I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of: Developments in the European Communities—Seventeenth Report.
Developments in the European Communities — Seventeenth Report: Motion.
I apologise that copies of the script from which I am reading are not yet available but they will be available very shortly. We did not anticipate that the business proposed would be disposed of so expeditiously.
I am glad that the House has an early opportunity to consider this, the Seventeenth Report on Developments in the European Communities which covers the period from July to December 1980. Senators will know that these reports are required by section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 which provides that the Government shall make such a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas.
In my introduction to this debate I would like to refer briefly to some of the major developments in Community activity covered by this report and indeed also to some more recent developments which in my view, are very important. I will of course be happy to deal in my reply with any other questions which Senators may wish to raise.
I think that it should not go without mention that the Community is now comprised of ten member states following the accession of Greece on 1 January of this year. I would like to reiterate the welcome which Ireland has extended to Greece as a new partner and to say that we look forward to working in close co-operation with Greece in the task of seeking solutions to the problems which beset the Community at present. Accession negotiations with Portugal and Spain are proceeding satisfactorily. In regard to recent events in Spain, the Community welcomed the firm and energetic response of the Spanish Government and people to the attack on the democratic constitution of Spain and also reaffirmed the commitment of the Community to Spanish accession.
When the Sixteenth and earlier Reports were presented to this House in October last, we were able to express satisfaction that the Community had shown itself capable of reaching an accommodation within itself on differences of opinion among the member states as serious as those which surrounded the so-called "British budgetary problem". We are coming close now to the point in time when we shall have to deal with the second part of that accommodation, namely, the results of the Commission's examination of the development of Community policies, an examination which, according to the mandate given to the Commission on May 30 last, is to be completed by June 30 this year. Before we see the Commission's report, we cannot, of course, pass judgement on it, and I shall therefore confine myself to a few brief remarks which I have made in the course of various discussions with my colleagues, Foreign Ministers.
Firstly, I think the Community should not have exaggerated expectations about what such a review of policies can achieve in terms of structural change if, as seems to be the case, it is to be carried out within the limits of the present 1 per cent VAT ceiling on the Community's Own Resources. I have always maintained, and have reiterated here and elsewhere the belief of our Government that the simplest and most effective way to restructure the Community's policies and, if that is desired, adjust their budgetary impact, is to lift the arbitrary ceiling on Own Resources and so allow the badly needed major improvement of such instruments as the Social and Regional Funds to take place. In the very recent past, I made a series of visits to my counterparts in all the other member states to put these views, and our views generally on this issue, which, in my opinion is paramount. We shall, of course, co-operate fully in the forthcoming review of Community policies within the framework of the agreed mandate. I would recall the essential elements of that mandate: a review of Community policies which will not—and this is important—(a) call into question the common financial responsibility for these policies, which are financed from the Community's Own Resources; (b) call into question the basic principles of the Common Agricultural Policy—unity of prices, financial solidarity and Community preference—or; (c) create unacceptable situations for any member state.
These are the conditions under which the review is to take place. Each of these conditions is of great importance to us. Ireland is a country to which the Common Agricultural Policy is of particularly vital importance and we have a very clear perception of what would, in relation to that policy especially, constitute an unacceptable situation for us.
The economic situation in the Community continued to give cause for concern and while GDP is expected to have grown by about 1.3 per cent in 1980, unemployment and inflation rates also increased. The Community's trade balance continued to deteriorate in 1980, mainly due to the higher cost of oil imports. However, the adverse movement in the terms of trade was offset by a faster volume growth in exports than in imports. The Commission has forecast a modest resumption of economic growth in the latter half of 1981. Unemployment will, however, remain a major problem.
The EMS has continued to operate satisfactorily despite the new pressures on the international scene. The original timetable, whereby a European Monetary Fund was to have been established by March 1981, has not proved feasible. However, the European Council has confirmed its determination to continue to strengthen the system for its transition to a final phase at the appropriate time. In the period under review Ireland borrowed £64.8 million in subsidised loans from the European Investment Bank and from the resources of the New Community Borrowing and Lending Instrument (NCI). This brought the total EMS subsidised loans to Ireland in 1980 to £202.3 million. Subsidies paid on the 1980 EMS loans amount to £45 million and therefore, for the second year, Ireland has successfully completed its borrowing programme necessary to benefit fully from the measures introduced to help the less developed member states of the Community participating in the EMS. These loans amount to £45 million and therefore we have been enabled to invest to increase our productive potential and reduce our dependence on imported energy through investment in infrastructure, telecommunications, peat bog developments and energy conservation, thus helping to create the conditions necessary for increased growth and a reduction in unemployment on a lasting basis, and preparing Ireland to benefit from the eventual upswing in the European and world economies.
In regard to development co-operation matters, Senators will be aware that a Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on international co-operation for development was held in New York in August-September of last year. Agreement was reached at the session on the text of a new international development strategy for the eighties and this was later formally adopted by the 35th regular session of the General Assembly. The text of the strategy is wide-ranging and will serve to guide and influence developments in the field of economic co-operation between the industrialised countries and the countries of the Third World over the next decade. The Special Session did not, however, succeed in launching the proposed new round of global negotiations on economic co-operation for development although a text on procedures and a time-frame for them was agreed by all delegations except three—the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Discussions continued on the proposed negotiations at the Regular Session of the General Assembly and are to resume again as soon as possible. In the meantime, consultations aimed at getting the global negotiations under way are continuing under the auspices of the President of the United Nations General Assembly. For its part, the European Community is examining again, with renewed vigour, its own approach to the proposed negotiations, to which it remains strongly committed.
In September of last year the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the Community's contribution to the campaign to eliminate hunger in the world. The Council of Ministers responsible for Development Co-operation followed this up by adopting a resolution of their own, stating their determination to act on the Parliament's conclusions. The Community continued to respond to emergencies in the developing world including a donation of IR£14 million in December 1980 to specialised agencies for their operations in Kampunchea.
In the period reviewed in this report there were a number of developments in agriculture. The new sheepmeat market organisation came into effect from 20 October while the New Zealand butter import entitlement for 1980, previously set at 115,000 tonnes was reduced to 95,000 tonnes in return for a higher price. In the agrimonetary sector, France became the third member state, after Denmark and Ireland, to eliminate MCAs.
In recent times the most significant development in agriculture was the prices agreement. This provided for a price increase of nearly 14 per cent for this country as well as a special package of aid measures for Irish agriculture. The total prices package means an injection of £215 million into Irish agriculture with an additional £26 million for the second year of the Irish package. A most notable feature of the package is an undertaking obtained by Ireland that the Commission will make further proposals, in particular in favour of the Irish cattle sector in time for a Council of Ministers decision by the middle of July next. This price agreement will be a great boost to the farming community and allied with the measures taken by the Government will greatly help to improve the incomes of farmers.
