JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 25 May 2004

Promoting Fair Globalisation.

Chairman

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Congratulations on looking so fresh and well this morning. We have a very interesting topic for discussion today and one which will be very interesting for all committees. It is the question of promoting fair globalisation and the changes taking place all around us. We wish to anticipate those changes as much as possible.

This paper has been sent to the conference by Mr. Edouard Balladur, the President of the French National Assembly. Mr. Hervé deCharette, the Vice-Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, is a man with much experience in government as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He has had a very distinguished career. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say and it should help to stimulate a very interesting discussion. It is challenging and provocative in its own way. There is much to be done within the European Union but we must also examine what is happening all around the world and how the EU will cope with global situations. I thank Mr. de Charette for his attendance this morning to outline what is in this report. I commend him for the extensive work involved in the report.

Mr. Hervé de Charette

I thank the Chairman for the excellent quality of the work done yesterday and for his chairmanship. I listened to the many contributions with both interest and admiration. I thank the Chairman for agreeing to a suggestion by Mr. Edouard Balladur, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, to put a debate on globalisation on the agenda. It was a particularly friendly gesture. Mr. Balladour had planned to attend the conference to present the results of this work but personal circumstances did not permit him to travel. He asked me to report to the conference on his behalf and to thank the Chairman personally for his goodwill. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly set up its own information mission on globalisation. Mr.Edouard Balladur chaired the mission. I will report on the results of its research and the conclusions reached and see how far we can go together. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly wanted to publish this work and its proposals on the eve of the social forum of Bombay.

The debate on globalisation should not be monopolised by a few states. The anti-globalisation people of course have the right to speak and we thank them for having created this debate, which has given them quite wide popularity. However, we should not leave this subject that is important for all our societies. The parliaments in Europe are particularly well placed to contribute to this debate.

I remind delegates that the report of the mission which will be tabled here and which was approved by our foreign affairs committee was drafted after a wide hearing. All French political parties present in the Parliament took part in this study. This report was adopted unanimously by the Government and by the Parliament. National parliaments of the 25 states and those of the other candidate countries, which were rightly invited to this conference, have reason to try to find a common position on this very important subject of globalisation. National parliamentarians and MEPs can seize upon this opportunity to study the case and I would not be surprised if we were able to find consensus, as we did in Paris. At the least we should be able to start with an exchange of views.

We are very conscious of the specific area in which we move today. Of course national parliaments when they meet like today do not normally adopt resolutions. I can certainly see the risk of adopting such a resolution. However, in this case I would like to have your opinion on this resolution. I imagine what I will say will give rise to considerable reaction, not necessarily all positive, which will be quite good in itself. However, we might reach some consensus or some common point of view.

Very modestly I am tabling this proposal so that delegates can study it. We will be delighted if they look at it critically to see if it is interesting to them. At this stage the opening of a debate between our committee of foreign affairs with a link to the European Parliament would already be particularly welcome.

I am explaining all this because the public has various concerns when thinking about globalisation. Of course there are differences within the countries in the European Union itself. French public opinion is certainly very concerned, very worried when faced with globalisation, because we have all these fancy terms like the lowering of industrial bases, relocations and problems with our economic capacity. As everybody is worried, it is essential to all people that we open a debate between ourselves and that we can start if possible by thinking about this common position.

Globalisation is a fact, not an ideology. Trade, travel, financial flows and movements of goods have always existed. The characteristic ofglobalisation today is a considerable acceleration of these movements with the abolition of regulations, customs and tariff barriers and the development of new technologies. Of course globalisation has changed our economic landscape. The developing countries have no doubt benefited from this trade liberalisation, but globalisation has also enabled intermediate countries to successfully integrate within international trade and to speed up the industrialisation process. One thing can be blamed on globalisation, which is the widening of the gap between wealthy and developing countries. However, reality is not as strongly marked.

Since the beginning of industrialisation, the percentage of the population in the world living in absolute poverty, with incomes of less than $1 per day, is diminishing. According to the World Bank, the percentage of world population living below this threshold in the 1990s was 25% and this should fall below 15% before 2015, which is the date given by the United Nations General Assembly to reach the millennium development goals.

If the income gap between developed and developing countries increased up to the 1970s, we can see that it has significantly reduced since the middle of the 1980s. This reduction is due to the successful integration of some developing countries in international trade and their rapid industrialisation. Brazil, India, China and the countries of South East Asia have benefited from the trend towards liberalisation of trade in goods and services. However, in 49 less developed countries the situation has deteriorated. According to UNCTAD, their share of exports in international trade dropped from 0.9% in 1980 to 0.5% in 2000.

