I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the reports: Developments in the European Communities—Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Reports.
Developments in the European Communities—Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Reports: Motion.
As Senators will be aware these reports are required by section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972 which provides that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Communities.
The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Reports together summarise significant developments in various areas of Community activity from 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1977. They include reviews of the European Councils held during that period in Luxembourg, Brussels, The Hague, Rome and London. Developments in the Common Fisheries policy up to mid July 1977 are covered.
The reports deal with European political co-operation, policy decisions taken by the Community, legislation enacted by the Community and proposals for Community action, with the emphasis on the significance for Ireland in each case.
As annexes to the reports are lists of Ministerial Regulations made under the European Communities Act, tables showing subsidies, grants and loans received, lists of meetings of the Council, plenary sittings of the European Parliament, plenary sessions of the Economic and Social Committee, Irish members of Community bodies and visits concerning Community affairs.
Senators will be aware from the introduction to the Eighth Report that it has been decided to publish these reports at six-monthly intervals, each report to cover the period of the presidency of the Council just concluded. With the reports now being published on a more logical basis, the Minister hopes it will be possible for parliamentary time to be set aside for debates almost automatically twice a year. Debates on the reports would then provide a regular opportunity for a broad discussion of European Community affairs. Now that the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities has been set up it should be possible to debate the reports of the Joint Committee at the same time. This arrangement would, we feel, best meet the recommendation made by the Joint Committee in the report on its functions and work published in March 1977 that a definite time be set aside for two debates each year on Joint Committee reports.
I would like now to refer to some of the major developments in the areas of Community activity during the period covered by these reports. Senators will appreciate that the matters referred to occurred before the change of Government and so do not reflect the input of our policy to the Community. In addition, Senators may wish to raise matters which refer to developments subsequent to last June. I will be happy to deal with these matters in my reply.
In the area of European political co-operation the Nine, in accordance with the inter-governmental procedures established for this co-operation, continued to meet regularly at ministerial and official level to consult on and as far as possible to co-ordinate their foreign policy positions.
Particular attention continued to be paid to the situation in Africa.
In declarations on Africa made in February 1976 and in April 1977 the Foreign Ministers of the Nine expressed concern at the situation in Central and Southern Africa, affirmed their willingness to co-operate with any African State in the rejection of attempts by any State to set up a sphere of influence in Africa, stated their support for the Organisation of African Unity and their commitment to do everything possible to promote democratic majority rule and nonracial Government for the peoples of Southern Africa.
In separate statements the Nine have expressed their deep concern at the attitude of the illegal Rhodesian authorities which had endangered efforts to find a solution to the situation in that country.
As an expression of their continuing concern over the situation in Namibia, the Nine made demarches in 1976 and 1977 to the South African authorities which set out the essentials of a settlement which would gain international acceptance.
In May 1977 a statement on behalf of the Nine was delivered at the United Nations Conference on the situation in Zimbabwe and Namibia held in Maputo, Mozambique, which re-affirmed Nine support for independence and majority rule in S. Rhodesia and Namibia.
The Nine continued their consultations on matters arising from the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, CSCE. The Final Act contains a declaration of principles guiding relations between the thirty-five participating States and detailed provisions aimed at encouraging contacts and co-operation in the areas of security, economics, education, culture, as well as in the humanitarian field. A follow-up meeting began in Belgrade on 4 October. This meeting is engaged in reviewing the extent to which the participating states have implemented the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and in discussing means of facilitating and improving implementation. In this context the Nine have maintained close co-ordination and co-operation both in the review of implementation and in the promotion of proposals aimed at facilitating and improving further implementation of the Final Act.
The Middle East continued to be a regular topic of discussion among the Nine. On 29 June last the European Council issued a statement outlining the common approach of the Community to the question of a resolution of the Middle East conflict. This statement, the text of which is annexed to the Tenth Report, is indicative of the very significant progress which has taken place in the development of the Community's Middle East policy since the last such declaration in November 1973.
During the period covered by these reports both Greece and Portugal submitted applications for membership of the Communities. Since the Tenth Report was written, Spain has also applied.
Accession negotiations are in progress with Greece and indeed are about to enter on a more active and substantive phase. As regards Portugal and Spain, the Commission is at present conducting an examination of the applications received from those countries in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties which require that the opinion of the Commission be obtained before action is taken by the Council.
Although the three applications are being dealt with separately on their own merits, the overall consequences for the future of the Community and for its common policies of an enlargement involving all three countries must be borne in mind. Ireland has welcomed the applications for accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain. We have admired the return of democracy in these countries and have recognised that the prospect of membership of the European Communities has played no small part in the process of democratisation. However, we are concerned that enlargement must lead to further integration and progress towards the achievement of the stated aims of the Community. We have already made our position clear both as regards the provision of adequate resources to deal with the problems of an enlarged Community and as regards the necessity for reform of the Community institutions. We have also stated that, if the Community is to deal effectively with the applicant countries, positive action will have to be taken to eliminate existing regional disparaties. The Government attaches great importance to the pursuit of an effective regional policy, which would involve the use of all Community financial instruments to alleviate problems such as these existing in Ireland.
The approach I have outlined will guide our attitude to developments in regard to enlargement.
An important development during the period under review was the coming into effect on 1 June 1977 of a new treaty, commonly knows as the Budgetary Powers Treaty. This treaty changes certain financial provisions of the treaties establishing the European Communities and of the treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities.
The main significance of the new treaty is that it gives the European Parliament the explicit right to reject the draft Community budget as a whole and to request that a new draft be submitted to it. Another power which the new treaty grants to the Parliament is the sole right, acting on a recommendation from the Council, of giving a discharge to the Council in respect of the implementation of the budget. This power of discharge, which in effect amounts to a power to declare the accounts for each year finally and duly closed, was previously exercised jointly by the Council and the Parliament. In addition the new treaty makes it obligatory for the Council to consult the Parliament and to obtain the opinion of the new Court of Auditors before it makes financial regulations relating to the management of the budget of the Communities. Previously the Council could make financial regulations without consulting either the Parliament or the Audit Board.
Another provision of the new treaty is that it has now been made more difficult for the Council to reject a proposed modification by the Parliament to the Community budget, where such a modification would not increase the total expenditure of a Community institution, that is to say, where a proposed increase in expenditure in one area would be offset by a reduction elsewhere. The new treaty provides that in future, such modifications will stand accepted unless the Council votes by a qualified majority, namely 41 votes out of 58, to reject them.
The treaty also provides for the creation of a Communities' Court of Auditors to replace the existing Audit Board. The new court consists of nine full-time members appointed for a six-year term of office by the Council, after it has consulted the European Parliament. The members of the court took their oath of office on 25 October 1977 and on that day, four members were chosen by lot whose initial term of office will be limited to four years. These are the members from Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Italy. At its meeting on 9 November 1977, the Court of Auditors elected Mr. Michael Murphy of Ireland as its President.
The Court of Auditors will assist Parliament and the Council in their exercise of powers of control over the budget, and it will have extensive powers at its command. For example, it will be able to investigate all revenue and expenditure of all bodies set up by the Communities unless the relevant constituent instrument precludes such examination. It will be able to carry out on-the-spot audits in both the institutions and in the member states if necessary. In the latter case, the audit would be made in conjunction with national audit offices or competent national departments. It may also, on the request of an institution, submit observations or deliver opinions on specific questions.
The Court of Auditors has been set up to meet the difficulties generated by the increasing size of the Community budget and the need to ensure more effective control over the financial management of the Community.
While the effects of the new Budgetary Powers Treaty will be to immediately strengthen the powers of the European Parliament in relation to the Community budget, it is expected that these powers will be much more significant when the Parliament is elected directly by the people of the Community.
This brings me on to the subject of direct elections to the European Parliament, which was debated in this House and in the Dáil before Christmas in the context of the European Assembly Elections (No. 2) Bill 1977, which laid down the procedures for the holding of direct elections in Ireland. The Bill became law on 9 December 1977, on being signed by the President.
As you know, the first direct elections were scheduled to take place throughout the Community in May or June of this year, but unfortunately it has now been found necessary to postpone them. The delay is primarily due to the situation in the United Kingdom where the House of Commons on 13 December 1977 rejected the use of the PR regional list system in favour of the simple majority system "first past the post", for the direct elections. As a result, it would not have been possible for the UK Boundary Commission to draw up the required new constituencies before the deadline of May 1978.
At the Council of Foreign Ministers on 17 January 1978, the reality of the situation was accepted with some disappointment and the meeting agreed that the European Council in Copenhagen on 6-7 April should set a new date for the elections—probably some time in the first half of 1979.
We regret the fact that this postponement was necessary but we should now look forward to the holding of the first elections next year and work towards a high poll in order to give a strong mandate to the new directly-elected Parliament.