On the question of fisheries, strenuous efforts were made during the latter half of 1980 to agree on a Common Fisheries policy by the end of the year. Discussions concentrated particularly on the outstanding questions of catch quotas, structural policy, marketing and access arrangements to fishing zones. While significant progress was made in these areas it was not possible to reach agreement among member states on the most difficult problem of all — the question of access. Discussions, both on a multilateral and a bilateral level have continued during 1981 and it is hoped that agreement can be reached on all aspects of a common fisheries policy this year. We, of course, will continue to press for the most advantageous terms possible, particularly in seeking a coastal zone exclusive to our fishermen.
The major development in regional policy in the period under review was the adoption by the Council of regulations for use of the non-quota section of the regional fund including a measure for development of tourism and craft industry in Irish Border areas. A special fund has been established to finance the programme and approximately IR£21 million will be allocated to the fund over the 1980-85 period.
Grant receipts for Ireland from the regional fund amounted to IR£46.4 million in 1980 and it is expected that our share will be about IR£60 million in 1981 and it is hoped considerably to increase this figure in 1982. A major Irish concern is, of course, that the regional and social funds should be expanded and that assistance to weaker and disadvantaged areas of the Community should be increased.
As the report indicates, the second half of 1980 was an active period for European political co-operation. The deteriorating international situation and the growth of East-West tension have given a new focus to the efforts by the Ten to co-ordinate on foreign policy questions. The member states of the Community are conscious of the contribution that a more effective Community voice could make to the solution of current international problems. Ireland considers that the economic strength of the Community is crucial to Europe's ability to promote peace, justice and stability in the wider world. For this reason, the Community should continue to give priority to achieveing greater economic convergence by expanding and strengthening those activities that reinforce its internal cohesion and thus increase its capacity to respond effectively to international challenges.
As regards Afghanistan, we are no nearer a solution to the crisis which continues to contribute to the present dangerous climate of international tension. The European Council on 23/24 March 1981 expressed concern at the current situation and the continuing severe ordeal being endured by the Afghan people. Particular concern was expressed at the flow of refugees, which has become a heavy burden on neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan. At the Maastricht meeting Ireland, together with our partners, called once again for a solution which would entail the withdrawal of foreign troops and permit the Afghan people freely to exercise their right to self-determination. We stated our readiness to support any initiative which could lead to the desired result, and welcomed in particular the initiative which was contained in last year's UN General Assembly Resolution.
The Ten again committed their efforts to contribute to a just and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict. As Senators will be aware, their initiative is based on a Declaration made by the European Council meeting in Venice in June 1980. The European Council of 1-2 December 1980 in Luxembourg adopted a report which amplified the concepts contained in the Venice Declaration and outlined the principal problems relating to a comprehensive settlement under the headings of withdrawal, self-determination, security in the Middle East and Jerusalem. Since then a new round of contacts with the parties concerned has been conducted by the Presidency-in-Office in the person of Dr. Van der Klaauw, the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands. Dr. Van der Klaauw gave an interim report on the results of his mission to date to the European Council of 23-24 March 1981 in Maastricht and is continuing his consultations. A final report is to be presented to the European Council meeting planned for 29-30 June 1981.
The report refers to the continuing preoccupation of the member states with the situation in Lebanon. The participation of an Irish contingent in the UN peacekeeping force in South Lebanon gives this country a particular interest. Senators will be aware that one of our own soldiers — Private Hugh Doherty — was killed two days ago in Southern Lebanon and another — Private Kevin Joyce — is still missing in as yet unexplained circumstances. The Government are in contact with the United Nations about these events and are aware that the United Nations are sparing no effort to have the circumstances surrounding these happenings clearly established. In the light of the UN's findings we shall be pursuing with them and with other troop contributors the action that can be taken to try to ensure that such events do not occur again.
The UN Secretary-General recently stated that UNIFIL "performs an indispensible service to peace not only in South Lebanon but with regard to the Middle East situation in general." However, such events as those of the last few days bring home to us the difficulty conditions under which the force operate and the dedication of our soldiers who volunteer to serve with UN peacekeeping forces. On this sad occasion, I offer my sympathy to the family of Private Doherty on my own behalf, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, on the Senators' behalf.
The report describes the progress that was made in the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The Nine had previously indicated at the European Council in Venice on 12-13 June 1980 their desire to re-activate the dialogue and, to this end, to hold a meeting with the Arab League at political level in the framework of the dialogue. This meeting took place in Luxembourg on 12-13 November 1980. It was agreed at that meeting that the technical activities of the dialogue would be resumed and that a further meeting at Foreign Minister level would be held in 1981. This meeting is now being actively prepared.
The Madrid follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which began on 11 November 1980 has been considering both the implementation of the existing provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the elaboration of further measures which would contribute to more effective implementation in the future. Together with our partners in the European Community, Ireland considers that a successful outcome to the Madrid meeting requires concrete results in the areas covered by the Final Act. The meeting has been adjourned for a three-week Easter recess and will resume on 5 May.
Co-operation among the Community member states at the United Nations General Assembly is now an established practice. While differences of approach among the Ten remain on some issues, for the most part their co-ordination has been increasingly successful with the result that the Community member states are seen to be a distinct European voice on international questions.
I have attempted in this introduction to the debate to give a resume of the major questions which have faced the Community in recent times. I will, of course, be glad to respond in my reply to matters raised by Senators during the course of what will be an interesting and constructive debate.
I thank the Minister for his speech and I join with him, as I am sure every Member of the House does, in his offer of sympathy to the family of Private Doherty for the loss of his life in the performance of indispensable service to duties which the Irish Forces have been rendering in their participation in UNIFIL.
The structure in the Act providing for these reports has proved very useful. Although it is not possible in these debates to deal with all the matters which arise in the reports, they provide us with a useful and regular description of happenings relating to the Community. There has also developed the helpful practice of solid ministerial contributions to these debates. I count the speech we have just heard as one of these.
The Minister referred in his speech to the fact that the second half of 1980 was an active period for European political co-operation. Irrespective of the focus of the efforts of the Ten during this period, activity on this level is, in a dynamic sense, a contribution to the real development of Irish welfare. In the context of our history it is to be seen as a contribution to the development of the universal element in our republicanism as distinct from the isolating element. I see in this co-operation between the Ministers of the Ten something that is constructive, useful and helpful to the free growth of this country which is increased by the confidence we develop through this dialogue.
The Minister has indicated — and it is in any case quite clear — that participation in this co-operation in no way means the setting aside of anything that may be regarded as in our interest. We have our freedom in participating in European political co-operation. We engage in a dialogue and make our contribution; we affect the determination of issues; we listen and we learn. It is for the benefit of our country that we should so learn and in the interests which the Minister for Foreign Affairs is concerned to protect.
The Minister is correct in saying that the economic strength of the Community is crucial to Europe's ability to promote peace, justice and stability in the wider world. It might be worth our while as a people to look at the word "justice" and unearth one concept which lies behind it. We owe each other the truth as a matter of justice and part of our search for justice must be to find the truth that underlies matters.