Logically we can conclude that involvement in globalisation is a factor in development and in the reduction of poverty. Those who are less advanced and are unable to kick-start their economies will be victims of their insufficient integration in globalisation rather than victims of globalisation itself. Moreover, globalisation raises important issues linked to the different levels of social protection and regulation between developed countries and other countries.

This distortion of competition exists also in environmental protection. Many industrial relocations are explained by the increase of the environmental constraints on production in developed countries. In the absence of world regulation, globalisation will have a doubly negative impact. Developing economies see our environmental protection as an obstacle to production. In the 19th century the developed world progressed thanks to the freeing of environmental and social protection. For these reasons the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and the Sustainable Development Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 showed international divergence on environmental questions and did not lead to effective measures. At least the concept of sustainable development is now showing a consensus on the need simultaneously to tackle environmental, political, social and economic development.

In this context I make my proposals. It is absolutely necessary to regulate globalisation so that it will be fair. Globalisation is characterised by the appearance of global problems, which have not found a global response because there is insufficient co-ordination of international organisations, which do not have the competence to tackle them. To address this, some of them have proposed the establishment of a world government. I will not go back to that matter, as I believe it is a pure Utopia. What I would like to propose already necessitates considerable optimism. We must find decision-making mechanisms which will be able to combine national sovereignty and legitimacy of international co-ordination.

My first thoughts concern the Security Council. Many people have thought about that and wondered why we do not have a global council or an economic security council to orchestrate the actions of different international bodies and to define action priorities. Such a council would allow us to correct the shortcomings of the G8, which as we know lacks legitimacy and effectiveness. Therefore, we will have to put in place something more representative and powerful than an organisation of the world's eight most powerful states. Such a council would allow us to have genuine world politics, which we do not have at present because international bodies are too specialised and do not co-ordinate their efforts.

The proposed council would be based on the different geographical areas, demographics and economic weights of the relevant countries or regional bodies. The UN Security Council could play a role to avoid the multiplication of multi-national bodies, as long as representativeness is improved and new permanent members are admitted. The proposed new international council with responsibility for globalisation could meet at the same time as the meeting of the heads of state or government. It could have the power of investigation. It could control the international bodies involved in various matters, including collective security.

If we have a financial crisis, the council could decide what the IMF and the World Bank should do. It could set global taxes and decide what to do with them. It could co-ordinate development aid priorities. It could compile a list of public property that may benefit from a possible waiver and therefore not be subject to the rules of competition and free trade.

We should consider rebalancing the competencies of the various national bodies. The WTO is the only international body with a dispute settlement board. International commercial law seems to be better equipped than the other parts of the law. This places the WTO in a difficult spot because those who criticise globalisation tend to say it is related to the WTO. The WTO has to go outside its own scope to look after things like public health, protection of the environment, etc. We have to rebalance the competencies of the different bodies. The dispute settlement board should be examined to equip other bodies with such a model and to ensure that international standards have the same weight.

We need a new body to look after environmental topics. We should have an arbitration mechanism in case standards are not met. That means that international bodies would not be making different decisions on the same matter.

I would like to discuss social issues. The ILO should be given an international social jurisdiction so that it can be strengthened, which is essential. It should have powers of penalties, just like the DSB has within the WTO. The ILO could try to harmonise social law and conclude agreements which would be applicable to workers in international bodies, factories and firms.

I wish to make a similar point about public health. We should strengthen the WHO. It should be the leader in deciding who has access to essential drugs. We have to improve prevention and help with some pandemics. The WHO should have the power of decision. Some decisions, for example in respect of prevention, marketing drugs and public health, could be binding on the states.

The establishment of a global environmental organisation is absolutely essential for two reasons. It would mean that different states would be bound by the agreement. It would also mean that certain countries would decide not to respect the agreement, or that some states would not ratify certain conventions. There was a convention of FIPOL in Paris recently. I propose that international environmental law should include a penalty system, like that in the WTO. Such an institution would mean that no countries would have an unfair advantage because they do not respect agreements or do not want to ratify international tools.

