Developments in the European Communities—Eleventh and Twelfth Reports: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report: Development in the European Communities—Eleventh Report.

—(Senator W. Ryan.)

Professor Murphy

Last week I indicated that my own views on membership of the Community and our activities in the Community had changed somewhat over the last year. From being sternly anti-EEC I have come to accept that our membership is a fait accompli and my view is that we should make the best of it in the national interest. I would apply that to the direct elections. Therefore, while I have a certain sympathy with the boycott groups, with those groups who propose with very inadequate resources I am sure to lead a “Boycott the elections campaign”, I really do think it is a rather negative attitude since we have to elect 15 to the Assembly and they should be the best 15.

I intend to vote for candidates, irrespective of party, who assure me that they are realistic about the Assembly, that they do not exaggerate the importance of the elections and who moreover among the candidates available are most opposed to a further surrender of our national interest to the Community.

I should like to emphasise again the strength of feeling here on the issue of neutrality. It arises out of the reports and the Minister's statement in connection with the section on disarmament. The Government should be under no illusion as to the deep strength of feeling in the country on the issue of neutrality despite the desire of people in certain important quarters to condition our people otherwise and prepare them for a great modification if not an abandonment of our traditional policy on neutrality.

What I point out here is that our traditional policy on neutrality was not simply a piece of expediency during World War II, that it has deep historical roots and that it had fruitful expression in the 1950s and early 1960s. So I fear the way in which the Ministers of the Nine are aligning their foreign policy positions has already resulted in fact in a diminution of our independent stand in world affairs, especially in relation to the Third World. We must beware of the threat to our neutrality inherent in any talk of a European defence union and in recent statements by politicians here that if the EEC were attacked we would be obliged to join in its defence. In fact we are in no way committed by the Treaty to participate in a defence union and there must be no abandonment by stealth of our position on neutrality.

On the question of enlargement, one can view it in different ways. I have heard people seriously claiming that the admission of Spain, Greece and Portugal would represent a welcome cultural shift in the spirit of the Community; that the EEC at the moment is essentially northern, predominantly Protestant perhaps, in the cultural sense, and that bringing in the Mediterranean elements would bring us nearer to a realisation of the total spirit of Europe. That is an interesting, although somewhat romantic view, about enlargement. There is another and less romantic view about enlargement, that it represents the anxiety of the EEC to achieve some kind of impressive political coup to compensate for its lack of progress in other areas, for its loss of vision, for the stagnation which has characterised it in recent years, that enlargement would be a kind of spectacular achievement in itself, and perhaps the Community have not considered sufficiently the problems which would attend enlargement, that they are impressed by the very idea, so to speak, of bringing in the Mediterranean countries.

When the EEC says it would welcome these countries in the interests of democracy—and this, in fact, was the prime reason for admitting them—this means not only that the EEC wants to prevent a return of right-wing dictatorship in these countries, but that the EEC also wants to ensure—and this is not given the same publicity in the grand talk about the interests of democracy—that these strategically important areas do not move too far in the direction of socialism. The concern about democracy extends very much to a leftward direction as well as to a right-wing direction.

In regard to the EMS, since I am not one of the six people who understand it I simply want to say that it looks to me as if its implementation will further advance the hegemony of West Germany already so prominent in EEC affairs. After all we must realise, although it is not regarded as polite to say so, that West Germany desperately needs respectability. There is, for all her wealth and all her progress, still a feeling of insecurity about her acceptance by the other European countries. On two grounds West Germany needs to gain and continue to have the respectable attitudes of other countries. One is that the memory of World War II is still quite fresh in parts of Europe. The other one is that there is considerable jealousy of German efficiency and German prosperity. To balance this potential distrust of and antagonism towards West Germany, she needs the Community very badly indeed, the kind of respectability which the EEC provides, while she continues to be the most prominent economic power in the Community.