We may have to watch any tendency towards what is generally known in European political circles as "Finlandisation". It is very important that we should not be silenced by threats of any kind from whatever source. We need not be afraid to criticise the deficiencies in the working of what we call the "free" political and economic system of the West. Broadly speaking it is free and the deficiencies lie not so much in freedom as in the order in relation to freedom. Because of the intellectual criticism to which the free political and economic system has been subject during the past century, we must remind ourselves when talking about the alienating consequences of capitalism and modern techonology that these deficiencies are not so great that they cannot be tolerated. We must look with great concern and anxiety at the operations of the alternative which is offered. In 1917 there was a revolution in Russia, a backward country economically and socially. When we talk about the defects of capitalism and the obvious objections to the crudeness of much of the American operations, we should look at how the alternative, the revolution, has worked. There is a tendency in the West not to look at the truth about the operations of collectivism.
In talking about the economic strength of the Community as being crucial to Europe's ability to promote peace, justice and stability in the wider world, the Minister might emphasise that it is crucial to Europe's interests to seek the truth about these systems of government. While the Ministers together may experience some irritation at the crudeness of American methods the central problem is seen as a threat to America. While America's particular reactions to it may be irritating to the Ten we should never move away from the reality in terms of human suffering. I would like to see in our public utterances more light cast on the way in which not merely the Russian system of government works but the way the collective government works in Eastern Europe and Asia and the awful developments in China.
I fear that through the desire not to get particularly involved in the American/Russian contest we may fail to measure for ourselves the awful consequences there may be from a breakdown in our democratic system. I do not think our people are fully aware of what is at risk through a breakdown of democracy. There ought to be a little more emphasis on the importance of the Community. The Preamble to the Treaty endeavours to describe the objectives of the Community. It is not a very adequate Preamble. It is necessary to emphasise that for our people. I will conclude by thanking the Minister for his speech.
I will be very brief but I have a few rather disjointed comments to make. Perhaps the time has come to re-state a few basics in regard to our involvement in the European Community. I am glad this report gives me an opportunity to do that. I would like to start on the section of the Minister's script — I congratulate him on this very thorough, well-reasoned speech — which deals with the EMS. I am very disappointed with the obstructionist policy of the British Government in regard to their attitude to coming into the EMS. In the European Community, without being unduly political about the matter, we are trying to build a genuine currency market, a genuine monetary union. The only real obstruction to doing this, which is a major step in getting the people of Europe together, the only spoilt child in this arrangement, still appears to be the British Government. They should now take the bull by the horns and move away from this obstructionist policy, which they seem to be fostering.
I feel that we might do more as an Oireachtas and a Government to explain to the public the currency vagaries between sterling, the punt and the EMS. I am sure everyone here has a fair idea why those occur but I feel it is a fairly new experience for the Irish public. Perhaps we could do a little to inform them why this is happening so that sometimes alarming headlines about the state of the Irish punt does not lead to some kind of panic or disillusionment with our economy because, as we all know, that is not the basic reason.
In restating some basics I want to say that this country must stand firm behind the common agricultural policy. I am glad that parties on all sides of both Houses have made this point quite clear. There are forces at work and worrying noises being made in regard to the future of the common agricultural policy. We should be clear about it that irrespective of whether a person is from the town, the city or the countryside, it is in the interests of the country overall to retain and advance the common agricultural policy. The attack on the common agricultural policy seems to stem from the British Government. It is important that this debate would highlight a major agreement between the two parts of this island, Northern Ireland and ourselves, in retaining the common agricultural policy. It is important to state that we have total agreement in regard to this when the British Government seem to be making every effort to undermine the common agricultural policy. I know that the people of Northern Ireland can see, certainly in agricultural areas, their interests lie in the same direction as ours do.
Another area I want to mention is the Third World and world hunger. The European Community are in an ideal position to make some major advances in this area. There is great misery and deprivation in many parts of the Third World. Thousands of men, women and children are dying of hunger and we cannot continue to let that situation exist side by side with what is fast becoming a fairly prosperous Europe. I am pleased that some efforts have been made in that direction but I would like us to accelerate our genuine concern in that area. The Minister, quite rightly, mentioned that £14 million in emergency aid was being provided in some area. It is excellent to be able to respond to that but we must build up a solid, permanent policy towards alleviating world hunger that must stop at the door of the European Community.
I would like to move to a very sensitive area but, nevertheless, I would like to make a few brief remarks on it. I am aware that the circumstances of the day are not the time to mention this at all but it is important that I do so. I felt the recent intervention by the commissioners from the European Court of Human Rights in the current Northern Ireland situation was a useful intervention. I am sorry that the mission of the European people, representing the Court of Human Rights, was not a successful one. I felt that some hope lay there. I have on a number of occasions criticised the European Economic Community for doing a little bit less than I believe they should to ease the tensions on this island.
The Minister spoke about the effective Community voice to the solution of current international problems. I would like to use this opportunity to suggest that the EEC are in an ideal situation, as very credible, honest brokers to do a lot more to help the people of Ireland, North and South, to live together in a more harmonious way and I take this opportunity to call on them to do so.
I would like to join in the expression of sympathy to the relatives of Private Hugh Doherty who lost his life defending peace in the Lebanon and to express the hope that his colleague, Private Joyce, will be restored to his unit in good health. I want to avail of this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by the units of the Irish Army in different parts of the world helping to preserve peace. It is generally recognised that these men have brought credit to the image of Ireland abroad.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement and hope his optimism will be justified. I wish him well in his efforts to secure better conditions and more help for this country during his term as Minister for Foreign Affairs. There are a few points which cause a certain amount of annoyance for the general public. The first is that the punt as a currency is not accepted in many member states. Irish people going to England find our money is not accepted. Most people believed that our membership of the EMS would have cleared up this problem once and for all and that our currency would be acceptable in all member states. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that because it is causing great inconvenience. Recently on the Paris Exchange the punt was quoted as not having any value at all. That caused great annoyance to Irish people trading with member states, those on holidays and those who had to travel for one reason or another. The Minister should treat this matter as a priority and ensure that our currency is accepted in all member states.
The low value of the punt as against sterling and other currencies is a source of annoyance, worry or confusion, whichever term you wish to use. The case can be put forward that the pound sterling is valued too highly and industrialists and others in England would like to see it at a lower value, but if our punt is valued at 77p, 76p or 75p against the pound sterling, does that reflect accurately the poor state of our economy in relation to the British economy, which is considered to be far from strong? What is the exact position? In the long term, what are the disadvantages of the low rating of the punt? It probably helps to make our products more competitive abroad but we must take into account that we have to import raw materials and pay for oil in dollars. What is the net effect on the economy of the punt being so rated?
I am glad the Minister stated clearly that this Government regard the common agricultural policy as being essential and very important to our economy. He has the support of every Members of this House in that area and any effort made by some member states to embark on a policy of reducing the effectiveness of the CAP should be and will be opposed by our Minister and other members of the Government in negotiations abroad. It is of vital importance to us that the CAP is maintained and that we do not find ourselves having to yield to those who believe in the cheap food policy, led by British Ministers.