In order to reconcile these principles, the UN Security Council could be the top referee. It could ensure that each international body keeps to its job — does not do somebody else's job — and reconciles the principles of the different bodies which depend on the international organisations. Such a mechanism would allow us to rectify the problem, which is that international law does not have the same scope everywhere. It would represent the end of the sectoral approach that is adopted in the international system at present. Each of the bodies is too specialised. We do not have the global principles we need if we are to pursue globalisation.

It would be useful to define better the roles of the state and the regional bodies. I suggest that there should be a kind of pre-meeting before the meetings of international bodies, such as the UN Security Council, the board of the IMF and the World Bank. The purpose of the pre-meeting would be to allow people to discuss things and to enable the European cohesion to be better heard. We have a long way to go in this regard.

I have said what I wanted to say today. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Our committee has managed to draft a project which tries to be consistent. I realise that we are somewhat ambitious, but we are not trying to change the world. If we do not do it ourselves, who else will do it? We should be ambitious.

Chairman

I thank Mr. de Charette for his stimulating address on a very comprehensive document. I invite debate from the floor. I do not know if anyone has submitted any questions. The proposals are penetrating and far-reaching and require careful consideration from parliaments. They will energise debate and discussion on such issues. I suggest that we have an initial debate today. We can bring back our ideas to our parliamentary committees for detailed discussion. We can return with views on the different aspects and segments.

While our guests are gathering their thoughts, I will mention a few things that struck me. I have read the proposals. We encountered many other things yesterday, when we had a fairly busy day. It is a fact that liberalisation is a reality. Nowhere is more open or exposed than the island of Ireland. We have a very open economy. We are open to virtually everything that happens. We have to live in such an environment and we have learned to do so. Substantial levels of participation in the various bodies are required to ensure that our views are understood and heard.

I agree that liberalisation and globalisation are realities. One can see the global village, which is around the corner. How does one handle that issue? We have to be better at handling it. We have done many valuable things. The EU has a tremendous record in bringing peace, stability and development to Europe. The road that was taken has been valuable for everybody. It took a great deal of consideration, discussion, thought and hard work to get along that road, which is not perfect.

It has been mentioned that the percentage of people living on less than $1 per day is falling and that poverty is being reduced. While that is a significant reduction in statistical terms, we are probably lucky neither John O'Shea or Norbert Mao is here this morning as they might well go bananas over talk of $1 a day representing an improvement. One need only look at one's own pocket to realise one would not go very far on $365 per year. It is a very low base from which to work. We must do a great deal better than that before we begin to talk about anything.

In Ireland, we have reached a level of $35,000 per head per annum which is in the same bracket as the United States of America. While it is a tremendous achievement within the country, one must examine who gets what. Even as a relatively small country, that is a problem for us in the first instance. When one considers the figure in a global context, one can see the differences which exist. This is an issue which concerns us all in terms of the direction of development in developing countries.

Environmental issues are very significant and have been addressed at the Earth Summit in Rio. As suggested in the French paper, there is a need for an international organisation to work on environmental protection. As an island nation, we are aware that the sea is rising around us though fortunately it is happening very slowly. While I forget the rate, it is consistent — more so in the south, which is beautiful, than in the north. In other words, the country is very slowly tilting upwards at the north, while the south tilts downwards. I would not become too excited as one need not worry about falling off for some 10,000 years. It is, however, an issue to be considered as the process is leading to more flooding and storms.

Something which members might find of interest is the step we took in imposing a tax on plastic bags. I have spoken to people in Japan where a tax was imposed in one city with the result that people began to leave it to do their shopping. Here, one would have to swim away if one wanted to get one's shopping otherwise. People readily accepted the tax because plastic has one of the worst impacts on the environment.

People now purchase returnable bags which they keep in their cars and use all the time. Producers innovated and began to manufacture bags with biodegradable characteristics. Everybody started to use them. The measure created a substantial fund which is being used for environmental works. If one requires a plastic bag while shopping, one must pay 15 cent. It was interesting to see how comprehensively the tax worked. Citizens are considering these issues. They saw plastic in the countryside and buried in fields and realised that it would be there for generations. They wanted to take action.

In Europe, we have fallen behind in a number of areas. These are major problems which we must address. We have clearly been behind in the race on innovation and investment in research and development. While we are beginning to close the gap, there has been a significant brain drain from Europe to the United States of America in particular. We must ensure that we invest heavily. We have only been doing that in recent years in Ireland.