Irish agriculture continues to benefit significantly from membership of the European Community. During 1977 payments received under the FEOGA Guarantee Section amounted to about £245 million, a figure which demonstrates the significance of the Community's Common Agricultural Policy to the agricultural sector in Ireland. This is only part of the benefit. There is in addition the gain—estimated at £175 million or so a year—from our exports being sold at the higher EEC price levels.
There have, of course, been some problems for the agricultural sector since Irish accession to the Community not the least of which has been the failure of the Community to evolve a common organisation of the market for sheepmeat. The Government is continuing to press for a common organisation of the sheepmeat market and the Commission has recently promised a proposal by April. Throughout the transitional period our sheep farmers have had to operate in the face of continuing uncertainty on access to the lucrative French market for lamb. However, since the end of the transitional period on 1 January last our sheepmeat exports are being admitted freely to the French market. We now have the opportunity of developing a very valuable export market for top quality lamb.
Another important aspect of the Common Agricultural Policy which is in need of review, and which is in fact being reviewed, is the question of monetary compensatory amounts, or MCA's as they are usually referred to. Senators will be aware that MCA's are a device originally introduced to offset the effects which exchange rate fluctuations have on the price system of the Common Agricultural Policy and on the competitiveness of the agricultural exports of the member states.
Because of the fall in the value of sterling in the past few years Irish exports of agricultural products were burdened with an MCA which amounted to a considerable levy and which reduced their competitiveness on the markets of the other Community members. Successive devaluations in the green pound, as it is known, have reduced the MCA's chargeable on Irish exports to a more tolerable level. The Government are determined to press for a complete overhaul of the MCA system, in consultation with the European Commission and the other member states. The resulting system will, it is hoped, provide for regular automatic adjustments in the MCA system.
Early in 1977, because of a wide divergence between the Irish and British green pound rates and the fact that certain processed agricultural products were not covered by the MCA system, Irish manufacturers of certain processed agricultural products, notably biscuits and confectionery, were placed at a severe disadvantage compared with United Kingdom manufacturers of the same products. It was necessary initially to take national measures to safeguard the interests of Irish manufacturers. Import levies and export subsidies were introduced on the goods in question and these were later replaced by a Community-wide MCA system for these products on 4 July 1977.
The Community continues to have a large surplus of dairy products which it is endeavouring to reduce. Among the measures adopted as part of a package designed to achieve a balance between supply and demand in the dairy market was the introduction on 16 September 1977 of a coresponsibility levy of 0.9p per gallon on milk. This is to be paid by milk producers to Community funds and used to improve the market outlets for dairy products. The reluctance of dairy producers to pay the levy is understandable but it must be noted that any increase in the market for dairy products will be of benefit to Irish dairy farmers in the medium and long term.
The Common Agricultural Policy is one which must be reviewed and adapted regularly to meet the changing needs of and situations arising in the member states. The Government attaches considerable importance to the need to review the Community's directives on structural reform in agriculture. The Commission has recently produced proposals to amend and improve these directives. We will examine these proposals carefully and shall aim at securing a worthwhile improvement in the Community's policies on structural reform.
The reports deal with a period which has seen the extension by the Community member states of their fishing limits to 200 miles, and the consequential efforts of the Community to arrive at a revised common fisheries policy, efforts which to date have not been successful. The extension to 200 miles took place in the context of the failure of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference to reach finality and because of the declaration of 200-mile fishing limits by a number of States including the United States, Canada, Norway and Iceland.
The Foreign Ministers of the Community meeting in the Hague on 29 and 30 October 1976 accordingly agreed that member states of the Community should by concerted action extend their fishing limits in the North Atlantic from 1 January 1977. At this meeting the special needs of Ireland's developing fishing industry in formulating a revised policy were recognised. Agreement was also reached on the principle that the cost to Ireland of protecting the extended Irish zone should not be disproportionate to the volume of fish taken by Ireland in that zone.
Initial efforts towards the end of 1976 to arrive at a revised internal fisheries policy failed to achieve agreement in the Council of Ministers. In those discussions the special position of this country and our need for a reserved coastal belt were emphasised. It was also pointed out that negotiation of substantive arrangements with Third Countries was contingent on settlement of a revised internal policy.
Following on the failure of the Council to reach agreement on revised permanent arrangements efforts were made to put in place interim arrangements for 1977. On the external side temporary arrangements were applied to those non-EEC countries who had traditionally fished in the waters of member states, restricting the volume and areas of their fishing activity. These arrangements for limited periods were renewed from time to time.
The problem of internal conservation measures proved more intractable. This country's position was that a quota system was not in itself sufficient to conserve stocks and in the absence of agreement on comprehensive conservation measures the previous Government, as Senators will be aware, took unilateral action to limit the size of boats operating in Irish coastal areas which resulted in legal action by the Commission.
The case against Ireland at the European Court of Justice is dealt with in the Tenth Report. The unilateral fishery conservation measures brought into force on 10 April were suspended by order of the court on 18 July 1977. A further oral hearing on the case before the Court was held on 14 December and the Advocate General of the Court delivered his opinion on the case on 19 January last. The final judgment of the court is expected soon and because of this, I am sure Senators will appreciate that I cannot make any comments on the matter.
Comprehensive revised proposals for a permanent regime were put forward by the Commission in early December 1977 following intensive bilateral consultations. These, as subsequently supplemented, cover quotas, which would give Ireland a very substantive increase in catches, conservation and control measures, a system of fishing plans to regulate activity particularly in waters of interest to Ireland, structural adaptation measures and finally proposals to implement the undertaking in regard to a financial contribution to Ireland for surveillance costs.
These latest measures are outside the scope of the reports before the Senate and I do not, accordingly, propose to deal with them at any length. The Irish approach has been constructive and the Minister for Fisheries has indicated our willingness to negotiate on the proposals and to consider the possibility of combining fishing plans with a reserved coastal zone. It became apparent in recent weeks however that it would not be possible to arrive at agreement on the basis of these proposals as they stood and efforts to agree on a package of interim measures for 1978 at the Council of Fisheries Ministers last week, without prejudice to the permanent revised regime, likewise came to nought.
Turning to economic and monetary matters, it has to be admitted that the movement towards economic and monetary union in the Community has been sluggish in recent years. The objective, set a few years ago, of achieving economic and monetary union by 1980 is now clearly unattainable. The lack of progress in this area is in part, but not entirely, attributable to the preoccupation with the energy crisis, the slow rate of economic growth, and the high level of Community unemployment. I must add, however, that the situation has not been helped by the existence of doubts as to whether the commitment to the objective of economic and monetary union has been wholehearted on the part of all concerned.
Ireland has traditionally supported the general objective of economic and monetary union. It is our view, however, that the elimination of economic disparities between different parts of the Community is an essential prerequisite to the achievement of any real success in moving towards economic and monetary union.
The European Council on 5-6 December 1977 discussed the prospects of economic and monetary union. A communication submitted by the Commission to the European Council proposed a five-year action programme, the details of which would be specified annually: at the end of each year the European Council would review progress and approve the active plan for the following year. The European Council welcomed the Commission communication and reaffirmed its attachment to the objective of economic and monetary union. This renewed commitment to the goal seems most timely, prior to direct elections to the European Parliament, and enlargement of the Communities.
The period under review saw recovery from the recession in most member states. The rate of economic growth attained in 1977 was an estimated 2½ per cent, compared with over 4½ per cent in 1976. At 5 per cent, Ireland in 1977 had the highest growth rate among the member states. Although growth was weak throughout the Community in 1977, some progress was made on inflation and external imbalances.
High unemployment is the most pressing problem in the Community at present. The restoration of full employment must be given priority at both Community and national level. There is need for a sustained effort to eliminate unemployment in the medium term, and in particular a solution must be found urgently to the pressing question of youth unemployment. Prospects for 1978, on the basis of unchanged policies, suggest an improvement in the Community's growth rate to 3½ per cent with demand and production showing a slow expansion in the first half of the year. Unemployment in the Community as a whole is expected to rise, but a reduction is forecast for Ireland. The rate of inflation in the Community should moderate again in 1978, to an annual average of about 8 per cent, as against 9½ per cent in 1977.
The Fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which was held in Nairobi in May 1976 adopted a resolution—Resolution 93—on an integrated commodity programme which called for negotiations with a view to commodity arrangements being drawn up for 18 named commodities. The Resolution also called for steps to be taken towards the negotiation of a common fund. In the period under review Ireland as well as the other Community member states participated in negotiations on the integrated commodity programme. A United Nations negotiating conference took place in March 1977 and was adjourned without reaching agreement on the question of a common fund. However, within the Community itself agreement was reached at the European Council on 25-26 March 1977 on the principle of the establishment of a common fund. This agreement enabled the Community, together with the other industrialised countries represented, to reach agreement on the principle of the establishment of a common fund at the final stages of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation (CIEC) in Paris in June 1977. It is a source of satisfaction that the Community spoke with one voice and played a positive role in CIEC.