The Minister was loud in his praise for the advances in prices secured on behalf of the farming community but I think he was a little over optimistic. He says the increase amounted to 14 per cent. A 14 per cent increase in ordinary circumstances and in ordinary times would have to be regarded as significant, but in face of a 21 per cent inflation rate not all that 14 per cent will go into the farmers' pockets. A 14 per cent increase to counteract an inflation rate of 21 per cent in my opinion and in the opinion of the farming organisations, does not give the agricultural community a fair break. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that.
Can the EEC not have a special formula to ensure that increases granted in Brussels can be adjusted to give an equal share of the increases to countries with high rates of inflation? In other words, EEC help to the farming community in a country with a rate of inflation at 7 per cent means more to that farming community than the same subvention would mean here because comparatively high inflation here puts farmers at a disadvantage: measures taken in Brussels to help agriculture are not as effective here on account of our high inflation as in other parts of the Community where inflation is in single figures or in the early teens.
I wish to make a point or two arising from a paragraph in the Minister's statement about special assistance for tourist development in Border areas. I represent a Border area and I should like the Minister to be more specific and to tell us exactly what will be done to improve tourism in that area. County Cavan is right in the centre of the greatest coarse fishing area in the country and that was recognised by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry when he introduced a Bill to cater for the Erne. He agreed then that that area was in a special category.
A relatively small expenditure on the improvement of access roads to places of coarse fishing interest would do a great deal to promote tourism. Coarse fishing anglers from the UK and from parts of Europe come to that part of the country in great numbers annually. I made that point to the Minister when I met him with a deputation a couple of months ago. We were dealing with the Erne drainage and the Minister appeared to think our suggestions had merit. The Minister here present knows the area well. He has a thorough grasp of the subject I am talking on and he must realise the great potential of tourism in that area not only just from June to September as in other parts of the country but nearly throughout the year. However, that potential is not being developed properly. We had hoped that funds would become available from the regional development scheme for Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, parts of Roscommon and Westmeath. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some news on this matter.
We have been told that funds for the Erne drainage scheme will be made available by the Governments of the Republic and the UK and from moneys provided from the EEC. Consultants were employed to furnish a report, that report was published and the Minister was present at the ceremony at which it was presented. However, in the meantime there has not been any progress of any kind. This is a matter of grave concern to the farming community in Cavan, parts of Monaghan, Leitrim and Fermanagh, and I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that the areas I have mentioned are part of his priorities for development and that he will see to it that the work will be got under way. A short time ago a meeting of the cross-Border committee was scheduled for Stormont with the appropriate Northern Ireland Minisster attending. It was called off and I hope the Minister will tell us it will be rescheduled for an early date. I hope he will also give us an assurance that this important drainage work will be undertaken immediately.
I thank the Minister for his speech and I join other Senators on both sides of the House in their expression of sympathy on the death of one of our soldiers, Private Doherty, in the Lebanon and of hope for the early return of Private Joyce. This is a sad occassion for the parents of those young men. This gives us an opportunity to pay a tribute not only to their work but to the role of our Defence Forces abroad right back to the first sacrifices made in Africa by Irish troops in the interests of peace among people in difficult areas. We do not hear enough about this. Our troops are welcome in disputed areas, particularly in Africa where people with white faces are not all that welcome. This does not apply to the troops of all nations. Even before we became an EEC member our troops abroad enhanced the stature of our country. Therefore, our troops in those countries have been serving Ireland as well as working for the maintenance of peace.
While speaking in this debate one must look back in surprise at the original campaign of those opposing our entry to the EEC. We were told that we would be losing our sovereignty, but we know now that the reverse seems to be true. In the political sense we have grown in stature as a nation State in the EEC. Our involvement there has been what I would describe as a political action in the interests of creating a stable and stronger Europe. We have an equal voice in European affairs which has given us a status and, in effect, a power which nobody expected. We all know, in a war, that small countries do not count. The European situation has placed small countries on what virtually amounts to an equal footing with major countries under the European Treaty in the Commission and in the Council of Ministers.
I welcome what the Minister said about European co-operation. We all know that our small voice in the years before the Community was established had little influence in the world. Today we know that any one of the larger members of the European Community would have little influence as time has moved on and super powers have developed. Even France and Germany have not a very significant influence on world affairs. All countries together create strength and it is good for the world that that situation has developed under the Treaty of Rome which sets out principles of political development and co-operation and a peaceful settling of disputes, wherever possible.
I agree with what was said on the other side regarding what our contribution should be in this area. Our voice should continue to be a clear one for justice and for peaceful settlement. We should not, at any stage, be tempted to ignore any particular aspect of world affairs which we see as unjust because it applied to one super power as distinct from another. We should be prepared to dispassionately criticise the failure, for example, to come to a rational agreement on the production of armaments. It has been said before, and should be repeated, that world affairs must be dealt with in some more intelligent way than three or four major powers continuing to build up elements of destruction which, if they are ever used, would destroy the entire globe. In that sense, our contribution should be very strong. Our accepted neutral status as a member of the Community enhances our position. It has strengthened the Community and the concept of democracy which enables us to adopt a neutral stance. We all know that if Ireland was in Eastern Europe we would not be allowed to be neutral. In that sense, we should acknowledge the European situation within the European community for what it is.
I was impressed by what Senator FitzGerald said about the dangers to democracy. It brings me back to something I said in our last debate, that we are not informed in relation to the European Community and what it is all about. This is one of the major experiments in the field of co-operation, economic, political and social, that has occurred so far in the history of man. I know to what Senator FitzGerald was referring when he spoke of the dangers of a breakdown of democracy in the situation at home. We need to be better informed about Europe and to the fact that the European Community is founded on a democratic concept. No European country can join the Community unless it is a freely elected democracy. That is a significant factor. If the situation here, to which I presume Senator FitzGerald was referring, in a part of the country which is not under our influence or control, were to get out of hand I hope our old loyalty to democratic institutions, to the real meaning of what democracy is about, providing people with freedom from fear, with a sense of justice, will be demonstrated by our people with the practical common-sense approach to questions of this kind which has been demonstrated over the past 50 years. We are an example of practical political stability. If any situation on this island gets out of control, I hope all our people will be disciplined and loyal and will give full support to our security forces.
I have not said anything about the economy. I have not done so because what we need to talk about, in relation to our involvement in Europe, is what we can do for Europe. The ordinary, everyday questions we hear about Europe are what are we getting out of it, what is it worth to us? We should be honest and say it is worth a hell of a lot. It has provided us with support over the years which I do not think anyone expected we would get.
The agricultural situation has been mentioned. The Minister has given a figure for this year of £215 million. Of people who think that figure is not adequate I would ask what would the situation be today if we were not a member of the European Community with the European taxpayer contributing £215 million towards our agricultural industry? I believe if we and Britain had not joined we would be contributing between £400 million and £500 million in subsidy on export of foodstuffs to Britain. We should reflect on the advantage we are getting out of membership of the Community, apart from the enhancement of our stature as a state. One cannot say what the situation would have been if things had not changed. We have had an expansion in employment of the order of 125,000 or 130,000 which has arisen in large measure because of our membership of the Community.