We have tended in the past to be somewhat fixed in our ideas about education. Recently, we have broadened our approach and made it more flexible and meaningful to people. This is very important in the context of globalisation. The report before us shows that Ireland has the highest level of foreign direct investment in the EU. This investment is based mainly on the education, skills and flexible development of people through our system. All the major companies are represented here and are making new investments currently, based particularly on education standards. In the past, investment was based to a large extent on tax incentives. Skills and education have become more important factors as the requirement for innovation has become more significant.

We must consider bureaucracy. Every time parliaments meet, they pass more legislation and introduce more regulations. While one can get tied up with too much legislation, that is not to say one should create a free-for-all. We must examine carefully the nature of bureaucracy to ensure that we are flexible and capable of winning markets. It is very important when thinking about globalisation to put people first. We must consider what freedoms people want and the way in which they want to live their lives. It is the great strength of our democracies that we do that.

When considering how a body should be structured, we should ask who the customers are and consider the citizen. We should begin any examination by asking how the citizen benefits and from there find out how he or she can be better served. The paper from the President of the French National Assembly talks about the same things, but comes at them somewhat differently.

Social issues are extremely important. The International Labour Organisation has played a major role in developments in this area, as have the OECD and the Council of Europe. We must give these issues a great deal of attention. We should have more discussion of the role of the state in world bodies as recommended in the paper. It is very difficult to find the time to discuss matters adequately prior to international meetings. Parliaments must be adequately resourced to accomplish that.

These are just a few points which come to mind on the report which is very stimulating and interesting. It is very important for our parliaments to discuss these issues. Sparks will fly in every direction in our Parliament and Committee on Foreign Affairs when we put the issue on the table. It will be a very topical and interesting debate in which we will have to try to find a balanced approach to the issues. I have given you some time to collect your thoughts on the issue of globalisation. Does anyone wish to make a contribution?

Ms Francisca Sauquillo

I agree with your analysis. Our analysis and study of the world problems facing us must also be global. While there are problems arising from a democratic deficit, the main problem is a lack of political will as regards issues such as environmental protection or reducing poverty.

Community instruments are available to solve all the global problems facing us. They include the ACP-EU Assembly, which is a very fair assembly consisting of the European Union and the 78 member countries of the ACP. This should be given a more important role. For example, the Ugandan MP who spoke yesterday did not even refer to this instrument as an appropriate mechanism for solving problems, including the AIDS pandemic and other problems facing Uganda.

The United Nations Security Council, the main body for solving disputes, has not been used properly in other conflicts. Iraq was a recent example of this. Perhaps we need another arbitration body and maybe we should consider other possibilities or formulas. While the reform we have been talking about is positive, we still do not know what will be the outcome. Most important of all, however, is political goodwill, which I obviously favour. We will have to see what emerges from the process.

Chairman

Is anyone else concerned aboutglobalisation or is everyone satisfied that we have all the answers?

Mr. Patrick Moriau

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. Utopia today means reality tomorrow. I read very carefully the proposed resolution of our French friends and congratulate them on their approach. This is the first time during a conference of chairmen that we have had a draft resolution to which we could all commit. We need this resolution in favour of multilateralism and that is the reason for my intervention. We agree with it because we share the world vision that brought about peace after the Second World War.

As I said, the Utopia of today is the reality of tomorrow. Let us look at today's reality. All the proposals we have heard today move towards the same aim and would require a gigantic effort. We can see that multilateralism is not fashionable; indeed the reverse is the case. One need only look at the attitude of the United States. We have not once taken an anti-American position in our discussion of Kyoto, landmines, the Geneva Convention or the war in Iraq. With regard to Iraq, if I may mention it, if we had been able to spend all the money spent in the Iraqi conflict to hold prisoners in the infamous prison about which we have heard, we would have made considerable progress in reducing poverty in the world. We can support the draft resolution.

As regards reform, we in Belgium, like our French friends, have a parliamentary committee working on the issue of globalisation. It has been doing so since the election before last and is moving in the same direction as its French counterpart. I and my colleagues can commit ourselves to the draft resolution. There will be no opposition to it on our part.

While the resolution offers a long-term perspective, we can start to act now by pulling smaller levers. I wanted to contribute yesterday on the role of national parliaments but unfortunately we did not have time. Parliaments have more power than we think. First, we have a significant role in terms of information when we have the syndrome described by Mr. Jean-Christophe Bas yesterday. The role of national parliaments is important because we need to tell our citizens that the attitude and behaviour of rich countries will have consequences in the developing world, especially southern countries. This is a significant role and one which should be exercised by all parliaments.