Looking at the EMS from an Irish point of view, or rather from a governmental point of view, our Government must be greatly tempted by the prospects held out by the EMS because, living like Micawber from day to day, hoping that something will turn up, they must be strongly attracted by the hope that the EMS will lead to a greater willingness by banks and Governments, especially in West Germany, to lend us more money. If membership of the EMS will involve some belt-tightening, then that will fit in very nicely indeed with the hair-shirt policies which are already being heralded by Government Ministers. In this sense, the EMS would be welcome for getting Fianna Fáil off the hook of the lavish promises made in the manifesto.

When I moved the adjournment last week, I was raising the point that newspapers in recent weeks, particularly The Irish Press on 1 November, reported that the Commission in Brussels was expressing dissatisfaction with the buy national campaigns, with our own Buy Irish Campaign, and presumably with similar campaigns in other countries to buy national products. When the Irish Goods Council launched that campaign some months ago, I remember speaking enthusiastically in its favour in Cork, and subsequently here in the Seanad, but I also warned that it seemed to me that the Buy Irish Campaign was an anachronism in EEC terms, that it represented a form of economic nationalism and, therefore, it was incompatible with the European spirit as it is conceived in Brussels.

According to newspaper reports this indeed has happened, and according to these reports Brussels has expressed dissatisfaction. Mr. Vivian Murray, according to the same report in The Irish Press of 1 November, the very able director of the Buy Irish Campaign, said there was really no substance in this, that the EEC Commission had no reason for opposing the Buy Irish Campaign, apparently because there was not any protectionism as such in it. Nevertheless, it seems to me to raise a very important question. I am not sure whether the Government have already clarified elsewhere this important matter, but I should be very glad indeed if the Minister would refer to it in his reply, namely, whether the Buy Irish Campaign is in conflict with the spirit of the EEC, and whether the EEC has indicated this.

More than once in recent months reference has been made by Government Ministers to the direct elections and their possible relationship with Northern Ireland and North-South relations. If I mistake not, the Minister last week expressed the hope that common membership of an assembly North and South, 18 seats from all Ireland so to speak, would bring about a situation of closer co-operation and closer understanding between the MPs, between the European Assembly members from Northern Ireland and our own 15 here.

We should be very realistic about this one. I was talking to representatives of the applicant countries at a seminar recently, and the Greeks and the Spaniards are under no illusions that their membership of the Community will any way help them to solve their internal political problems. The Spaniards realise that the crisis among the Basques and in Catalonia is something for themselves to try to solve. The Cyprus problem will remain a bilateral one for Greece and Turkey. I do not think common membership of an assembly will advance substantially North-South understanding or reconciliation.

We remember the referendum campaign in 1972 when it was suggested that common membership of the Community would somehow help to bring the North and the South closer. There is no evidence for this. The problems between North and South and the problems within Northern Ireland are for Irishmen to solve. They do not depend on, nor will they be mitigated in any substantial way by, common membership of an assmbly. Where the Rev. lan Paisley will to continue to glare at the Papist representatives from the Free State. After all, if common membership of the Council of Europe, or the United Nations, has not advanced our Irish problems in any way, it is unrealistic to expect that common membership of the assembly will help to solve our problems.

This leads me to a more general and concluding point, a point actually made by Senator Brugha, which I should like to reinforce. He said that the great danger next June is that candidates will exaggerate the importance of the assembly, will exaggerate the importance of what they can achieve within the assembly. Of course, there will be a real dilemma for candidates here. Here they are asking the people to vote them into a job with magnificent salaries and expenses, and they will have to give very strong reasons why the people should be sufficiently interested to turn out. It seems to me that the danger is they will exaggerate what the assembly can do and what they can do within the assembly.

I fully support Senator Brugha's plea for truth and realism in the European elections next June. It is always a mistake, of course, and it always creates cynicism when politicians promise more than they can deliver. It will be as true next June as it was in June 1977.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Andrews)

I should like to thank the various Members of the Seanad who contributed to the debate on the Eleventh and Twelfth Reports. I am pleased, indeed, at the interest Senators have shown in the Reports and the quality of their various contributions to the debate and all matters relating to the European Community, not specifically the Eleventh and Twelfth Reports. However, we are dealing with the Eleventh and Twelfth Reports at this time, and I will now reply to the various and indeed varied points made during the course of the debate.