The matter of the EMS has been mentioned. I do not know why our correspondents, particularly the economic correspondents, have not given a picture of what our situation would have been if we had remained with sterling and not joined the EMS. Our reason for joining the EMS was to be involved in a monetary system that would give us greater stability from a monetary point of view and also give us a better opportunity to develop exports. Having regard to the present difference between our currency and sterling, I should imagine that had we remained with sterling the number of unemployed here would be double what it is now.
At the moment we have a tremendous advantage in being able to sell on the European market at stable prices. If we were in the elevated situation of sterling we would be working at a disadvantage of at least 25 per cent in the sale of our goods on the European and British markets. Therefore, I find it a little irritating to read comments in our newspapers, downgrading the punt. Our currency may not be as healthy as we would like it to be but since we joined the EMS it has managed to hold its own with the other European currencies.
The Minister stated that Ireland considers that the economic strength of the Community is crucial to Europe's ability to promote peace, justice and stability in the world. Here again, we are talking about the principle of political co-operation, the development of trading relationships on as just a basis as possible and the influence that gives to the Community and the Council of Ministers in trying to solve ongoing disputes outside Europe. The coming together of states in Europe is providing a prospect of stability and is increasing the prospects for peace outside Europe in addition to maintaining a stable situation in Europe. We should look at all these matters with a sense of optimism despite the gloom that surrounds us from time to time in relation to the world powers situation.
I am glad of the opportunity to discuss this report. It is almost on schedule and in this connection I should like to compliment the Minister. When we discussed these reports on a previous occasion they were almost two-and-a-half years in arrears and the Minister kindly undertook to remedy the situation. I appreciate he has kept his word on this matter.
I should like to remind the House of the way Community matters affect the population as a whole. In my opinion there has not been any great progress in bringing the Community closer to the people. Even though there is now an elected Parliament, the Community is not meaningful to many citizens. I do not know whose fault that is. However, one of the problems is the apparent slowness of the Irish Government and the Department of Agriculture in particular who are the agents to administer schemes under the common agricultural policy and who are empowered to pay grants and subsidies to those entitled to them, whether they be businessmen or farmers. This slowness is quite unreasonable when one considers the very high cost of credit at the moment. The Minister should contact his colleagues in the various Departments and ask for greater efficiency from the civil servants in payment of grants, many of which have been due for more than a year. I do not think any payments have been made under the scheme dealing with cessation of milk.
Another example is the scheme dealing with disadvantaged areas. This scheme seems to be operating here on a grace and favour basis. We are in an enlightened era when one would think that some kind of scientific evaluation might be made by the powers that be. We will take the case of the river Shannon. West of the Shannon you have people in an area which has all the benefits of being declared a disadvantaged area. On the east bank are County Offaly and the other counties on this side of the river which do not have those favours even though their land is also flooded for the same four or five months of each year as the land in the other side of the valley. One would think that the Department and the Government would get around to implementing these schemes in a more scientific way relying on size or perhaps elevation, but if you take the criterion of elevation you would then exclude the midland boglands. That would be most unreasonable because from an agricultural point of view these peaty soils are equally at a disadvantage, I do not want to labour the point but I would just like to mention it.
I have been rather disappointed in reading through the report to note that there is an obvious slow-down in the amount and numbers of applications for aid under the FEOGA grant scheme. If we look at the figures for 1979 and 1980 we find that, while payments in those years were £396 million and £283 million respectively, the new applications admitted for the guidance sector were only £28 million and £37 respectively. This is a fall-off and it brings me to the policy of the Government which in some respects at least tends not to maximise the benefits that people can get from the European fund. By that I mean that in some member states the national governments operate, allocate or give enabling grants to enable firms and co-operatives to have access to the FEOGA grants and in the main these are 25 per cent grants.
In the milk processing sector where fresh milk is utilised and turned into yog-hourt, cheese or some other of those products, people wishing to set up small firms and dairies should be facilitated by the IDA to quality them for access to the FEOGA funds. It is quite a well-known fact that the Italians, the French, the Dutch and so on do that. How do our Government find it consistent to have a policy which excludes all those people who are setting up and making considerable progress even without that additional aid? It would be no skin off the Irish taxpayer's nose if people who have the flair and ability to provide job opportunities across the country were given every possible help and assistance from the State services that are set up for that purpose. I would ask the Minister to use his good offices to endeavour to bring about a complete change of heart in the IDA. Their attitude to such applications at present is unreasonable, outrageous and contrary to the terms of the Acts under which they operate. It is just not good enough that people who want to invest and provide employment in rural areas, whether they be proposing to employ ten, 20 or 30 people in small industries, should not get every assistance from the State. All I am asking is that these agricultural-based processing industries should be given enabling grants of at least 3 per cent which would not even cover the cost of the sites, but with that kind of grant they would be in line to apply for the FEOGA assistance which is there. Since we joined the Community we have not in any year even reached the 75 per cent of the allocations of moneys earmarked for us. If you look at the league you will find that we are the most inefficient applicants for grant-aid from the Community inasmuch as we are able to qualify to receive in any year only 40 per cent of the total funds allocated to us under any of the various headings.
We have the best record.
It depends upon from which end one looks at the record.
In terms of response to applications, time spans and response in payments.
I have not got the table that I was looking for, but from the last communication I had with the FEOGA office I think we were able to draw something like only 48 per cent of the moneys allocated to us which we should have availed of in 1978. That is not a good record, whereas the next lowest was in the region of 77-78 per cent. Therefore, I doubt if the Minister and myself are talking about the same kind of table. My memory is quite clear on that and perhaps we will have another opportunity when I can bring in the quotation that I would have liked to have given to the House.
The public service will be very interested in that reflection.
I am not talking about the public service.
I am talking about individuals and co-operatives. Once it gets into the civil service machine here then it gets to the Commission very quickly.
I was told that the only efficient co-operative in the country were the Kerry Co-Op who were able to avail of all the grants they applied for and they do not have them sitting there for years and years neither availing of them nor allowing anybody else to avail of them.
That would be typical of that intelligent county.
I would think so, being a real Kerryman myself. Senator Brugha in the course of his speech said that we should have more support for the IR£. It was nice of him to say that our 77p £ was holding its own among the European currencies, but to the ordinary citizen in this country the main contact would be with the UK and the differential in the value of sterling and of the punt is quite shocking. It upsets matters and makes things very expensive indeed for people either doing business directly with the UK or who might be travelling either to Northern Ireland or to the UK itself. From that point of view the Government policy in that regard has not a laudable record. I hope the Government will do everything in their power to redress the situation which is causing a lot of unease and difficulty.