Second, we can try to move ahead with decentralisation, which is very important. Democratic twinnings between northern and southern countries are essential because they enable us to understand each other on micro-projects and our populations are able to understand what is happening on the other side of the planet.

The third element goes beyond the work we can do as parliamentarians and political analysts. We could have a specific logic. Let us be technical — procedures should be a lot simpler. If we think about it, in the European Union we only use 20% to 25% of available credit simply because the procedures are too heavy and complicated. It is incredible. It is amazing that we also see this in the new parliamentary assembly that was created in Athens for the Euro-Mediterranean area.

Globalisation is a fact, not an ideology. That is the problem. The reactionists presented it as an ideology and there was an extreme reaction to it. If we create a problem in regard to it, the result will be development co-operation simply based on charity. That was evident yesterday in some contributions. We have already targeted this logic. The worst thing we can do is to start with development aid from the perspective of charity, which would create more problems than it would solve. We have to re-think the question of assistance.

The world is changing every day. As was clearly said, parliamentarians will have to work towards a fairer world. A word that was not used yesterday was "solidarity". The world should be showing more solidarity. The Irish Government initiative goes in that direction, even though, as I said earlier, it is not very fashionable.

Mr. Jann Sjursen

I thank the Chairman. I find colleagues' presentations most interesting and am glad that we have an opportunity to discuss national initiatives in such a forum. It gives us an opportunity to exchange views.

Substantial background was provided in the report and draft resolution. It is a good idea to use this kind of meeting to share national experiences and deal with information presented by the French.

I would like to make some remarks regarding the draft resolution. We have some proposals to discuss in that regard. I very much welcome the different proposals regarding the United Nations. It is important to strengthen the United Nations in various ways, not only in regard to globalisation, which is the topic of the day, but also more generally. A proposal was made regarding the enlargement of the Security Council. We also need to discuss whether the permanent membership of the council should be enlarged and whether the Security Council should target more members geographically and so on. I am very much in favour of that. It is especially necessary in the context of globalisation.

As our colleague from Belgium said, many international bodies already exist. Many tools such as resolutions and conventions are adopted in various international fora. A reform of the UN itself will not solve anything. Political will and obligation is the bottom line. I fully agree with what was adopted in the UN, which is the best tool we have. In many respects, not only because of US unilateralism and the need for a reform of structures, the UN is not very strong at the moment. I welcome the proposals in the draft resolution regarding the UN, especially the UN Security Council.

I also have a comment regarding proposalNo. 6 about greater co-operation in the European Union up-stream from major international meetings. That is an important task and does not demand very much other than action.

Regarding what our Belgian colleague said about the World Bank network and what we heard yesterday, we have many opportunities. Regarding co-operation between parliamentarians before meetings of the UN Security Council, there are many opportunities for us to strengthen our co-operation for the purpose of putting pressure on Governments. There are several proposals in the draft resolution that are very welcome, but it might be difficult to reach a final resolution which could be adopted at this meeting.

I have some reservations regarding the proposals on tax. I am personally in favour of them but it is not easy merely to make statements about this area in a resolution. I welcome the initiative taken by our French colleagues and the opportunity to have this debate.

Mr. Enn Eesmaa

I would also like to pay compliment to our French colleagues who have thoroughly investigated the matter and produced a well-written report. Globalisation is not just a phenomenon affecting developing countries; it is also shaping the economy of industrialised countries, with particular effects on the course of internationally competitive sectors. There are genuinely common interests between those in the north and those in the south. Identity of interest and concern should heighten awareness across the globe.

If globalisation is managed only in the interests of the powerful and wealthy, there is a clear risk of worsening the trends already apparent towards economic instability, social dislocation and political conflict. A balance must be struck between self-interest and the higher ideals of equality and justice. The philanthropic principle that underlies the aid system must be replaced by a principle of global citizenship in which membership of global society carries an obligation to contribute. One aim of genuine globalisation would be to raise aid levels. I very much agree with my Danish colleague that proposal No. 7 on the creation of world taxes is something we must thoroughly discuss here and at home.

We are now approaching elections to the European Parliament. Even with an extremely low tax system, Estonia has an allergic reaction every time a politician raises ideas about new taxes. My country is one of those opposing the so-called European tax. If we go home and report to our voters that we have agreed to create a world tax, it will create quite a stir.