I will deal with them under various headings: (1) institutional matters dealing with enlargement, direct elections, the question of the Three Wise Men which I understand was raised by Senator Mary Robinson, and the European Council; (2) company law; (3) agriculture; (4) regional policy; (5) social policy; (6) EMS; (7) EPC, including the Middle East, the CSCE, and terrorism and defence.

I should like to deal first with the general question of institutions. Senator Robinson raised the question of the institutional structure of the Community and was concerned in particular about the role of the European Council. As the Senator rightly pointed out, one of the arguments made when Ireland joined the Community was that the institutional structure was geared to the protection of the interests of small countries. That is still our belief, and this belief that the institutional balance provided for in the Treaties must be preserved is shared by our partners. In believing that the decision-making procedures can and ought to be improved, we are in no way implying that a fundamental change is necessary.

We have been concerned with this question of the functioning of the institutions, particularly in the context of enlargement, and at every opportunity we have consistently stressed the fact that enlargement will require certain adaptations. We have consistently made it clear that this must be done within the existing institutional framework. This view is shared by our partners and, indeed, by the Commission, which has made some proposals in the matter. One of the ways of improving decision-making might be the greater use of majority voting in the Council.

The question of examining the functioning of the institutions is at present under discussion in the Community, as Senators will be well aware. Senator Robinson in her long and detailed exposition of what she thinks is right, and what she thinks is wrong, and where she thinks the strengths lie and where she thinks the weaknesses lie in relation to the ECC, voiced concern on the "Wise Men" proposal by the President of France. It is a concern shared by many. On the other hand, it is agreed that the functioning of the institutions must be examined in the context of enlargement and that enlargement is likely to exacerbate any existing problems. We have satisfied ourselves that there is no intention in the present proposal to call into question the fundamental principles and objectives of the Community, and whatever kind of committee of "Wise Men" emerges, whether it be three or four or some other number, we are satisfied that the Treaty of Rome itself will not become a subject for discussion.

This matter is under discussion in the Community and I do not wish to speculate on what might emerge from these discussions. The matter will be discussed by the Foreign Ministers at their meeting later this month. However, I can assure the House that the only intent of the proposal was to promote reflection on the functioning of the Community institutions in the context of forthcoming developments such as enlargement. If it does bring people's minds to bear on that particular aspect of these matters, it will have performed an important function. Senator Robinson was right to raise the matter and I believe my explanation will satisfy her.

Senator Robinson also mentioned the European Council, and mentioned the fear that was voiced elsewhere that it lacks the safeguards to protect our interests in that it is not a proper Community institution as such. The intention behind the establishment of the European Council was that it would deal with really major issues which were not capable of being adequately handled at a lower level and that it should provide an impetus at the highest level for the development of the Communities by laying down broad guidelines based on an overall approach which would take into account political and other factors. It was not intended that the European Council should in any way develop into a court of appeal against decisions taken by the Council at ministerial level, or that the Council of Ministers should avoid its responsibilities by referring decisions to the European Council.

Senator Robinson will be aware the Commission participates at meetings of the Council. The European Council has achieved to a degree some of the objectives, particularly an overall approach to internal and external matters and a certain cohesion of the activities of the Community. Despite the concern properly raised by Senator Robinson, a concern about which we should be careful, we must accept that the European Council is a fact of life. It is a body with the potential to do good work for the development of the Community. It has another very important prominence in that here we have the heads of the Nine member states coming to meet from time to time. It is important that the leaders of the countries within the Common Market should have the opportunity of meeting from time to time to discuss various common problems. After all, they are the leaders of their various countries and it is proper that they should be seen to be actively involved in the running of the Community. I am not offering any apologies for the existence of the European Council; rather would I welcome its continuity and its functioning.

In regard to the European Parliament, the major development is, of course, direct elections and the rôle which a directly elected Parliament might play in the Community. Direct elections, as such, will not, of course, mean any new powers for the Parliament although it can, I think, be expected that a directly elected Parliament containing more than twice the number of members in the present Parliament is likely to seek to assert itself, even within the existing powers, which in the budgetary field are, indeed, significant. I do not wish to speculate on what powers the Parliament might have or should have. Nobody would have predicted ten years ago that the present Parliament would have the budgetary powers it has today.

