policy which are of general concern.
Ill-founded claims have been made that the provisions on foreign policy somehow undermine our neutrality or compromise our sovereignty. I have made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions in this House and elsewhere that this is simply not the case. I would emphasise again that the foreign policy provisions of the Single European Act pose no threat to this country's sovereignty, to our neutrality or to our ability to take independent decisions on foreign policy matters. Provision is made in Title III for closer co-ordination on the political and economic aspects of security. This confirms the limits of what is appropriate to European Political Co-operation. It applies equally to another provision in Title III which speaks of maintaining the technological and industrial conditions necessary for security. These provisions do not involve us in questions of a military or defence nature. In order to take account of the fact that Ireland is not a member of any military alliance, it is specifically provided that those member states who wish to go further in their security co-operation, into military and defence questions, may do so in NATO and the Western European Union, organisations to which Ireland does not, of course, belong. Clearly, Ireland has no intention of participating in this further co-operation.
The Single European Act provides the Community, at least to an extent, with the institutional means with which to function effectively and to confront the challenges which face it. The Community, equally, requires the necessary financial means. There is as ever a need to provide the Community with adequate resources to function effectively and to develop its policies in future years. The demands on the structural funds are increasing as a result of the admission of Spain and Portugal and of the increased emphasis on economic and social cohesion. Furthermore, the Single European Act provides for the development of new policies in areas such as research and technological development and the environment. The budgetary problems facing the Community in the coming years are, moreover, exacerbated by the restrictive attitude of several of our partners towards Community expenditure. The Government are convinced that progress towards European union requires adequate financing. We shall continue to press with determination for the provision of adequate financing to permit both the development of existing Community policies and the implementation of new policies provided for in the Single European Act.
There are two major problems in relation to the Community budget which arise this year. First, the fall in the value of the US dollar against the ECU and other currencies has, in effect, meant cheaper US agricultural exports on the world market. This situation has resulted in increased demands on the Community budget to meet the cost of subsidies on exports of agricultural products to the world market. Latest estimates indicate that extra funding of well over a billion ECU will be required to cope with the effects of the fall in the dollar. Secondly, as regards the structural funds — that is the Regional and Social Funds and FEOGA Guidance — there is the problem of the so-called "cost of the past". Commitments entered into in previous years now have to be paid and the budget as it now stands is insufficient to meet these commitments. To meet these problems the Commission has indicated that a supplementary and amending budget of the order of 2,500 million ECU will be necessary. In conjunction with other member states we shall press to ensure that these budgetary problems are firmly tackled now and are not simply postponed until next year or later years.
The future development of the Common Agricultural Policy and the recently negotiated farm price package must also be seen against the background of the restrictive budgetary situation which I have described. Given the budgetary, production and market problems which exist at present, and the restrictive attitude towards Community expenditure of several of our partners, the recently agreed farm price package was, without doubt, the best which we could have achieved. The package has already been debated at some length by Dáil Éireann and I would not propose to enter on its details now. I would however recall that an outstanding issue of considerable importance from Ireland's viewpoint is the future operation of the beef intervention system. A decision on this matter is to be taken by 31 December 1986. The agreement to postpone discussion of the operation of intervention will allow discussion to take place more fruitfully when detached from the other issues in this year's package. Our immediate objective remains that the operation of the system should be guaranteed for the late summer-early autumn period when the bulk of Irish beef production comes on stream.
As one of the less prosperous member states of the Community, Ireland benefits substantially from the three structural funds — the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the FEOGA Guidance Section. In 1985 we received some £273 million, as compared with £198 million in 1984. However, there is no room for complacency in relation to future developments, especially given the increasing demands on the funds' resources since the accession of Spain and Portugal and the difficult budgetary situation which I have described.