I admit that the report and ideals are noble. Perhaps Mr. de Charette will elaborate on the idea of the creation of a world tax based on the sale of weapons, greenhouse gas emissions or financial flows. There are more problems associated with taxing these problems than with solving them.

Mr. de Charette

I would like to respond to the reactions of a few of our colleagues. First, let us consider procedures. My idea is that we should do nothing today except examine this draft resolution. I said straight away that it is a matter of principle. Do we agree within our body that the taking of resolutions by us is possible? This is the first stage. I understand all the arguments and that is why I accept the Chairman's proposal. We can debate this issue and, after every one of us has thought about it in our respective countries, we can discuss it at one of our future meetings, not necessarily the next one.

I will now attempt to provide a few answers to the questions asked. On behalf of the European Parliament, Madame Francisca Sauquillo made a few targeted points that show that the institutions of the European Parliament are not well known or used. I agree completely. Yesterday, we never talked about the MEDA programme, which I believe is very important. It is not well known or used for various reasons. Neither did we talk about the ACP convention, which, however, is extremely important.

The UN Security Council demonstrates that it is powerless and is becoming more powerless every day. We have all the different possibilities of the UN Security Council. We can talk about Iraq but we can talk about the Palestinian conflict also. These issues are extremely difficult to solve at that level. As Madame Sauquillo said, we should find a new idea or formula. I agree. If one reads the whole report, which would require bravery, one would see that we first hesitated between creating a special body to talk about globalisation and mandating this task to a reformed Security Council. This means we have a doubt, which has been expressed in the report and which is exactly the same as that expressed by the delegate in reference to the Security Council.

Our colleague, Mr. Moriau, said quite a few things and I thank him. In particular, I noted that he tends to prefer short-term actions — I agree they are sometimes very efficient — as opposed to a long term-perspective. However, I would like to defend my particular position. I agree that short-term actions are very important, but they should not make us forget the global perspective. Certainly, when we talk about global vision we note that nothing will happen in the near future. However, if we do not have global vision, we do not know where to start. If one cannot see 500 metres down the road, one cannot drive one's car. If one does not lift up one's head, one cannot walk. Therefore, global vision, even if it is easily criticised because nobody can see how it can be implemented quickly, is still a very precious orientation for our actions on an everyday level.

When we suggested that we needed to have another fresh look at our international organisations we saw that the only organisation able to do anything is the WTO. This is because it is the most recent organisation and the only one with a procedure such that it can stop or prevent conflicts. It is very important compared to other organisations that are only talk shops. The national assembly has its role but when one considers the WHO it is quite powerless as well. Therefore, we need to have an organisation that is able to implement the decisions being taken. It will not be easy to achieve. Furthermore, it is a very important and worthwhile objective for the European Union. We should not underestimate the capacity of the Union as a first-rank world organisation to express its ideas.

Our Danish colleague, Mr. Jann Sjursen, made a few points that I can echo. On the world taxes, in our report we did not really choose which tax could be levied. It is a subject in itself and we would need to think about it for a long time and work on it. All we did is touch upon it. However, I really believe that the world needs resources to realise its ambitions. We can talk about development, as we did yesterday, or about the means at the disposal of international organisations, such as the WHO.

It is only through a world tax that we will be able to have these resources. We did not address these problems deeply so I do not really want to touch on them today. I understand completely the delegates' reservations, which are welcome. Our Estonian colleague said the population in his country does not like taxes. He should not worry. The population in my country also hates taxes; this is quite normal. If one says to a voter one is going to invent another tax, usually he will vote for another candidate. There is agreement that we must be careful with taxes. This is not the end of the road. The idea of a world tax will be progressed and something will happen in this regard in the next few years.

European co-ordination is vital. I said that on the eve of an international meeting European countries do not usually co-ordinate. It is rare that we have a common position. Many countries attend individually and nobody would be able to talk on behalf of Europe. It is the European Commission, on its own, that will represent all our countries and which has an internal capacity for co-ordination.

I thank my colleagues very much for their different contributions and for examining our proposal. I hope sincerely that we will be able to consider it further at a later date.