The introduction of an element of democratic supervision into the Community must give rise to a changed rôle for the Parliament, although that will be a gradual process, as all these processes are, indeed some might say painful processes. At the end of the day generally what emerges is good and for the benefit of all. One of our hopes is that a directly elected Parliament will be more aware, in deciding on budgetary allocations, of its responsibility to bear in mind the priorities of under-developed regions. This is where the 15 elected members from this country will have an important rôle to play, not only on behalf of the urban communities but on behalf of the rural communities and the less developed areas within the rural structure of our nation.

In relation to institutions generally, we recognise that the prospect of adaptation in the context of developments such as enlargement calls for careful consideration of ways to ensure that these adaptations will ensure the effective operation of the Community. We believe that the approach to such consideration must be firmly on the basis that the balance of the Treaties cannot be altered to create any upper tier of member states for the purpose of decision-making. We have consistently stated this and our partners are fully aware of our position in this respect.

A number of Senators have drawn attention to the significance of the election to the Parliament being held in both the Republic and Northern Ireland on the same day. The respected Senator from University College Cork brought up this subject and I agree thoroughly with the views expressed by him. It gives us the opportunity for the first time to operate within a democratic parliament as a whole island. This is a very important and significant step forward towards the unity which we all so urgently desire and require for the eventual peace of this land of ours.

Those elected, from whatever part of the country they may come, will, indeed, have a unique opportunity to work together for the benefit of all the people of this island. In the many areas of Community activity where the interests of both North and South coincide, there will be ample scope for fruitful co-operation between members from both sides of the Border. The result will surely be a distinctly Irish contribution to the work of the Parliament. Politicians from all political parties and structures on this island will be meeting together in the council chambers of Europe, not to mention the European Parliament itself. That will give them an opportunity to discuss their common problems with one another and to break down, in direct personal confrontation, the doubts and fears they might have about one another's point of view. There is nothing like a cup of tea or a glass of beer sometimes to cure doubts one might have about one another. Here is a golden opportunity, I believe.

Professor Murphy

It would be nice if it were as simple as that.

Mr. D. Andrews

It would. It is not so bad. Senator Murphy is not that bad off the field of play. He is a decent man in every respect. This is not, of course, to reflect on his contribution in the Seanad, quite the contrary. What I am saying is that it gives us this opportunity for the first time and we should take full advantage of it.

Under the heading of company law, Senator Robinson asked about our intentions in the company law area and, in particular, regarding the implementation of the Second and Fourth Directives. Plans for a comprehensive review of company law have not been possible because of the pressure of EEC work. However, when the review takes place the establishment of a Select Committee of both Houses to examine the question of reform of company law will be considered. In the short-term, it is planned to bring in a Bill which will implement the Second Directive, revise the First and make important technical amendments to the 1963 Act. The implementation of the Fourth Directive is likely to take place within the next three years.

On the very important front of agriculture, Senators have acknowledged the significant benefits which have accrued to the agricultural sector in Ireland from the operation of the common agricultural policy. Senator Staunton mentioned that some areas have benefited more than others, specifically the west of Ireland. I say good luck to the west. They can benefit more than others. Somebody is doing the work very well. While the CAP must not be confused with a regional policy, and the Government are committed to the pursuit of a comprehensive regional policy, I would accept that every possible effort must be made to ensure that all areas of the country benefit from it.

Senators are undoubtedly aware that Commissioner Gundelach, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture, has indicated that he intends to introduce a special package of measures to assist in the development of agriculture in the west of Ireland. Consultations between the Commission services and officials of the Department of Agriculture on the scope of the measures to be introduced are continuing, and I would hope the Commission's proposals will emerge very soon.

Senator Staunton has also drawn attention to the difficulties which Irish farmers face, vis-á-vis the EEC Farm Modernisation Scheme, and to the fact that many of them are classed as “transitional farmers” and are unable to qualify for the higher range of development grants. The Government have expressed their concern on this matter to the Commission, which has committed itself to a reform and improvement of this and other socio-structural directives.