The United Nations Negotiating Conference on a Common Fund resumed on 7 November 1977 but was suspended on 1 December 1977 without having reached agreement on the establishment of a common fund. It is likely that a further negotiating session of the conference will be held in the first half of 1978.
With regard to the Community's Global Mediterranean Policy agreements have been concluded, or existing agreements amended with most countries of the Mediterranean region, involving trade concessions, economic and technical co-operation and financial assistance. The agreements are designed as a model for relations between developed and developing states, and, I would suggest, illustrate the Community's imaginative policies in their relations with countries at different stages of development.
The successful implementation of these agreements will contribute to a more balanced relationship between the Community and their Mediterranean partners. The Community attaches importance to consolidating and strengthening its relations with these countries by demonstrating, through these agreements, its desire to contribute to the economic and social development of the region. These co-operation agreements have been signed by all of the member states and are now in the process of ratification.
During their last session, Dáil Éireann approved the terms of motions relating to the accession of three new States to the Convention of Lomé, Sao Tome and Principe, Cape Verde and Papua, New Guinea. The value and effectiveness of Community policy in these areas are illustrated by the desire of so many countries to participate in such agreements.
Under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade— GATT—the so-called Tokyo Round of international trade negotiations was launched in September 1973. The main areas of the negotiations are agriculture, tariffs, non-tariff measures, safeguards and special and differential treatment for developing countries.
Very little real progress has been made in these negotiations since 1975 mainly because of the unfavourable world economic climate and more recently the election and change of administration in the United States. The most difficult issues between the developed countries concern the EEC and the United States, principally in relation to agriculture, tariffs and safeguards. The problem of differential treatment for developing countries is also very difficult.
Because of the slow progress being made the deadline for completion of these negotiations has been successively extended. At the Downing Street Summit in May, the major participants committed themselves to seeking substantive progress in 1977. President Carter's Special Trade Representative, Mr. Robert Strauss, at a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on 11 July proposed an accelerated timetable which envisaged the conclusion of the negotiations in 1978. The attitude of the Community to the timetable is one of overall positiveness tempered by a concern to ensure that balance in the results is maintained.
The prospects for the negotiations in the light of these developments are better than has been the case for some time and if the current political will can be translated into positive action there should be considerable progress within the next six months. An informal high level meeting in Geneva on 23 January 1978, at which the offers of various participants were tabled, inaugurated the substantive stage of the negotiations.
Since 1972 contacts between the Community and COMECON have been taking place. These culminated with a meeting last September between the President of the Council and Commissioner Haferkamp on the one hand, and Mr. Milai Marinescu, President of the Executive Council of COMECON, on the other. Mr. Haferkamp, the Vice-President of the European Commission, as the Commissioner responsible for External Relations, led the discussion on the Community side. The Commission will be responsible for the conduct of negotiations for the Community. The discussion was useful and constructive and marks an important step towards the recognition by the COMECON states of Community competences. As a result of this meeting, it is expected that negotiations towards the conclusion of a co-operation agreement between the European Community and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance will begin early in 1978. The Community has also re-affirmed that its offer to conclude individual trade agreements with each of the state-trading countries which are members of COMECON is still on the table.
While most trade relations between Ireland and third countries are now regulated at Community level there are certain fields of intergovernmental economic activity where, subject to compliance with Community consultation procedures, competence is retained at national government level. Examples of these areas are agreements on the development of economic, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation, between Ireland and the USSR and between Ireland and Poland which were signed during the period under review.
The agreements provide an inter-governmental framework to facilitate the development of co-operative projects between economic, commercial and other interests in the two countries concerned. In State trading countries such as the USSR and Poland, where most aspects of economic activity are controlled by the State the provision of such an inter-governmental framework is seen as an important step to provide support at the official level for Irish exporters and other economic operators with an interest in doing business with the countries concerned
One of our main criticisms of the Community has been the lack of a comprehensive regional policy backed by an adequately endowed regional fund. Only this can solve the problem of the increasing disparities between the richest and poorest regions of the Community. We have always seen the elimination of such disparities as an essential step towards cohesion and progress in the Community.
As Senators are aware, the Paris Summit of December 1974 decided to set up the European Regional Development Fund for three years with a ceiling of 1,300 million units of account—about £540 million. Of this we were to get an effective 6.42 per cent or £35 million. This was completely inadequate for our needs. It represented only a small proportion of the public capital programme, even in 1975.
Agreement was reached at the European Council on 5-6 December last that the size of the fund will be 1,800 million European units of account— about £1,230 million—over the three years, 1978 to 1980. Our share of this has not yet been fixed but we expect it to be about the same percentage share as for the earlier period. This should give us a figure of £75 million with a 1978 figure of £24 million. This total marks a considerable advance on our share of the earlier fund and will go some of the way towards helping us attain a rate of economic growth sufficiently fast enough to catch up with the richer members of the Community. However, I would like to stress that we do not accept even this increased fund as representing a real Community effort in this area.
Negotiations, referred to in the Tenth Report, are still continuing on Commission proposals to set up a framework in which a Community regional policy can evolve. This will entail co-ordinating national regional policies and assessing the regional consequences of Community policy in general. The exact details of the framework will, it is hoped, be decided on soon. Ireland is in favour of this set of proposals. The development of a Community regional policy will be a significant step towards the realisation of an economic and monetary union and the present proposals, if they are accepted, should significantly assist the development of such a policy. Also under discussion are proposals about revising the regulations which governed the fund for the last three years. We hope that revised regulations will soon be agreed to.
I have already referred to the regional policy dimension of the enlargement of the Community. Enlarging the Community makes the realisation of a regional policy of which a substantial regional fund would play a major part all the more imperative.
I need hardly remind the members of this House that the major social problem facing the Community at the moment is unemployment. Six million people—5.7 per cent of the Community's labour force—are out of work in the Community. Ireland has the most serious figure with 9.7 per cent of our labour force unemployed.
During the period covered by the Tenth Report there were two major conferences on the problem. The Standing Committee on Employment, consisting of the Ministers for Social Affairs of the Nine, the social partners and the Commission met in early May 1977 and discussed the question. The Tripartite Conference, which has the same membership as the Standing Committee on Employment with the additional attendance of the Ministers of Finance of the Nine, met at the end of June and agreed that the Commission would undertake a study of: the cost effectiveness, and implications for industrial output, of work sharing schemes; the role of employment creation in the tertiary sector; the effect of increasing competition from the Third World on the pattern of investment in the Community and the promotion of public and private investment which would create jobs.
In addition the Commission is to keep the overall situation regarding employment, investment and growth in the Community under review.
It was envisaged that a further tripartite conference will be held to consider these reports when they are ready.
The two European Councils in March and June also discussd the problem of employment with particular reference to what the Community as a whole could do about it. The points covered included borrowing at the national and international level, reduction in working hours, longer schooling periods and earlier retirement. Senators may wish to note that since June last there have been two further meetings at ministerial level on this subject. At the end of October the Social Affairs Ministers considered the question of money from the European Social Fund being used to help the creation and maintenance of jobs particularly for young people. The Commission was instructed to prepare and submit to the Council proposals as soon as possible.
In November last the Standing Committee on Employment held a meeting devoted to youth unemployment. The Committee felt that particular priority should be accorded to measures designed to strengthen the links between post-school training and employment. Such measures are to be financed out of the social fund if the latter has sufficient funds. The committee also urged the Commission to increase the aid and co-operation between member states in the development of employment market institutions. Ireland indicated at that meeting that we strongly supported the idea of strengthening the link between training and employment in the context of the European Social Fund. We emphasised that extra resources must be provided for any aid the Community may make available.
The question of unemployment was also discussed at the December European Council. The Council conducted a wide-ranging discussion of the economic and social situation in the Community. It was agreed among other things that "the level of unemployment remained a major cause for concern". It approved a number of immediate objectives—increased coordination of economic policies, the strengthening of monetary solidarity, the development of the Community's financial means and the search for Community solutions to structural problems. The Council stressed the importance of contacts with the two sides of industry through the tripartite conference, and requested that the follow-up work to the last tripartite conference be expedited.
The European Social Fund was set up in 1961. It is primarily concerned with training and retraining schemes for workers. We have benefited considerably from it since our accession. In the past five years over £50 million has been committed by the fund to projects in Ireland of which the total for last year slightly exceeded £20 million. This represented about eight per cent of the total fund for 1977. The major single Irish benefactor is AnCO. In 1977 about 12,500 people received training from AnCO—an increase of nearly 2,000 on 1976. The cost of this training was assisted considerably by the European Social Fund. Commitments from the fund to AnCO increased from £5.8 million in 1976 to £8.0 million in 1977 for programmes started in 1977. In addition a further £2.1 million was committed to cover training schemes run by sixty-two private companies in co-operation with AnCO for the same period. 5,325 trainees were involved in these training programmes. The money put up by the European Social Fund was matched with a similar sum paid by AnCO on behalf of the IDA. The companies themselves are to pay the balance of £3.7 million.