Chairman

I thank Mr. de Charette. One issue struck a particular chord with me, about which I cannot resist commenting. I refer to the question of starting on a small level and the point that procedures should be simpler. Before I became involved with politics, I was involved with research and development and I was also deeply involved in working with community groups and people on the ground on a voluntary basis. I still do — it is probably what got me involved with politics. Government funding and other grant schemes were available and the organisations which mopped up those funds were those with architects, accountants and other such muscle behind them. The organisations which never seemed to get of the ground were those which did not have the administrative ability and support to put in place necessary projects.

Mr. Moriau referred to simplicity in the context of funds for development aid and how they are used. When one goes into any disadvantaged community which is not able to get off the ground and examines the composition of the people, one will find they do not have people with administrative skills. If one can combine people with administrative know-how and experience with the people who have skills as labourers or farmers, one can draw from many of the funds which the governments and the EU make available. However, if one does not do so, they will not be able to draw them down.

We talk a great deal about development and women in particular. Years ago, we set up women's groups here — it was the most effective thing we did — but one will not hear that from the Economist or from a person making a big speech somewhere. It is what changed things on the ground and under it. We set up community groups and gave them an executive plus a secretary and they were suddenly able to draw down the funds and discovered that not everyone was against them but rather they had not known how to go about getting funding. Once they knew how to go about it, they were able to draw down the funds.

The other side of that is the point, which Mr. Moriau made, that we have to simplify these processes and make them suitable for the people for whom the finds are intended. One cannot make unsuitable regulations and rules. The World Bank is now beginning to recognise this fact in some of its work. It stated that it is, for example, giving grants with four different restrictions and finding that three of them do not apply in the case and are unfeasible. The bank then drops the restrictions and works out something simpler. If we want to reach the people in whom we are interested, we must simplify matters and work from the bottom up. Sister Isabella Smyth also referred to the bottom-up approach, which we need to apply.

Mr. Moriau made the point and people will talk about what has been achieved in Ireland, but this is where it started. We brought two women from each women's group from highly disadvantaged areas and brought them to these buildings and told them to hold their conference here. I got the Taoiseach of the day to give us the premises. I told the women that this was their place and invited them to hold their conference here. We thought there would be 300 or 400 people but there were more than 1,000, with two from each of the groups. These women spread out in the communities and changed them. We did not change the communities, rather we facilitated the change. That approach was applied in all sorts of areas in which people were brought in.

Mr. Moriau's point is that, as administrators, we need to simplify our approach. We also need to watch for corruption and so on, but it can be done in simpler ways. If one is doing one's business well and watching it carefully, one will not lose much. On the one hand, if one spends one's time on the golf course and one wants a system that works itself and turns out paper which tell one what is happening, one will need massive systems, regulations and procedures. On the other hand, if one knows and is with one's people and they know one another and where they are, they can get the information which is needed to ensure things are correct and so on. We need to build this into the system.

We are examining the UN situation. Ireland is very dedicated to the United Nations, both in terms of service overseas and in all its other activities and work. When we talk about world taxes, let us not forget about the 0.7% world tax for the poor and the people at the lowest end of the spectrum. Some countries have made wonderful progress in the past and have been a great example to all of us. Ireland is working its way up to that level. Let us keep a focus on this issue, which is part of the reason for this conference.

The delegates to this conference have got people thinking, which is what they wanted to achieve. Mr. Moriau also referred importantly to the fact that if we do not look ahead, we will face great difficulties along the road. One of the things I learnt in Harvard in 1967 was that if one does not know where one is going, any road will take one there. The phrase was intended for marketing people but it can be applied to anything. In other words, one can take all the time one wants going as efficiently as one wants on the wrong roads and waste a great deal of time, but it is worthwhile thinking ahead. This is the point Mr.Moriau made.

Let us examine these issues in our parliaments and consider that if we have to make progress in smaller steps, let us get the direction right so that any input in terms of resources and effort is directed correctly. The key principle for marketing people throughout the world is to get one's direction right first, then do the fancy work. That struck a particular chord with me.

Mr. Moriau has told us he wants us to consider this resoultion. I will take it to our foreign affairs committee, where I know it will stimulate great discussion. We have one professor who would keep one going all day and night on the subject and we will have a good discussion. The most important thing Mr. Moriau has said, which comes from his own experience, is that we must get the direction right and we can work out many issues along the way. Let us consider it in Europe so that we can work on getting the direction right.