On regional policy, several Senators spoke on the question of the current position regarding the Community's regional policy, or more precisely, the lack of such a policy, as well as Ireland's small share of the European Regional Development Fund. I agree generally with the remarks which have been made. Those concerning the inadequacy of the present Regional Fund, and indeed our share of that Fund, are, of course, perfectly valid, and it is quite clear that the Fund alone cannot contribute effectively to tackling the Community's regional problem. While the present Fund represents an increase on the previous one, it remains hopelessly under-endowed in relation to the tasks it has to accomplish.

However, the recent developments at Community level justify a certain amount of optimism as far as alleviating the Community's regional problems is concerned. Here I have in mind the renewed commitment to finding a solution to these problems which is implicit in the communiqué issued following the meeting in Copenhagen of the European Council. I also have in mind the proposals regarding Guidelines for Community Regional Policy which, I believe, could be of enormous importance, although, of course, their benefit is likely to be felt only in the medium or long term. Nevertheless, they represent the first real beginning to a Community regional policy.

Senator Robinson inquired about the use of the non-quota section of the Regional Fund which is the principal innovation contained in the revised Fund Regulation. The regulation is at present the subject of a conciliation procedure between the Parliament and the Council, but this is expected to be completed shortly. While the quota distributed part of the Fund will continue to support the regional measures of the member states, the intention behind the creation of the non-quota section is that it should support specific actions designed to take account of the regional effects of existing and future Community policies. I should mention here that only 5 per cent of the funds will be devoted to the non-quota section. Thus, only £60 million will be available over the three-year period 1978 to 1980 for the Community as a whole.

Regarding possible uses of this non-quota section for Ireland's special needs, I should mention that the range of actions which are to qualify and the financial arrangements which will govern the granting of aid are to be the subject of proposals by the Commission to the Council. We shall make every effort to influence the type of measures which the Commission will propose. I should add, in this connection, that we are conscious of the possibilities of the non-quota section in the context of Community aid for cross-Border projects since its introduction. Following demands by our delegation the Council agreed to an entry in the minutes which allows for consideration by the Council of a proposal from the Commission regarding a request for aid from two or more member states for aid relating to border problems. This will, obviously, be one of the uses of the non-quota section which will have a particular interest.

Under the heading of social policy Senator Robinson made two specific inquiries in the social policy area to which I would like to reply. Firstly, the proposals regarding the use of the European Social Fund to help alleviate youth unemployment are still being actively discussed. The June Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs failed to reach agreement on the text before it, principally because of the opposition of one delegation to certain elements of the proposals, and the German Presidency duly raised the question at the Bremen European Council in early July. This, having confirmed its view that improving the employment situation is a crucial objective of the Community, called on the Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Welfare and Social Affairs to decide on measures to combat youth unemployment so that such measures can come into force on 1 January next.

Following this the Presidency initiated a series of bilateral contacts involving Ireland amongst others and there were further discussions at an informal meeting of the Social Affairs and Labour Ministers in Frankfurt in late September. The item will be discussed at the Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs, which is scheduled to meet at the end of this month. I am hopeful that this Council will result in a positive decision in this matter which is, of course, of utmost importance to this country.

Senator Robinson also asked about the current state of play regarding the draft directive on equal treatment for men and women in the field of social security. The draft text, which was circulated early last year, was only discussed briefly at the social questions group level at that time. Discussions were, however, resumed on it since July and a great deal of progress has been made since then. Some points still remain to be agreed to, and it is hoped that the directive can be adopted at the Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs when it meets on 27 November.

Given the interest which the formulation of the proposed European Monetary System has engendered at all levels within the Community it was quite natural that it should have been the subject of such extended comment in the debate on 11th and 12th Reports. I shall confine myself to elaborating on and perhaps recasting, if necessary, certain of the points made, within my competence.

Senator Staunton drew attention to the fact that we should be alert to possible pitfalls which might exist for us in some of the major issues arising in the Community at present. Allow me to assure the House and Senators that as regards EMS we have subjected the proposals to an exhaustive and detailed examination and continue to do so on the domestic, bilateral and multilateral fronts. The potential rewards of a successful EMS, while impressive, have not blinded us to the reality that membership of the system implies greater economic discipline all round and this will apply in particular to the less prosperous member states.