A further revision of the fund was completed towards the end of 1977. The revised regulations governing the fund came into force on 1 January. They include a number of improvements which are expected to benefit Ireland.
As the Minister said, section 5 of the 1972 European Communities Act provided that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the Community and I think it is regrettable that so many reports should come together. I am glad the Minister has undertaken to bring the reports to the House soon after they are published. This is necessary if the Members of the Oireachtas are to be kept informed of developments in the Community. I agree with the Minister that there is a necessity for more frequent discussions of these topics within the Seanad.
The malaise in the European Community does not arise so much from the economic crisis of the past as from the fact that member Governments refused to give it its due. They do not take into account the European dimension and they tend to attribute all that is positive in it to their own action and all that is negative to the Commission. Indeed neither by word nor action have any Government of the Nine set about explaining what Europe is all about. The regional fund, for example, as has been mentioned by the Minister, is but a cliché here as far as the man in the street is concerned, but from the Commission's point of view it is an expensive cliché at £42 million since the fund was founded in 1974. It is unfortunate that it is not possible to find an individual in the street who will say, "I owe 30 per cent of the job I have to the fact that the European development fund has set up the project in which I work." While nothing is made clear about it the ordinary person cannot understand and when things go wrong everybody blames the Community.
Nationalistic habits have prevented us from making the most of the Community, and so long as these persist it is hard to give the Community the chance they deserve. Unless this attitude is changed—and if Europe is to remain in business is must be changed —the Community will be eroded and dissipated. That would be a waste and a sad contrast to the attitude towards the Community of those countries outside it.
I would like to avail of this opportunity to query the Minister on the changes that have recently been made in the Department of Foreign Affairs vis-à-vis the briefings that members of the Community have received from the various State Departments and from the semi-State organisations to date. I had occasion to ring a Department on Monday for a bit of information and was told that in future all such inquiries must be made in writing in the first instance to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not object to the procedure, but the only point that I would wish to make is that very often none of us who are working in the Parliament can reasonably be expected to be an expert to have opinions on the very wide range of topics that come before the European Parliament for discussion. Therefore at very short notice we may have to ask some Department what the Irish position is or which option we should adopt, and if we have to go through two Departments to get a message it slows down the job. For instance if I have a query about Aer Lingus am I to take it that in future I write to the Department of Foreign Affairs, they write to the Department of Tourism and Transport, they in turn write to Mr. Kennedy in Aer Lingus, and then there are the three steps back again? The debate would be long over before we would have that information. I do not mind the red tape so long as it does not inhibit the members or perhaps deprive us. After all in my five years' experience we have worked as a team in the interests of the common good. We have found ourselves, with very few exceptions, on the same line in the Parliament even without prior consultations.
I have also noticed since returning to the Parliament after Christmas that each time I come through Dublin airport I am subjected to personal minute and intensive scrutiny by the customs officials. I accept that we must have spot checks, but as the Minister will appreciate, the plane complement for Brussels is made up of 80 per cent of senior Irish civil servants, Ministers, company directors, people from the trade unions and farming organisations, and if each week they see McDonald with his case spread out and customs officials going through it minutely they surely cannot be blamed if they think that that fellow is on to some smuggling racket or another. It is extremely unfair, and I think that I am being singled out for special attention. I want an assurance from the Minister that I am not being singled out for special political motives because I would very much regret that——
The Senator is not serious.
I am serious.
Political motives——
We sail through every airport in Europe——
The Government have issued an edict that a certain Charles McDonald, Senator, coming back from Europe——
Has it happened often?
Since Christmas every time, and only one or two fellows are picked from each plane as far as I can see and sometimes nobody.
I would like to give you an assurance that the Government have issued no such directive. I can give that with absolute unequivocation.
I accept that, but it is hard to take it when the smuggling racket is going two ways across the Border at great damage to industry and the agricultural economy and at huge costs to the Community coffers, and at the same time these customs people who cannot get after what should be their legitimate work can waste time with a guy such as I. I have never in the five years exceeded the quota. Indeed if you get up at six in the morning, do a five hour stint at a meeting in Brussels and get back home at 12 o'clock at night you are not in very much humour for going on shopping sprees. However, the Minister might suggest to the customs officials that between planes they might read Bunreacht na hEireann and in conjunction with it articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Treaty of Rome—after all it is a customs union—before they pick us out for special scrutiny again.
Surely we can make arrangements for the Seanad members of the European Parliament to be greeted——
I can understand how the security people have to check. I never bring in my full quota. To get back to the business before the House, I read in a newspaper this morning a headline which quoted the Bishop of Galway, Dr. Casey, launching his Lenten appeal for Trócaire. I should like to join with him in asking the public to be generous and to contribute to the laudable aims of Trócaire and to support the work they are doing.
During the past five years I have been a member of the European Parliament and also a member of the executive of the Lomé Convention. As a member of those bodies I have had an opportunity to visit 14 or 15 of the new African countries, the emerging nations, and I have had a chance to visit missions, to speak with government and non-governmental people and to stay with missionaries on their missions. I have had an opportunity to get an insight into the work they are doing and of their tremendous need. To understand what poverty is people must go to see it and experience it for themselves. It can be quite frightening when one comes across the two-tier society for the first time. If the Irish people saw that more clearly I feel sure they would be more generous. The EEC is certainly doing its part in this respect. Under the terms of the Lomé Convention the Community is pledged to transfer 390 million units of account of financial aid to the ACP countries before 1 March 1980. To this figure must be added an amount of 160 million units of account which will be transferred to the overseas territories of the Communities.
What is our share of that?
I have the breakdown of the figures: Belgium, 6.25 per cent, Germany, 25.9 per cent, France, 25.9 per cent, Italy, 12 per cent, Luxembourg, 0.2 per cent, Netherlands, 7.95 per cent, United Kingdom, 18.7 per cent, Denmark, 2.4 per cent, Ireland, 0.6 per cent. It is a fairly substantial fund. When we talk about developments and aid and what our contribution is, it is a mistake to quantify it either in millions or in percentages. This is not what the programme is about. I am sorry that the Government did not increase this in the budget, did not maintain the momentum of annual increases that was set out by the previous Government in a very ambitious target in 1973. It is true that they met that target with the exception of one year. Had the Government been able to Minister, Chief Jonathan paid a warm maintain the target increase this year it would perhaps have compensated for that.
Reading the newspapers today it would be a mistake if we were to quantify the amount of aid. It is also a pity that sufficient money was not provided this year to meet all the demands that have been made to date on the Department. There is a considerable shortfall there. Even if we had met the demands we still would not have met the target Deputy FitzGerald set out in 1973.
Speaking of the role of the Community through the aegis of the Lomé Convention, it is important that this work should be undertaken not just by Governmental organisations but by non-governmental organisations. On a recent visit some months ago on the first delegation from the European Parliament that went to the United Nations in New York, the Secretary General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, went to considerable pains to stress the role that non-governmental organisations must play in bringing about greater equality and a new social order in the world.
For that reason, though I support Dr. Casey's Lenten appeal for Trócaire and I would hope people will contribute generously, I think we must not overlook the excellent work that is being carried out on our behalf by the Department of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with practically all the other Departments of State, with people from all the semi-State organisations who are being seconded and who are giving up their time in the true Irish missionary spirit to the development of those emerging nations in Africa. Deputy FitzGerald showed considerable foresight in selecting the small country of Lesotho which is completely surrounded by the Republic of South Africa—it is a small land-locked country of fewer than 1 million people, 40 per cent of whose work force work within South Africa—for the greatest concentration of our aid, which in real terms is small in comparison with what the larger countries can give. Nevertheless, on a recent visit to Lesotho where I attended a meeting of the Lomé Convention the Prime and special tribute to Mr. Greene from the Minister's Department who, I take it, must be head of that section, for the work he is doing. He also said that the contribution of all the Irish people there was quite significant. They did not have the colonial undertones that perhaps other people had. They are obviously very well picked and they do a wonderful job. Not only do they carry out the work that they undertake to do but they are able to encourage by their example and their dedication the local people to provide for themselves the kind of future that is necessary.
It is not sufficient to provide £X million and give it to a country. What the people in the underdeveloped areas, the new emerging nations, need are technical skills and know-how. That is not provided by finance alone. Therefore the work of the people who give up their time to go out in our development and aid programme is all the more important. It is something we should feel proud of.