I should like to mention briefly the energy policy. A couple of pages here barely mention the energy policy of the Community. Coming from a constituency where there is a considerable energy infrastructure, energy is something in which I have taken a great interest. Since 1975 I have been pressing for the greater use of alternative energy sources. In that regard I encouraged the swimming pool committee in Portarlington to respond to an invitation from the Commission to undertake an experiment for the solar heating of the swimming pool and recreational complex. This very diligent committee went to a considerable amount of expense and worked for a year and a half to come up with a plan and a programme and a prototype to meet the Commission's criteria. When they had so much work done, the Commission just arbitrarily told them that they had dropped the idea. I would hate to think that the bureaucratic approach adopted by the Commission in that case will develop or that they would get away with that kind of attitude towards the citizens of the Community. I was very much taken aback by their arbitrary manner of writing to them, after the applications were in and they were expecting the matter to be examined, telling them they had dropped the idea after they had given an undertaking in writing and offered them a 40 per cent grant. I am not happy that the Community should present an image like that. I take the opportunity to say that this is not what we envisaged as a Community. As times goes on we should be able, through harmonisation and greater understanding, to achieve a greater utilisation of the facilities available in the different parts of the Community. Through that kind of progress we should be able to arrive at a greater understanding. We obviously have a long way to go and it is unfortunate that we have not made that much progress over the past couple of years.
To get back again to the disadvantaged areas scheme, when are we going to have criteria drawn up by the Department of Agriculture or the Commission for those included in these very important and very beneficial schemes? If there is a scheme, it should be possible for an individual to know whether his area or district or country falls within the criteria laid down. The area of south Laois, both in elevation and soil structure is, according to An Foras Talúntais, identical with the soil structure in County Leitrim. In Leitrim they have the advantage of these very considerable grants. Indeed, in our area the Government have now introduced what they say is their own version of 70 per cent grants for drainage and for sheep headage payments, but this is an area where sheep are not very common. It is this kind of administration that engenders distrust in the Community, because in general, irrespective of what appears in the paper, the farmers in the area believe that this is a European Economic Community scheme and that a substitute scheme would certainly be of benefit to individual farmers who might want not to reclaim but to drain land. There is a strong case to be made for indexing those grants, because from the time the agricultural officer comes out and estimates the cost of doing the work to the time that the work is actually done could be two years. Therefore, a farmer does not get a 70 per cent grant; he gets 70 per cent of what the work was estimated to cost two years previously. That is the kind of time lag we are talking about.
While I am glad that the Minister has come along today to open the debate and give us the opportunity to review the developments, there is not that much to report this year. Many of us are disappointed that the Community have not readily recognised the difficult economic climate here at present, especially in the agricultural sector, which is reflected by the huge drop in the numbers and value of the applications made to the Community for grant assistance.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to ensure that a scheme of enabling assistance will be introduced, that the IDA will allocate 3 or 4 per cent grants to enable people who are precluded at present from doing so to avail of the FEOGA grants.
I join in the expression of sympathy to the family of Private Doherty who lost his life in the discharge of peace-keeping duties.
On the report itself, I would like to make a few general observations before, by coincidence, following Senator McDonald in making some specific remarks about energy policy.
I entirely support the strong efforts which the Minister has been making to have the 1 per cent VAT ceiling lifted. It is of vital importance, particularly from the point of view of a small country like ours, that the Community's own resources should be increased in order to strengthen the foundations of the common agricultural policy and prevent that policy from being eroded through alleged shortage of money and also to provide more adequate and realistic resources for both the social and regional funds which have so vital a part to play in rectifying the imbalance between the member countries of the Community.
I also commend the Minister's sympathetic attitude towards a greater commitment by the Community to international development co-operation.
On the question of a common fisheries policy, I share his disappointment that no agreement has yet been reached on an appropriate policy. I emphasise "an appropriate policy" because neither the Minister nor his successor as Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, nor any of us, would consider any common fisheries policy appropriate which would give a complete green light for the competitive incursion of EEC fishermen with their drift nets and powerful equipment into the waters traversed by salmon approaching Irish rivers to spawn. I know that is not the only aspect but that is the one of particular interest to me.
Coming now to the energy policy chapter which, as Senator McDonald has remarked, is very short, I was hoping that perhaps the Minister might elaborate on it a little. The first two paragraphs refer to an intention by the Council to try to develop a common approach to energy problems and, in that context, to take account of the Community's economic policy. Of course, this link between energy policy and economic policy is entirely correct, not only because, in general, economic progress is so dependent on continuity of energy supplies at reasonable cost, but also — and this is the particular reason for my intervention — because in the case of Ireland, on the periphery of the EEC, there are, I suggest, special economic considerations which the EEC should admit to being relevant in drawing up any policy intended to apply to the EEC as a whole.
The Minister is, no doubt, aware that there is, or has been, a belief in some quarters that the EEC are pushing us towards nuclear power development. Now, I am not against nuclear energy in its peaceful uses on any idealogical grounds, although I recognise the necessity for health and security precautions. However, if the choice were between letting the country revert to a primitive life standard and taking a carefully monitored chance with nuclear energy, I would be clearly for the second alternative. Fortunately, this is not the issue which arises now. Indeed, because of the slower growth prospects faced not only by Ireland but by all the countries of the west and east, and the lower rate of increase in the demand for energy which we now face, the horizon of absolute need to consider recourse to nuclear energy has receded very considerably. In addition, the prospects of having oil and perhaps additional gas of our own have improved, so perhaps this is the right, dispassionate moment to make what I consider to be an important economic point about energy, in relation to a peripheral and small island economy.
The minimum economic size, as I understand it, of a nuclear power plant is 900 to 1,000 MW. That is about three times the capacity of the coal-fired plant which is, from time to time, under construction at Moneypoint. Even the addition of a Moneypoint will mean that enormous capital charges will have to be borne for several years by the ESB and therefore by the community, before current sales of electricity will catch up and make the supply economic. That is in the nature of things. When you make a big, discrete addition to capacity, it always takes some time for demand to grow into the new clothes, as it were. How much more so will disproportionality take place with a nuclear plant? An impossible burden of cost would be imposed for many years on our industrial development potential and our economic progress would thus be greatly retarded. To alleviate this by an interconnection system would initially add to the capital cost, although in the long run, of course, it should be beneficial.
I make this point just to suggest that the EEC clearly could not justifiably push us into the use of nuclear energy in circumstances which would stifle our development possibilities. Naturally, we must be seen to be doing all we can to save energy and to develop our own resources, and particularly new and renewable sources of energy. However, it must be recognised that, given our small economy on the periphery of Europe, we really need to be allowed to use, as long as it is available, whatever fuel enables moderately sized and regular additions to be made to our generating capacity. This means that, in the EEC context, this country should be amongst the last to be expected to switch from oil to nuclear energy, even if oil were to become progressively more scarce. I would like to be assured that we will take that line with the EEC and resist any pressure to go prematurely for nuclear energy, on the grounds of expense, if for no other reason.
I will not detain the House, and certainly not by going over ground which has already been gone over by my colleagues. I want to make one point which I have not heard being made, although I was not present during the entire debate. I want to make this point with as much force as I can summon, in response to the Minister's kind invitation that he will be happy to deal in his reply with any other questions which Senators may wish to raise in relation to the European Economic Community.