Our examination has shown that we will need Community assistance if we are to cope successfully and satisfactorily with membership of the system. The figure of £650 million is an indication of the order of magnitude of what we think is needed. We wish to participate in the EMS without having to engage in deflationary policies as a result. In asking for Community aid to assist our entry, we have stressed our positive attitude to the EMS while, at the same time, calling attention to our rate of economic development compared to the Community average.

The scheme, to be effective, must combine exchange rate measures with the application of the correct internal measures. Our case for aid has been confined solely to the EMS context. This I think strengthens our case. We would envisage utilising the funds received in infrastructural and industrial development, thereby adding to the productivity and competitiveness of our mostly export orientated companies, and assisting us to overcome any adverse effects arising from participation in the EMS. Community assistance will not, however, relieve us of applying strictly domestic policies on joining the system. As Senator Whitaker correctly pointed out during his contribution, if we are to enter and remain in the system without embarrassment, it must be on the basis of tougher policies at home, particularly in relation to costs.

I agree fully with Senator Robinson on the need for real and substantial progress on the balanced regional development. We feel, however, that it is best to pursue our demands in this area outside of, but parallel to, our request for assistance in the EMS context to prevent our having to resort to unwanted deflationary policies. EMS is not EMU or even EU and does not require the sort of enlargement of the Community budget which EMS would require. I would think, however, that the more favourable climate in the Community which EMS could well trigger off might be conducive to the adoption of real measures to reduce regional disruptions.

While many of the detailed technical provisions of the new system have, at this stage, been elaborated, this has for the most part taken place at the level of officials. The decisions to be taken on EMS, including the transfer of resources questions, are, ultimately political and rest with the politicians. These are political questions to be taken by the leaders of the various Community countries in the European Council. The competence of the European Council to unscramble what is essentially a very technical question and to get to the political core of the matter should not be doubted. At the meeting of the European Council last December, for example, a solution was found and decisions taken in relation to an exceedingly technical matter—the precise budgetary contributions to be made by the member states this year and next.

Senator Robinson made certain remarks regarding the general diminution of power of the European Commission. If she meant this to apply also in the EMS context I would point out that while the proposed system has emerged essentially as a result of the Schmidt-Giscard initiative it must be seen very much against the ground prepared by the Commission proposals on the EMU submitted to the European Council last December, and indeed the Florence speech of the President of the Commission, President Jenkins, the previous October, in which he made a plea for the positive leap in the monetary area, was significant.

Senator Robinson counsels caution in our approach to EMU and indeed, having drawn attention to the difference in outlook on the system between here and Brussels where, in her own words, and I quote: "the clear advantages to Germany and France of this device are seen" proceeds to chide us gently in her own civilised way for being "dramatically more confident" at the prospect of the imminent approach of EMS than, for example, either Italy or the United Kingdom. I can only speak for this country and reiterate that our positive approach to EMS is based on the fact that the proposals are important not only in their own right but also as a move towards greater integration in Europe. We wish to enter the system and hope that the conditions will enable us to do so. As I have said, Senator Robinson counsels this caution, and I would like to assure her that we are doing our bit in that respect.

Senator Robinson again requested information on whether the EMS is to be operated through the present institutional framework of the Community. Firstly, in respect of the Community assistance of £650 million which we have requested and which I have already mentioned, it is envisaged that this should be a transfer from the Community budget over a five-year period. This transfer is not, however, to be confused with the credit and other support arrangements envisaged for the EMS.

The Bremen European Council agreed that, not later than two years after the start of the new system, the existing credit arrangements and institutions would be consolidated in a new institution, the European Monetary Fund, which would replace the present European Monetary Co-operation Fund. Pending the establishment of the European Monetary Fund, the European Council envisaged interim arrangements for deposit of reserves and for expansion of credit support facilities. It is envisaged that these interim arrangements will involve each member state depositing 20 per cent of its gold and dollar reserves with the European Monetary Co-operation Fund, receiving European currency units in return for settlement of debts between central banks and arising from the currency intervention.