I should like to dwell at some length on this important matter because I do not think it has been mentioned in the House before. I would hope that the Minister would take the earliest opportunity and visit Lesotho in particular, or the Sudan or any of the countries where we have concentrated aid. That visit should be given high priority. There is a role here for Members of this House who could take the time off. The Government should provide the opportunity for our people actually to see for themselves the kind of work that is going on, so that through the dissemination of information, we could bring the public with us. If any Irish person was to see the advancement and the efforts that have already been made and the way they are appreciated, I think it would make one feel proud to have been a contributor even via the tax man to that kind of work.
This is why we should place greater emphasis on this heading in the Department. Apart from the fact that it is necessary to perhaps counter in some way—although I do not think this is too serious—the power blocs in the world who are bidding to turn the heads of these small countries and take them for strategic reasons, in our situation we can go with at least a Christian spirit and see these people being equipped with facilities to improve their lot and the lot of those who come after them.
I would ask the Minister to put high on his list of priorities a visit to some of these projects to see the conditions and the achievements of our people there, financed by our taxpayers, and if at all possible he should be able to bring at least some Members of this House from all sides to see the work that is going on. No matter where one goes in the world, and we in the European Parliament get around a considerable amount, every parliament that I have come across has a foreign relations committee. Members of parliament nowadays must be well briefed and the best possible way of doing this is to expose them to the problems and let them see for themselves. It would be money well spent if our people were to go out there. They would have a greater appreciation of the tremendous work that so many thousands of our Irish missionaries have been doing for many years, generations back, in bringing a better standard of living to people in distant lands.
I was speaking to some Ministers in Nigeria last year and I was amazed when they told me of the tremendous debt that country of 88 million people owe to Irish missioners in the main and also some English Protestant missioners who almost single-handedly provided educational, social and hospital services for the population. This is a tremendous tribute. Living with some of the missioners, the Kiltegan Fathers, I found that they are almost totally dependent on the help that they get from the home missions. This is something which people very often tend to forget.
I should like to deal with the Lomé aspects and with our activities in Lesotho. I especially mention the contribution An Foras Talúntais have made and indeed Mr. Gallagher and Dr. Andy Cole who spent some time there, and the very considerable plan they have drawn up. I hope that the proposed programme will be speedily implemented and that the Department will be able to make whatever allocations are necessary to ensure that the programme of development in the very remote region of Lesotho would be expedited. At the present time the general population there, who would appear to be the poorest of the poor and a very gentle people in the main, are living in a very remote area with no through roads or communication. They are living in the highest spot in the world—I think the lowest part of that kingdom of Lesotho is in excess of 5,000 feet over sea level. They have particular problems there, unique to themselves. There are certain hardships for our people who undertake to go there and I hope they will not be subjected to any frustrations by having to wait for additional finance to continue with their work.
There are two very interesting projects there. One is a teaching centre which is organised by a Mr. Murphy, something new in possibly all of Africa. It had been established in Australia, where it did excellent work for many years. I was very happy to meet Mr. Murphy and a Miss O'Doherty, and the response they are getting to their organisation there is extraordinary. Most African people, it is true to say, have a great desire for learning, and I think here that again perhaps we could strengthen that team if at all possible to ensure that that work will continue at the greatest possible speed.
I was reading a letter in The Times the other day from one of the priests in a leper colony there. I met while I was out there Dr. Seoirse O'Quigley who is also attached to a leper colony. I do not know if that is in receipt of any special funds from the Department, but from reading a letter from a chaplain to one of the leper hospitals or communes there it would appear that the shortfall in what the State supplies is of unfortunate proportions. We could ask the officers of the Department the next time they are out there to take a closer look at the work Dr. O'Quigley is doing and see if they can be a little more generous in that regard.
A very interesting development there and one that the Lesotho Government take great pride in is the knitting factory that has been set up by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards under the guidance of a Mr. Finlay. The people have old traditional weaving crafts there, but they have not been brave enough to develop them. They have a very old traditional production system. In a very remote place Mr. Finlay set up a small factory which is turning out some beautiful items of apparel. This is something we should encourage, because all these people are very clever with their hands and all they want is the technical know-how and finance to provide modern machinery.
Perhaps the Minister spoke of the necessity to provide a new road link with the northern part of Lesotho. I am glad to see that the Department of the Environment are making available some engineers for this purpose. This is a new team of Irish people going out and I expect that this road development will also be funded from the Community: it would appear to be a fairly expensive job.
One of the Irish people who has made a very notable contribution to the economy there is Noel O'Hara who is on secondment from the ESB. He took over the electrical supply company there and went in as general manager and has brought up the permanent force to more than 5,000 personnel. This is something new in Africa, because most Africans are paid by the hour or day and it is a new introduction to have a full-time force. These people are only seeing electricity for the first time. It was imported from South Africa for the first time and the organisation was very haphazard. Thanks in the main to the expertise and the dedication of people like Mr. O'Hare and his colleagues, they have brought up the efficiency of the service to almost European standards, and this is a great tribute. At the same time it is necessary to mention that these people on every possible occasion make use of Irish materials imported there if there is a shortfall in supplies. The Department of Agriculture brought over Connemara ponies which they think will be suitable for the terrain there. I hope to have the opportunity to go back there in a few years to see how all these developments have affected the lives of the people.
Over the years people like to think, in African terms, of making people from those distant lands into new Europeans. I think this would be a terrible mistake. The role embarked on by the Department of Foreign Affairs is to have these people improve their living and working conditions within their own environment.
I should also like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to introduce a Supplementary Estimate during the year to enable all the applications that he has to date in his office to be met because as far as I can gather—and I worked very closely with his predecessors in this particular field—there must still be applications from the Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia, a few from India, Columbia and Peru. The two in South America are quite important even though they are far away, but the people in South America in the main are of Christian origin and Fr. Cregan——
Is that an important adjunct to aid—Christianity? Could he be a Mohammedan and still receive aid from Ireland?
I was speaking of South America.
Is it a qualification for aid that the people be Christian?
I am a Christian democrat and it is one of the driving forces we have. Father Cregan has been doing slum clearance work in Columbia. I should like to thank the Minister for having given a hospital in Peru last year a year's supply of medicine. That was a tremendous effort.
During the coming year I would hope that every effort will be made to ensure that a greater proportion of the Vote being provided by the Department will be channelled through the Christian missionaries. When I say "Christian", I mean Church of Ireland or Catholic. They have all over the years done a tremendous job, and it is recognised that there is a greater scope and a greater need for channelling money in support of community projects that our missionaries have in hand. Perhaps next year, even if the Minister does not get around to bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose alone, he will do his best to ensure that the original 1973 target will be at least maintained if not exceeded.
The Minister in his speech mentioned direct elections to the European Parliament, and I would hope that at the next EEC summit the Taoiseach will press for a definite date to be fixed, whether it is in May or June 1979 or the autumn of this year. It is necessary to fix a definite date because there is a clear need for the greater democratisation of the Community. I do not think the Community will surge forward again until people of the Community have an interest which should be awakened by direct elections. I hear the dates of 6 and 7 June 1979 being mentioned. At the next summit I hope the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs will do their best to come down on a definite date so that we will have something to work towards.
The Minister during his opening remarks almost forgot a regional policy. Regional policy is an area I have more or less specialised in over the last few years. I was President at the Commission during 1974-75 when the fund was founded and I worked very closely with Commissioner Thompson on getting the fund off the ground. It is a pity we got such a small proportion, but £40 million is £40 million. When the fund was begun our country had the only perfect regional structure of any of the Nine. We had nine regional development organisations. It is a pity that these organisations are not used more, and I would ask the Government seriously to consider giving the regional development organisations at least a voice in the ordering of the priorities of grant aid applications for their areas so that boards of the RDOs and the technical committees would be able to come together and say: "We will place the projects that the Government submit on their B-list to Brussels in our own order of priorities"—what will suit their own country or their own region.
I do not think that at this stage it is too much to ask. People just decry the regional fund as if it were nothing. I do not think that is good enough. The regulations clearly state that there should be a notice on each project, whether it is infrastructural, or a factory, saying that this project has been aided by the regional development fund. While I go around a lot in this country I have never seen such a poster or notice declaring that. There has been £40 million spent here and yet there is not a clearcut indication of improvement, and it is a pity. It was pardonable in the first few years when we were anxious to get the fund moving that the Governments were allowed to allocate the money to on-going programmes where plans were already under way, even in cases where factories were built, but I think it is time for a change.
I can see with the development of the consumer lobby in the Community a greater attack being made and being sustained against the common agricultural policy, which presently accounts for 83 per cent of the community budget. That is a considerable amount of money. If the CAP is to lose some of its financial allocation, the regional policy should benefit from it, because the regional fund is designed so that the wealthier regions share the burdens, and bring up the poorer areas to a higher standard. No progress has been made in this over the past five years, or even over the three years since the fund was funded. The ratio of income per capita between the richest and the poorest areas is still something like 5.5 to 1. This is an unacceptable figure. No national Government is doing its part to really correct the situation.