I thank every one who participated and listened to this morning and were in a position to stay for this important contribution from the French National Assembly. We have had a very interesting session in the past few days. We wanted the World Bank to come and talk to us and sought such an appearance. I had lunch with Mr. Wolfensohn when we were chatting about issues and he told me that of course the World Bank would talk to us. He was examining other issues in Dublin. He said that of course they were available to us any time, but when we went back to look for something they told us they do not talk to parliamentarians really. What we are seeing here is actually a complete change in that regard. We have the PNOB and so on, but we do not come down to their committees and talk to them.

The delegates here have seen something happening which I am delighted to see because we had very good and forthright contributions from responsible parliamentarians. Though some elements might not have been elaborated on, we are intelligent enough to know what is behind some of the statements made and about some of the restrictions on people. These are things we need to look at. One cannot apply restrictions on people in democracies without transparency. Even in a big or wealthy nation we cannot have that.

We must have openness and transparency and have things on the table. If some people get excited about it we must contain that at the same time, but the delegates have seen something very important. It will grow and we will work with it. We had a very honest and straightforward admission of a major mistake in policy which is being reversed.

I as a Minister — and I am sure others have had the same experience — dealt with our Department of Finance over many years. In five Governments I was Minister with responsibility for social affairs, particularly social welfare, social security and so on. Anyone in that position will find themselves constantly doing battle with the Department of Finance. It really is a battle, which is fair enough. That is the way the game is. One tries to bring them along with the things one wants to do, while they try to control the funds and keep a good hold on them. I respect that. At the same time, they will have their own ideas behind the scenes and will often operate their own views. We must tease these things out, make sure that they are on the table and make broader decisions on them.

That is the kind of thing that leads to the issues discussed here earlier. We had a very good and open discussion, and I think we will see a much more open approach in which people will be more available to come and talk with foreign affairs committees, for instance, which is great. In regard to the other parts of the programme, we had wonderful contributors. We had people who worked hard to put together papers for us. We did not stick to talking just to ourselves. We brought in people who are actively involved in doing things on the ground. They put their views.

We did not have enough time to discuss them all at length but we have their information and ideas. Take this young man, Mr. Niall Mellon. He is doing something practical in building houses. That is what he knows how to do. He has made a lot of money as a developer, and he is having a very big impact in Ireland. People will support and give money towards such activity. If they see the Government supporting it they will be very happy. He submitted a proposal about the European countries coming together and joining with 50,000 volunteers from various European countries doing the same kind of thing. If we can generate that kind of activity from our countries we will see huge impacts.

We have made visits to Africa and will do so again. We will go to Uganda fairly soon. That puts pressure on us, as we do not have a lot of time to spare, but we are either interested or we are not. If we are, we are going to do it. We have churches battling with one another all over the world, but go out to Africa and they are working together. Control is allocated to one church in one area — whether Presbyterian, Methodist or whatever — and to another church in another area, depending on who has the bigger numbers or better facilities, and the churches work together. It is tremendous to see that on the ground. If we could import some of it we would be doing very well. There are a lot of people out there working on the ground and they deserve our support. They have been given very good support here over these few days.

It has been a great pleasure to have you here, and I hope you enjoyed yourselves. We will certainly do our best to follow up on the ideas that have been expressed and the friendships that we have made. That is important. The last word goes to France.

Mr. de Charette

I wanted to say a word before you gave us the last word, Chairman. I seize this opportunity to thank all our colleagues for these two marvellous days. An excellent programme was prepared for us, "with little onions around," as we say in France, so perfectly prepared. Your hospitality was incredible. Thank you for the enthusiasm and dynamism of the whole team. Everybody was available to help us, support us and make sure that everything went well. I think I can speak on behalf of everybody by thanking you, Chairman, and all of your team for these excellent few days.

Chairman

I told you the French would have the last word anyway. I thank you all very much, and we look forward to seeing you in different capacities and in different ways in the future. I thank the staff for all they did for us, down to serving the free trade coffee and tea, and everyone who has helped us in our preparations.

I also thank the delegates' own staff for helping them in their work, and the people up at Farmleigh House for last night, not to mention Michael Ó Súilleabháin. He is offering me a contract to go on the road with him at this stage. I have turned down a few of those over the years.

Coaches will depart for lunch at the Guinness Store House at 12 o'clock. Guinness seem to be dominating this conference. We were in a former Guinness home yesterday, and I think Guinness nearly fell into the piano at one stage last night. I thank everybody again for everything and we look forward to seeing you in the future.

The joint committee meeting adjourned at 11.38 a.m.