Mrs. Robinson

Are the Germans going to do that?

Mr. D. Andrews

We hope so. The system as outlined at Bremen contained a proposal in regard to the establishment, in the interim period, prior to the setting up of a new fund, of a new credit support scheme based on contributions of national currency by each member state in an overall amount equivalent to the amount of reserve deposits, namely, about £17 billion. It is, however, likely that if the EMS is to get under way early in 1979 it will not be possible to work out the details of this particular arrangement in time. The credit support from the commencement of the EMS is more likely to be made available through expansion of the Community's balance credit facilities—the short-term monetary support scheme and the medium term financial aid scheme. Decisions relating to the short-term monetary support scheme will be taken by the Central Bank Governors meeting within the European Monetary Co-operation Fund, while decisions on the medium term scheme will be taken by the Finance Ministers within the Council. I do not feel that, particularly in the interim period prior to the setting up of European Monetary Fund, the institutional arrangements as described need to give rise to any cause for alarm.

In concluding on this subject, I would wish to reiterate that the decisions of EMS are essentially political ones to be taken by the European Council and by the various leaders of the nine nations involved in that council. As the decisions must inevitably be influenced by the present round of bilateral meetings going on in the Community, Ireland is not sparing any effort in bringing home to our partners the particular considerations we have in relation to this proposed system.

Under the heading of the Middle East, I should like to refer briefly to some points which were raised in the course of the debate concerning current developments in that unsettled part of the world. I am happy that Senator Staunton has welcomed the Camp David agreements and sees them as offering the possibility of progress towards a just and comprehensive peace in the area. This is the view already expressed by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine.

Senator Staunton, in his remarks, rightly touched on the issue of the Palestinians as a basic one in a just and comprehensive settlement of the Middle-East problem. Indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his address to the 33rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September referred to the necessity, in arriving at any full settlement of the problems of the area, to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as one of the essential components of any such settlement.

The question of development of settlements for Israel in territories which it has occupied since 1967 was discussed at last year's session of the UN General Assembly. The Nine, in a common intervention delivered by the Presidency, stated that they considered the establishment of new settlements to be contrary to the norms of international law. They stated further that the policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories aggravated tensions in the region and created difficulties in regard to negotiations leading to a just and lasting peace. They expressed the hope that obstacles would not be placed in the way of the peaceful settlement which now seemed a possibility.

The process of peace has taken a step further this year. However, the pursuit of policies such as the expansion of existing settlements and the creation of new ones, which give rise to further complications or cause additional difficulties in the negotiating process, is to be regretted.

On the question of terrorism, Senator Robinson referred to the agreement among the other member states of the EEC concerning the application of the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his speech to the House last week, Ireland agreed to the opening for signature of this agreement at a meeting of Ministers for Justice, attended by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, on 10 October last and member states are currently considering the legal and constitutional implications of signature and ratification. As far as our country is concerned, the Government are hopeful that we will soon be in a position to sign the agreement. Ratification is, of course, a matter which would then come before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course.

In this connection, I would point out, in response to Senator Robinson's remarks, that an important feature of this current agreement is that it embodies the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, which gives Governments the option of either trying persons accused of terrorist offences in the jurisdiction where they are apprehended or of extraditing them. As the Senator will be aware, it was the absence of just such a provision in previous agreements of this kind which presented constitutional difficulties for Ireland.

Under the heading of defence, Senator Murphy referred in his remarks to talk of a new defence union for Western Europe and of our own involvement in any such hypothetical union. I agree entirely with him that the question is hypothetical. There is no common defence policy in the European Community and, indeed, no indication that there will be one in the foreseeable future. Any talk of such a policy is somewhat premature and remote, to say the least.