The great need in this country is for a transport policy. We have never had a transport policy. I am not satisfied that our transport industry is getting compensatory consideration for the fact that they are operating from an island and from the most peripheral region in Europe. The Government is not doing enough to equip our transport operators. No matter where they go they must cross one or two channels to get to the lucrative markets in Europe. It would be of tremendous help to the transport industry in bringing down costs if there were daily sailings to and from Rosslare. This would necessitate the provision of a second pier there. I hope that the Government will give priority consideration to expediting the provisions of that pier, so that we could get the Normandy Ferries which I think are the most popular for most of the lorries supplying to the Continent. It would mean that they would not have to queue for perhaps a day at a time to get on. It is unsatisfactory to have a sailing every second day.
I was quite disappointed last year at the reluctance of some semi-State organisations to pull their weight and to co-operate with the people who are carrying out experiments that have been funded by the European Energy Commission and the Irish Science Council for the production of energy from fast growing forest trees. It is surprising the numbers of State and semi-State organisations that have considerable acreages of land but are very reluctant to make some available for this important experiment. I hope that the pressure will be kept on to ensure that all nationals, both Departments and semi-State organisations, will do their best to ensure that these experiments will be carried out as speedily as possible.
The Minister mentioned briefly the enlargement of the Community. Practically every month in the European Parliament we meet politicians from the applicant nations. I estimate that Greece will gain admission perhaps in 1981. That is not very far away and I wonder are we doing enough to prepare ourselves for enlargement. It is very difficult to speak against enlargement of the Community, but at the same time, there are so many areas of the Community where we have not got common policies. It will really add to the problems if we just have the Community enlarged by people who will certainly benefit from membership, rather than contributing to membership. This is something that we would want to give more thought to.
We must all welcome the return to democracy in Spain and Portugal. A delegation from the Spanish Government party is coming here, either at the end of this month or next month, and there will be an opportunity for Members of the House to meet them, to hear their views on the Community, and on their aspirations for the community. I hope that every effort will be made by as many Senators as possible to have an exchange of views with these people when they come, so that they can make up their own minds on what the Community will be like after enlargement.
I am afraid I could not agree with the Minister in relation to fisheries, when he said that the Government are doing enough. It is a pity that the Government have not maintained the stand that the National Coalition Government made. They made very good advances. The ground gained has been more or less lost, leaving the entire fishing industry in a very difficult situation. The Government will have to make greater efforts to introduce a national fisheries policy, to give these people a new sense of direction. I do not know what the exact position is, but politicians from the other member states are so smug about the whole thing, and if they are quite happy with the progress of the negotiations, we certainly cannot be in a happy situation because that means that they are likely to get what they had looked for, off our shores and we will certainly suffer. The Minister for Fisheries should have been more open and should have brought the public along with him by at least letting them know exactly what he was looking for. From the discussions I have practically every week with my Dutch and Belgian colleagues, I have formed the opinion that the country has lost out to a considerable extent in this important area. I suppose when eventually the agreement is reached, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the new fishery agreement, that is, if agreement is ever reached. The Minister for Fisheries has not given either the fishermen, the Houses of the Oireachtas or the public open answers, so that we could make any sort of an honest assessment about exactly where we stand, or if we can compliment him in his role or not.
The Minister mentioned COMECON and discussions Vice-President Haferkamp had during the year. This is significant. COMECON have up to now, over the last 20 years, refused to recognise the Community and have refused to have any dealings with it. They are the last people to seek talks with us. The Community presently have trade relations with something like 78 or 79 countries throughout the world and they are certainly the strongest trading block in the world. We are very often slow to recognise that when we decry progress of one kind or another.
In relation to the common agricultural policy I am disappointed with the progress of the price talks, the price increases this year. Perhaps it is because over the last four or five years the farming community have become accustomed to the agricultural price increases of the order of 29 per cent, 25 per cent, 19 per cent or 18 per cent that Deputy Clinton produced over the years for the farmers. It is extraordinary that agricultural taxation should get a 40 per cent jump in the budget in a year when the Minister for Agriculture says he is expecting a 3 per cent increase in agricultural prices. This is something which will take a bit of explaining.
I do not expect the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have the answers to it. In the common agricultural policy as a whole greater efforts should be made. I hope that the Department of Agriculture will avail of every opportunity to secure greater expenditure to strengthen our allocation under the guidance section, because it is money that will aid the long-term development of our agricultural industry. It is a once-off expenditure as well. If greater resources were transferred from the guarantee section to the guidance section it would give those consumer oriented people across the Community less scope for expressing views against the concept of the common agricultural policy, a policy which we must accept has done a tremendous amount for every section of the community. We do not speak sufficiently of the achievements of the Community. Some people think that the common agricultural policy is a means by which the price for agricultural products paid to farmers is monitored. At the same time it is designed to keep the price paid by the consumer down. At present the Commission is paying considerable levies on flour, butter and many items used daily by housewives in this and in every country in the Community.
I wish the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs every success in his work. I hope he will be able to travel around the Community and make the necessary comparison. Our standards and way of life are preferable to many European areas. There is a greater contentment here with the ordinary state of family life than in any other part of the Community. That is something we should strive to foster and continue. If we are able to push the development of our economy at the rate that the last Government pushed it, even coming out of a very difficult period, the country will go from strength to strength.
I support the appeal by Senator McDonald for help for the Third World. In doing so I would draw attention, as he did, to the hidden contribution in this area. The area in question relates to the contribution being made involuntarily by the taxpayer. There is the danger that emphasis on that area would cause us to overlook the tremendous contribution that is being made voluntarily by human beings in providing technical skills and money.
I would like to compliment the Minister on the speech he delivered. I thank the Minister and his Department for putting together a pretty comprehensive survey of the European Community position and for setting out the very many advantages which we are getting from our membership of the Community.
I must refer to the absence of discussion. We have not had opportunities to discuss and get to know what is happening in the Community. Because of this lack of discussion there is a feeling that Europe is a bit of a mystery. That is not a good thing. I therefore welcome the proposal to have more regular discussion. I hope we will have it. This has been promised before, but we are now in the position where we have four reports before us. However it gives one the opportunity to cover the ground in relation to the European Community and to take stock of our position and of the Community's development since our original membership, bearing in mind that it was only on the 1 January of this year that we reached full membership, apart from one protocol.
Despite some genuine disappointment in relation to the regional policy about which we had great expectations that were not fulfilled, Ireland has benefited enormously from membership of the Community. Apart from the material aspects set out by the Minister here, our membership has brought us an increased sense of confidence in ourselves, brought about by success in areas such as exports and so on. Our sense of identity has been strengthened by the continuous interaction between ourselves and the members of the Community. That sort of benefit is intangible, but nevertheless it is significant. We can be seen to be playing our part in the affairs of Europe, in the Council of Ministers, in the Commission, through our civil servants who are involved there, in the Parliament and in the parliamentary committees. That is, despite all the forecasts of doom that we heard before we became members, and the way in which many people were frightened into believing that the reduction in tariffs and so on, would bring an end to everything here.
Looking back over the past few years, some of which are covered in the reports, the areas in which we suffered economically, did not have as much to do with our membership of the European Community as many people appear to think. A good deal of the ill effects, resulting in a considerable degree of unemployment arose from a pretty fair measure of dumping of materials, partly from outside the Community, being imported through a member state, and also because of the effects of inflation itself, and in the areas of the textile trade recently, because of what we regard as the improper use of support in the United Kingdom employment subsidy which is having a considerable effect on the market here. This question has been taken up by one of our Parliamentary members with the Commission, and the Commission is at present investigating it.
I have found that in Ireland there is too much criticism of the European Community, mainly from people who tend to live in a rather narrow isolated world of their own. As I have said already Ireland has been unsuccessful and I will deal with a couple of areas in which success has been notable. In the agricultural sphere there has been a dramatic change. In many areas rural family life has been virtually lifted out of slum conditions caused largely by the policy of subsidisation of foodstuffs introduced in Britain during the last war and continued right up to the time of our entry to the Community. The only prospect we had of getting our agriculture out of that situation was through membership of the European Community, which gave our agricultural foodstuffs the right of way into Europe. As the Minister pointed out, we received substantial support amounting to something over £400 million for last year. There is no question either of our dramatic success in the area of industrial exports to the United Kingdom and to other European countries. There should be ahead of us now a period of considerable expansion in the export of Irish-made industrial goods, provided we are able to keep our cost increases well below that of our competitors. If, for example, we can keep down our cost of living index, and are able to agree on a salary and wage increase of not more than half that which may be agreed in Britain, where negotiations are also going on, the way will be open to our industrial enterprise arm to create many thousands of new jobs, jobs that could not be created here in any other way. The reverse could be the case. If we were not prepared to be restrained and as a result were to drive up our inflationary rate, those thousands of potentially new jobs would never materialise, and over the next couple of years, many young people would have to remain idle, with its consequences. In that sense, I believe it is in our power, to solve to a considerable extent our economic problems, the main area being the one which relates also to Europe, to get jobs, to bring an end to unemployment. I feel we can do this if we believe it is worth our while to do so. There can be no doubt in the mind of anybody who objectively studies the situation, that if the recent oil and trade recession had taken place in a situation where we were not members of the European Community, the economic consequences that would have influenced our lives would have been very serious and far worse than what we have experienced.