In my recent visits to the mainland of Europe one point struck me which is palpable to anyone who has visited particularly the areas of Northern Europe, Germany and Austria, and Switzerland which I most recently visited, although that country is not a member of the EEC. This is a trend of which this country should take cognisance and I ask how the Minister feels about this subject, and whether, in fact, the Government have a policy on the matter. The question is that, of the Gast Arbeiters, the migrant labourers who come from the Mediterranean countries to take up work in northern Europe, in the countries of the EEC, because these are the ones with which we are most concerned, and who have no rights as human beings or citizens within the EEC. In other words, most of what I have heard in relation to the EEC has stressed, to a great extent, the sense in which it is a humane, caring community and there is a sense in which that claim is justified. For instance, recent reports show that in recession the EEC have given at this moment proportionately more than 12 times the wealth and help to the Third World than the OPEC countries, the oil-rich countries of the Arab region. In other words, the EEC have been strikingly generous towards the Third World. I do not want to cast irresponsible aspersions on the social conscience of the EEC as it operates but one of the most disturbing aspects of the EEC in its operations at the moment is the manner in which it exploits those whom they are pleased to call guest workers, the Gast Arbeiters in northern Europe and the manner in which it relegates them to the status of almost non-persons let alone non-citizens.
Among the difficulties under which these people from the Mediterranean countries labour, particularly if they are outside the EEC, is that they cannot bring their families with them. They are forced to live in certain kinds of regimented dwellings. They come when they are needed, when the work supply demands that they come, and then they are sent away when that work is no longer available to them. In Switzerland last week, to my horror, I discovered that a motion was put forward in the Lausanne area and it was simply as follows: that these guest workers would be allowed to occupy ordinary digs, that they would no longer be forced to live in barracks without their families and without identity as citizens but to register under their names in digs, hotels, guesthouses, lodgings, flats, and in this most enlightened of modern countries the vote was four to one against. In no way were they allowed to register as human beings under their own names or have rights as citizens, even the right to vote. They had to live where they were told to live and the conditions in which they live, I understand, are awful because it is not just that they are subhuman but that they are quite expensive and the amount of money they bring back when they return to their families is very little.
Germany has the same problem. Similar conditions exist. I am putting this much as a question to the Minister who I know is concerned about such matters as I am putting it as a statement or proposition. How do we in Ireland react to this situation? We have a particular kind of history and we have a particular kind of contribution to make towards a debate of this kind. I can think of nothing worse in our history than the tatie hokers who went to Scotland. I cannot think of people living in worse human conditions than that. Perhaps the hygiene conditions are better but the tatie hokers could I think bring their families. I recall that they used to bring their elder children because they could do a little extra work and return to the North of Ireland. When our people went on the second great wave of emigration during the famine years to America they were characterised there in the parliament of the time as "white niggers". I apologise for the term but it is an historical term. Naturally I do not subscribe to the pejorative overtones in the phrase. But very often they landed in America with cholera or fever and they were extremely sick. They had made debilitating journeys in coffin ships. But when they got there eventually they were at least allowed to be citizens. They could occupy digs. They could put their names over the door if they had shops. They could bring their families with them, they could send for their relatives and they could come out and join them. That was in the nineteenth century when the notion of laissez faire ruled: when there was no sense that either America or Scotland in those years was preening itself on having a social conscience. “What will be will be” they said and, “let it happen; let the fittest come to the top.”
I am referring now to Europe, to countries within the EEC and other European countries who do adopt very large moral postures and slogans on social justice. This is happening there and happens visibly in front of you. If you go to Mass in a Catholic church in Germany you will see it happening: you will see these people cowering at the back of the church. If you look down when the sewers are being dug they are there. They are there as long as they are wanted and then they are sent away when they are not wanted. People often said that we should be very thankful to Britian for instance for the fact that during the 'forties and 'fifties they accepted our labourers and gave them employment. We should be very grateful: they employed them when they wanted them and they sent them back home when they did not want them, but at least they allowed their families to come with them. They did not relegate them to the position of non-persons.
I am really going in an unscientific way over this ground in raising this question. I think it is unique in the history of Europe. I do not think that even in medieval Europe the Jews were treated quite as badly as this, in other words that this body of non-persons from the southern European countries are allowed to do the dirty work of the EEC and other countries. They are sent home if they are not wanted and they are given no status whatsoever. I think a country with our history — and I put this to the Minister — of deprivation in this very line should have a very strong policy on this. I would be very grateful to know what the Minister has to say on the matter of gast arbeiters, the guest workers as they are so splendidly called within the European Community and in other parts of northern Europe.
In my opinion one of the most important disciplines in the functioning of this House has been its responsibility in debating these European development reports. Otherwise I think the interest in European affairs in the Oireachtas would seem to take a very low priority. While the time taken by local legislation is very important we do not appear to be looking far enough forward to the broader issues under discussion and being proposed in the European Parliament.
I am pleased to hear the Minister's report on the various aspects of agricultural regional policy and the VAT resources situation, the lifting of the arbitrary ceiling. I am very anxious about this as I have said in previous debates because I feel there are some industries at a disadvantage as I mentioned previously unless the harmonisation of VAT rates takes place. I refer to the newspapers, biscuit and other industries and I do not think it is fair to lift this arbitrary ceiling unless there is harmonisation of the rates of VAT.
Having said that, I commend the Government on their energy policy which has certainly made us very conscious of the necessity to conserve energy. This has led to a levelling-off in the growth of energy usage which is very important at this stage of the recession. Senator Whitaker mentioned this and it brings me back to the problem I had as a member of the Electricity Supply Board, the national problem of whether current consumers should have to finance future energy sources which will produce cheaper electricity in the future. What concerns me, and it is the most important point I have to make in this debate, is the lack of contact between Members of the Oireachtas and our Euro delegates. I can see — and other Members have raised the point during the debate — that the lack of communication is very evident. What must the public feel if we are not getting this response from our European delegates? I should certainly like more feedback from our representatives of all parties in the European Parliament so that we can be better informed of what is being discussed or proposed in that parliament.
It is now patently obvious that representatives cannot hold both jobs and I am glad that the Government recently took the decision regarding the dual mandate system in respect of Deputies elected to the European Parliament since the last election, that if they go forward in the coming election they will have to resign their European posts if re-elected to the Dáil. I am not sure if other parties have adopted this policy but it is essential in my opinion. The lack of communication between our European representatives and the Oireachtas is borne out by this debate this afternoon. The relationship should be more clearly defined so that we could hear more often from our representatives of the benefits and the controversial aspects of a variety of topics and the directives which affect this country. We could be better informed when we debate these developments in the European Community if we had more direct reporting from our delegates there and it could assist us in discussing more fully the effect of decisions being taken in Brussels which impinge on our future economic and cultural planning at home.