Senator Murphy also mentioned the matter of the "Buy Irish" campaign, and he asked for a specific reference to it in any reply forthcoming from Government speakers or any speaker on behalf of the Government. As I understand it, we have received no indication whatsoever and we have not been told by anybody, least of all the Commission, that the "Buy Irish" campaign is in conflict with the principles of the Treaty. My own belief, and that of the Government, is that the "Buy Irish" campaign is a success and this House has an absolute obligation to support this campaign in the national interest. Senator Murphy very properly paid tribute to the director of the campaign, Mr. Vivian Murray, and I, on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, would like to add my words of praise to the work being done by Mr. Murray on behalf of the "Buy Irish" campaign. There is something psychologically in our makeup which, in some way, makes us go for goods other than Irish goods. Personally, when I go into a shop I ask for an Irish-made product, and the only way in which this campaign can be a success is to get it into the minds of the men, women and children of this nation that when they go into a shop or supermarket they specifically direct their minds to quality Irish products. In the event of there not being acceptable Irish products, then they are entitled, in any democracy, to go outside the country to buy whichever product they are looking for. I certainly enthusiastically endorse the "Buy Irish" campaign and believe it is in the national interest. This House has an obligation to secure the national interest.

In connection with another matter which Senators may, inadvertently, not have referred to, the United Nations Peace Keeping Force—the Irish troops serving this country abroad—I pay particular tribute to our troops who are serving with the United Nations interim force in the Lebanon. This mission is a difficult and dangerous mission. It is a mission which has to be peopled by brave soldiers who know where their final duty may lie and will understand that. It is a taxing one but they have been acquitting themselves honourably with integrity and dedication on behalf of the nation.

Mrs. Robinson

Most of us thought it was not relevant in the development of the European Community.

Mr. D. Andrews

If I remember correctly, the Senator herself mentioned the Middle East or, if not, some Senator from the Opposition. I am not querying that. It is proper that the Senator should mention the Middle East and I have no objection to her mentioning it. But on the basis that she did mention it——

Mrs. Robinson

The Minister referred——

Mr. D. Andrews

——I mention on behalf of the Government the role being played by our Army in the Middle East. It is proper that I should place it on record. I am sure the Senator will agree with the sentiments I have expressed.

Mrs. Robinson

I do not disagree with the sentiments. I disagree with their relevance to this debate.

Mr. D. Andrews

The Senator is being very academic.

Professor Murphy

That is a terrible thing.

Mr. D. Andrews

I did not imagine the Senator would think being academic was a terrible thing.

Mrs. Robinson

The Minister referred to the absence of comments by the House about the matter and I was saying that it is not relevant to this debate.

Mr. D. Andrews

During the course of the debate it was raised and I thought it would give me a vehicle in which to pay tribute to our Army in the role as peace keepers in the Middle East. Senators are being a little harsh on me in this respect.

An Cathaoirleach

I allowed the Minister to make only a passing reference to this.

Mr. D. Andrews

I am working very hard on humility these days and I must contain myself. I will go off that and conclude my tribute to our troops in that area.

Senator Brugha mentioned a significant point during his broad contribution to this debate: the question of propagandising the direct elections and bringing to public attention the extent to which European institutions have been working over the years since the commencement of the Treaty of Rome. It is fair to say that to some extent the population and the public have been misled into believing that the Community is a vast bureaucratic amorphous mass and rather remote from the daily lives of the ordinary man and woman. It is fair to say that we, as politicians, have not done anything to encourage public awareness in the minds of the people. If there is any blame, it lies with us collectively. I agree with the Senator that we will need to make a serious effort to let the people know. That is the slogan which will have to be uppermost in the minds of the politicians who will be bringing to public attention the direct elections. There will have to be a "let the people know" campaign. What the Community is and how it affects us in our daily lives. I hope that the direct elections campaign will provide us with an opportunity of mounting an information campaign which would achieve that. The Community is conscious, as indeed are the political parties, of the need to bring to the attention of the people the relevance of the institutions and the relevance of the EEC.

I thank Senators for their patience and am most grateful to them for letting me run slightly over my time although I am sure the Leader of the House will not thank me for doing that.

Mrs. Hussey

Before we proceed to the next business, I would just like to register a protest at what I consider the unseemly haste with which this debate has been concluded. I understand that a Labour Senator wanted to speak on the debate and was consulting his notes when the previous speaker finished. Then the Minister jumped up and, as a result, the debate has been finished. Why are we in such a hurry? I know I am not very good on procedure but it does seem to be a rather speedy way——

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1978