I will refer to the areas which are the most relevant at present the areas dealing with direct elections, with the expansion of membership, with the prospects of economic and monetary union, the question of a positive regional policy, and the policy of political co-operation in Europe. Despite failure to make progress in many of the important areas to which I have referred, the bringing together of the nine member states—originally six now nine—and the slow but steady progress in integrating the economies of the nine countries, and the development of a community sense of citizenship, constitutes a significant contribution to stability and to peace in a very confused world. At one time Europe was looked on by the rest of the world as a cockpit of war. Now the very existence of the Community functioning through the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament, helps to create the kind of stability which is essential to progress. In that sense it is regrettable that the British attitude of reluctance and apparent lack of political decisiveness, is the only cause of delay in the holding of direct elections. The other eight members are for them, and are politically ready to go. I admit that the British have said that they are also for them but, nevertheless, their internal political situation is causing delay. That situation does not, I would argue, justify failing to fix a date once and for all. It is important that the Council of Ministers' meeting next April should fix a date. It is not impossible to arrive at a date when all members, particularly Britain, would be able to have direct elections. This delay is preventing the normal democratic process from taking place and I believe it is necessary as soon as possible to give the European Parliament a greater feeling of democratic strength.
The question of expansion of membership has been referred to here, and I am sure we all welcome the decisions of Greece, Spain and Portugal to apply for membership. It is a very good thing to see—a gradual introduction of democracy and of the democratic way of life into these countries. Only those who have lived in countries that have not enjoyed complete freedom have any idea of the dangers and the fears, the political discrimination, that have been a major factor in many of these countries. I welcome also the decision of the Council of Ministers to apply a democratic test to all future applicants to membership of the Community. It is sensible to point out that, while we welcome the future expansion in membership, at the same time failure to date to apply a realistic regional policy, that is the development of the less developed or poorer areas of the Community, has left the Community in a position where some kind of accession period will have to be set out in regard to any future members because of the serious consequences that sudden accession could cause in economic terms within the existing Community.
The question of economic and monetary union has been under discussion in some of the committees and in the Parliament for quite a few years. This is a desirable long-term aim—I regard it as pretty long-term. It is desirable because economic and monetary union should bring an end to economic instability and monetary fluctuations which have done so much harm and indeed still continue to do damage. Once economic and monetary union has been achieved, it should bring that sort of situation to an end, the kind of situation that has caused sudden changes in the values of currencies leading, in our situation, for example, during the previous administration, to the cost of servicing overseas loans being almost doubled within a few weeks. However I believe that a realistic regional policy must be developed before one can even begin to think about economic and monetary union.
Recently the European Council, that is the Heads of State, gave some of their time to this question of regional policy. Most of us would agree with the view that the European Council was originally envisaged to meet so as to give the Community political direction at the highest level and create the political will to move forward. Such a will would have allowed the Community to read just its sights, to concentrate on what could be achieved in the short term, be it economic and monetary union, social union or democratisation of the institutions. Experience so far has shown that this is not the case.
It would seem at present as if the European Council—and I refer to the Heads of State, not the Council of Ministers—has now become a sort of appeal court. When the Council of Foreign Ministers have failed to arrive at decisions which they should arrive at under the treaty, the fixing, for example, of the amount of regional fund should not become a preoccupation of the Heads of Government. It should form part and parcel of the Community framework itself and the size of the fund should be agreed to in the ordinary budgetary way. In that sense a regional fund must be accompanied by a Community regional policy. I cannot see this coming about if member states are constantly haggling over the amount of the fund. A Community regional policy, backed by a realistic fund, must be viewed as the mechanism by which balanced development can take place within the Community so that the gap between the well-off and the less well-off regions can be narrowed by the application of a realistic regional fund which is substantial enough to ensure progress.
I now turn to the area of political co-operation, which I regard as being potentially of major significance to all the members of the Community and indeed to the other European countries and to ourselves. This is becoming an increasingly important area in Europe. As the Community integrates itself, the development of a common foreign policy and the political evaluation of what approach should be adopted towards, say, the Middle East problem or other areas, will become increasingly necessary. The development of a consensus foreign policy will probably take some considerable amount of time. It will be necessary, for example, for the Nine Ministers to adopt a common stance which can have an impact on any situation that may arise which, of course, would be much more preferable than to have the position where the policy adopted was simply a reaction to events rather than an anticipation of them, which we have experienced in the last few years. In that sense, the beneficial effect of any development can be influenced by pooling our ideas in the interests of maintaining stability and influencing where possible situations such as that existing in the Middle East. That is the way in which I believe political co-operation should develop and at the present time new means have been evolved whereby the Commission and the Parliamentary Committee involved and the Council of Ministers will have the opportunity at regular intervals to exchange views on different political problems. If that procedure develops successfully I believe it may be the beginning of a means of arriving at a consensus policy for the Community whereby all member states, through the institutions, can contribute to the building of a better Europe and, we would hope, to the building of a better world.
On the occasion when we discussed the European elections some weeks ago I took the opportunity then, with your indulgence, to make a far-ranging survey of the whole question of our membership of the EEC. I do not propose to repeat any of that this evening. Nevertheless there are one or two points I would like to expand and in that way to take advantage of this motion.
I should like to say, first of all, that Senator Mary Robinson, referring to my contribution, said that I must be living in an ivory tower if I thought that the whole topic of the EEC was a bore. She reminded me that the decisions made in Brussels constantly impinge on our lives in Ireland and, of course, I accept that. I just want to clarify that as regards public interest in the EEC it is, I think, almost non-existent or at least it is certainly not at a very high level and I made the point that those who are interested in getting a high vote for the direct elections would want to take that into account. Of course, I accept that, and indeed it is becoming painfully and increasingly evident that the directives from Brussels are impinging on every facet of our life here. While I accept that correction by Senator Robinson, I still maintain that there is a level of public apathy about the EEC that our politicians who are interested in bringing out a high vote should note carefully.
I listened to Senator Brugha's speech with attention and with some disbelief because it seems to me that he represents the kind of person who is involved in EEC politics and therefore tends to project his own interest to the nation at large here. I cannot accept, for example, that membership of the EEC has in any way strengthened our identity. In that connection, during the period of the great debate in 1971-72 I maintained that that type of argument was meretricious anyway; I did not see that going into Europe or staying out of Europe would make any difference to our sense of identity, that this is really a kind of internal matter, a matter for our own national personality. In the event, I cannot see any evidence that our membership of the EEC has in any sense strengthened our national identity here. Tens of thousands of Irish people go on holidays to Europe and a number of them make, as I have already said, jaunts to Brussels—sometimes well subsidised—but the overall impact has been very slight on our national identity.
Senator Brugha referred to the fact that Britain is foot-dragging on the matter of direct elections. The reason why Britain is foot-dragging is very simple. No true Englishman can think of the Mother of Parliaments being somehow downgraded by a European Parliament and in Britain there is a deep-seated resistance to any kind of political integration of that sort. I agree with Deputy John Kelly, one of whose main concerns is the degree of imitativeness in Irish life and normally I do not take what Britain does, or what English people say, as a model but I think in this one case we have a lesson to learn from the very cool approach English people have towards the EEC.
Since we last discussed the EEC and the matter of direct elections we have increasing evidence that there is no "give" in Brussels about our special needs on fishing. The fact is that the big brothers having plundered their own coastal waters are now intent on plundering ours. As an independent Senator I think it is very much a matter of party politics for people to say that Deputy Garret FitzGerald would do better than the Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Brian Lenihan. I think that the Minister or Deputy FitzGerald is equally irrelevant in this case; the fact is that there is no question of getting any kind of recognition of our special interests as a poor relation in the EEC.
One of the passages in the document we have here introduced from the Minister has a section on the EEC and Africa. I think this is typical of EEC policy towards the outside world: the whole approach towards Africa is bland; there is much talk about Southern Africa and the need to establish majority rule in places like Rhodesia. What we have here, of course, is a concern and a very self-interested concern for political stability in Africa, in our own interests. In general it might be said that anything the EEC does in relation to Africa and the Third World generally is only the repayment of a colonial debt or else a matter of enlightened self-interest. But I do not see anywhere in this document a specific reference to South Africa. There is the comfortable and safe blanket description of "Southern Africa" but there is no reference to the position in South Africa and to the very negation of democracy in South Africa, to the system of apartheid. Surely if the EEC is concerned with democracy, if it is fastidious about the admission of nations like Spain and Portugal and Greece, if it says: "We welcome them because they are now democratic", it should apply the same standards to Africa as a whole. I think that our parliamentarians in the EEC and our Ministers in the Council of Ministers should press for a strong policy in the matter of apartheid in South Africa. I should think indeed that it would be in conformity with the EEC's professed concern for democracy that it should adopt a policy about banning advertisements for employment in South Africa. There is no day that we do not have recruiting boards in our cities and advertising of positions in South Africa attracting our citizens to that country. That is all an implicit acceptance of the viciously anti-democratic system which obtains in South Africa.
I must say that Senator Brugha's remarks on foreign policy did nothing to reassure the feelings of disturbance I have about that section in the Minister's speech which says:
The Nine continue to meet regularly at Ministerial and official level to consult on and as far as possible to co-ordinate their foreign policy positions.
This kind of thing is sliding in, as you might say, unbeknownst to us. What does this mean for us? Does it mean that we are going to surrender whatever shred of foreign policy we have left and pool it again at the direction of our masters in Brussels?
During the campaign on the referendum in 1972 we were solemnly assured that membership would not affect our traditional sovereignty, our traditional neutrality and would in no circumstances mean a military alliance or participation in a military alliance. I am aware that there have been specific disclaimers in the other House by the Ministers concerned that there is any intention on our part to join NATO or join in a military alliance but it seems to me that if you talk about a common EEC foreign policy it necessarily entails the consideration of a military alliance. To that I am totally opposed and I believe I speak for a great number of my fellow-countrymen. That is something which should be watched carefully. In no way will there be acceptance of a military alliance in this country and in no way is neutrality and whatever sovereignty we have left going to be further eroded by participation in a military alliance. Far from being comforted or excited by this prospect of a common foreign policy I am extremely disturbed by it.
I accept membership as a fact but I do not see it through the rose-tinted spectacles which are too commonly worn in both Houses on the question of Europe. Senator Keating's observations in this regard are very sensible— his reference to matters like Brussels pressure on the question of nuclear energy in Ireland, Brussels pressure on the Irish steel situation. Indeed the recent Dublin visit to the Minister by the Commissioner concerned did not allay any worry on that score. I believe Senator Keating was right when the advised our representatives in the EEC to recognise that we are in it for good or ill but to adopt a tough and cool attitude in all our European deliberations.
I welcome the opportunity to address myself to these various statutory reports we have had vis-à-vis our involvement in the EEC. I particularly welcome this debate but in doing so I regret the delay there has been before reaching it. I am not saying that in a partisan political sense, because we have been culpable since our entry in not being up-to-date in arranging debates on this issue of our involvement. This series of reports starts with 7 July 1976, so we are really discussing today events which are historical to a large extent and I regret that.
I would like to deal briefly with one or two points Senator Murphy made in his interesting contribution, particularly in regard to Africa and the EEC and his view that there is less than adequate commitment by the EEC to the South African position on the issue of apartheid. I cannot go along with him on that because, having read the most recent report of July 1977, there was an unequivocal commitment against apartheid as practised in South Africa. In the section on Africa in which reference is made to Rhodesia and Namibia it says that there is continued concern at the failure of South Africa to facilitate an internationally acceptable solution to the problem of Namibia. In addition to that, the Nine marked the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination in March 1977 by sending a message to the Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid the text of which read—I will not quote it all:
The people and governments in the nine countries of the European Community unreservedly reject all forms of racial discrimination as defined in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Forms of Racial Discrimination. In particular they condemn the degrading practice of apartheid in the concept of separate communities for different races... believe that all people, whatever their race or colour, have the right to take part on an equal footing in the life and the institutions of their country and should be enabled to do so. The Nine governments are opposed to all forms of racial, religious and political discrimination wherever they may occur.
The text of a further declaration from Ministers of the Nine is contained in Annex 6 of the same publication. Again there is an unequivocal commitment and a general declaration on Africa. I will not read it because it is one page long. In the context of the South African position, I see a note here that the foreign Ministers repeated their condemnation of the policy of apartheid in South Africa and would continue to oppose all forms of racial discrimination wherever it exists. So, the commitment is fairly strong there. It leads us to the consideration of matters concerning the Third World and the recent controversy in the newspapers again this week about the lack of adequate commitment by the Government to the Third World. Frankly, I believe that in a civilised and Christian country, a country which has had such a sense of mission to the Third World since our early history we must have the strongest possible commitment to the Third World and to attempting to eliminate as far as we can the poverty and the paucity of development which exists there.
We must do this from a humanitarian point of view. Even if we wanted to be pragmatic and narrow and even if we wanted to think exclusively in economic terms, if we continually go to the EEC and seek special treatment within an EEC context on the basis that we are the poorest and the least developed country of the Nine— which is absolutely true, taking into account the per capita income within this country in comparison with the other eight—we have an extremely weak case if we are going there against a background of less than adequate commitment by our country to the Third World. In my view everything is relative; whilst we are poor in the EEC context there is no doubt that we are living on the fat of the land in terms of Third World conditions. I do not think it is sufficient justification of present policy to suggest, as somebody suggested recently, that the Irish contribution has been that of strong, human involvement in the Third World through the missionaries, both religious and lay, that we have sent there for generations. That is merely part of the commitment there should be. The commitment of our people in going to the Third World, the establishment of missionary, medical and other relief centres is a tremendous headline for this country and is one of the great achievements of this country in this century. It is even more important that if there is this type of voluntary contribution from the churches and from the professions and from so many lay people it should be backed officially by whichever Government is in power at that time. I would agree with a policy of giving them all we can in terms of a proportion of the gross national product.
I agree with Senator Murphy to an extent, but his slight cynicism, vis-à-vis the EEC——
Realism.
If the Senator chooses to call it that, realism, I accept his point, to an extent. It seems to me that within this country there has been a continuing sense of euphoria which has not ceased since we became members. There are good reasons for optimism and good reasons for encouragement based on the performance to date since we became members. It has helped our country greatly. Obviously, as Senator Murphy suggested, the EEC has not strengthened our identity but I do not know that we necessarily want it to strengthen our identity because I think there is already a very strong sense of national identity.
The EEC psychologically have helped us enormously to shed some of our introspection, the introspection of living in an island, the introspection of speaking our own language along with the English language, the introspection of continuing dominance by Britain in matters of trade, the introspection of the continual conflict on this island both North and South. Involvement in Europe has helped this country enormously in broadening the perspectives of people and of Governments, Oppositions and politicians, and this has been greatly welcomed.
Despite these benefits which we have had, we do not appreciate sufficiently here the reservations there are among other member states, particularly among the larger member states, about the EEC as a unit and about the problems that centre on issues such as sovereignty, about which we certainly have an easier view than the British have or than the French would have. We do not appreciate sufficiently the political reservations in Britain or the lack of will there for economic or monetary union or ultimate political union. There is very strong opinion against such concepts of which we would be in broad support, and the involvement of some of the larger member states is merely on a pragmatic basis. The tendency of the French is to continue to be a large nation state and to go their own way in so far as they possibly can in regard to many of the rules of the institutions of EEC.
There is possibly a lack of appreciation here also of the German attitude. There is a very strong German nation, one of the most powerful economically in the world at this time, holding great power in the economic and monetary field, a Germany which in the earlier years of the EEC showed a generosity in the economic area in terms of subventing a large slice of the EEC budget to help less prosperous regions in many different respects including agricultural policies. There is not sufficient appreciation within this country of the distinct changes there have been in German policy, not just in a governmental sense but in a bipartisan sense, and among the German people who do not feel any longer a sense of guilt in a modern generation for the happenings of the Second World War and who do not feel that with their strong economy they must pay for the weaknesses there are in other economies in Europe. The resultant restraints stem from that attitude so that only a fraction of the regional and other funding we were taught to believe we would have when we entered the EEC is available. I do not think this factor of Germany or one or two of the other stronger nations is sufficiently appreciated here. We still tend to be a little more optimistic and possibly a little more euphoric than we should.
I will go from that into one or two specific items. The Regional Fund in particular has to me been singly the greatest disappointment since our involvement in the EEC. My disappointment with the Regional Fund stems to a very large extent from my west of Ireland background in County Mayo because one of the planks in the referendum which had such overwhelming support when we advocated membership of the EEC was that the west of our country, where we have the lowest per capita income with the smallest size farm unit, with land of subsistence level or less in many parts, at least would benefit, through being the poorest single region in the projected European Economic Community of the nine countries, from substantial funds pouring into it for infrastructural reasons and for all kinds of other reasons which merited voting in favour of Europe. This has not emerged.
Debate adjourned.