I was glad to read today that Deputy Richie Ryan was concerned with the solving of the internal dispute about where the Parliament should meet. The present extravagant and time-wasting rotations between three venues, Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels is ludicrous. If one venue could be agreed on there would be possible savings to the European taxpayers of an estimated £15 million to £20 million per annum and I would like to hear more from our other European delegates that they are supporting Deputy Ryan's efforts to bring this solution about. In the address by Mr. Gaston Thorn of Luxembourg which we printed in this report, there is no mention of culture although since he assumed the responsibility of the Presidency he has assumed responsibility for culture. In fact, I am dissappointed that throughout the recent reports the only mention of culture is in the Fifteenth Report which refers to meetings on the objective of harmonising rates of VAT on works of art between members of the Community. Decisions have been put on the long finger which means that our irrational interpretation of VAT legislation on works of art is detrimental to cultural exchange within the Community. The Council of Europe have stated that providing cultural opportunities for all levels of society is a priority concern. Therefore, lack of reference in the reports on the recent developments in the European Communities to that objective is all the more extraordinary. We have had enough experience to know how difficult it is to bring about unity through economic and political objectives. We neglect the fact that European civilisation with its many internal ramifications springs from the same sources and that a common-based European culture provides the foundation not only of Europe's cultural unity but of its economic and politic unity, too.
As the President of the Hellenic Republic said more than a year ago, the strength, the solidity, the historic durability of a united Europe rests on a unity of spirit, on a cultural oneness, a common ideological base and a common conception of life's highest values, particularly the value of man and his freedom. There are differences but, fortunately, these give European culture its richness. As we pause to consider the differences between the cultures of Europe as a whole and the cultures of other parts of the world, we cannot fail to be struck by the Kinship within the European cultures. In enlarging the Community we argue about such items as apricots, tomatoes, wine, butter, textiles and steel, but we tend to ignore the aspect of cultural co-operation which, though perhaps less obvious and less visible, is equally basic, because in the final analysis this cultural co-operation will serve as the foundation for every other endeavour, expecially the growing awareness of the cultural oneness of Europe.
Our Government and the Minister in particular are committed to the promotion of greater cultural exchanges, by way of the cultural relations committee, within the EEC. I welcome the entry of Greece because I hope that more attention will be given to the objectives of the Council of Ministers so far as cultural opportunities are concerned in the future.
Professor Doolan
Nine years ago we were engaged in a referendum, the outcome of which brought us resoundingly into the European Communities, a move with which I was delighted personally. That move was the right one for Ireland to have taken. It was in line with geographical, historical and indeed cultural realities so far as this country's position was concerned. In addition it made sense in terms of politics and of economics. Ireland's best interests are served by increasing co-operation and development in the direction of European political and economic unity.
The fact that since our accession we have been troubled with two serious economic recessions and that as a result our standard of living has not increased as quickly as people had hoped is no argument against our having joined and our participating fully in that Community. Both of these world recessions had their origins in the Middle East. When Europe and the world generally come to terms with the changed economic environment that has resulted from those Mid-East changes — while this may have long-term effects on the standard of living in the so-called Western World — we may discover again that we are clearly part of the European Economic Community in terms of social and economic development.
The Community gave us the opportunity, while becoming part of a union, to maintain our individuality. The phrase "unity in diversity" is appropriately applied to Ireland's or to any country's experience in the Community.
I should like to make some brief remarks on five of the 18 chapters of this report. The first chapter touches on the subject of European political co-operation, and that aspect of this political co-operation to which I should like to refer relates to the unique role which Ireland, by virtue of its history and its military neutrality, is capable of playing in the discussion of international problems and in the putting forward of tentative solutions to them. The very fact that in this very month an Irishman proudly occupies the Chair of the Security Council of the UN is an example of the part which a country like Ireland can play at times in improving the world climate for peace and development. Regarding another troubled spot, the Middle East, the fact that an Irish General should be the head of the UNIFIL forces is another example of a role that Ireland can play more appropriately because of the independent and neutral position that it is capable of taking in international affairs and, flowing from that little phrase, "unity in diversity", a diversity in which Ireland is able to maintain its individuality, are benefits to the European Community.
It is tragic that another Irishman, Private Hugh O'Doherty, should have lost his life in the Middle East agus gúim go dtiocfaidh an saighdiúir óg ó Inis Thiar, Caoimhín Ó Seoighe, slán abhaile.
The fourth chapter treats of external relations and trade. I should like to see the Community which, of course, has a common market, protect itself to some extent against the vagaries of world trade. I should like to see it, while gaining reasonable benefit from that sort of association, taking a constructive and world view of economic development generally.
Inevitably this causes one to think of the Third World and their need for proper trading facilities visà-vis the developed world — and that includes Europe — and that apart from providing the appropriate trading framework we in this country should give good example by redoubling our efforts whereby that target of 7 of 1 per cent of our GNP will be given in public resources to the Third World. I made a suggestion in this House before Christmas that this matter of public aid to the Third World should be the concern of a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas, a forum in which this topic would be seen in a truly national and non-party context.
With regard to the question of trade it is appropriate to refer to the very serious imbalance existing in trade between Japan and the European Community. By coincidence today happens to be the birthday of His Highness, the Emperor of Japan. Perhaps it is the appropriate day on which to reflect on the great growth of that Japanese economy and, in the widest world context, that the development of Japan, of Europe and of North America must be seen in a balanced way, the world economy generally and its development being borne in mind.
Chapter 4 on agriculture raises a topic of supreme importance to Ireland. Here I should like to commend the strenuous efforts of our Minister and delegation in winning that package which constituted nearly 14 per cent of a price increase this year for our agricultural produce. With reference to the common agricultural policy I should stress that inevitably over the years it will evolve. It is important that our policy makers be strengthened by research and study so that the evolution of that common agricultural policy will be something that we will be able to influence in a direction that will benefit the Community in general and Ireland in particular.
Chapter 8 on industrial policy reminds one of the special Protocol Ireland negotiated before accession. It is worth stressing that the special position that that Protocol conferred on Ireland is one that we must be vigilant in maintaining so that whatever external diseconomies — by virtue of distance and size — we may suffer relative to other countries in Europe will be helped by the special arrangements we entered into and were agreed by the European Community on our accession. Indeed our industrial development depends very significantly on the duty-free access of our goods to a Community of 260 million or more. Were it not for our having joined the European Communities the development of Irish industry could not have been undertaken with the same confidence that attended the efforts of the IDA and of Irish industrialists generally in recent years.
With reference to chapter 12 on regional policy I should like to make the general point that regional policy should not be conceived of narrowly as the transfer of resources from the more prosperous to the less prosperous, or the more backward, as they are referred to in some of the Treaty documents. Rather the concept should be one of the less developed regions getting a little pump-priming so that thereafter — under their own steam — they can go forward economically to the benefit not alone of themselves but of the more advanced parts of the Community as well. One aspect of our accession that has not resulted in the hoped for benefits — to the extent to which we have achieved them — is in this area of regional policy. But there have been transfers which have been of great help to us. One would like to think that a more enlightened and perhaps less pressed Community might be able to find more resources in the regional policy area. However, one welcomes the non-quota section of the regional fund which has benefited craft industries and tourism in Border areas of Ireland. That is a good example of the way in which the Community can help this country, by addressing itself to economic problems in Border areas resulting from the very existence of the Border. One might contend that the wider context afforded within the European Community may help the resolution of problems existing between this island and the neighbouring one, Great Britain. Indeed that context may help us to resolve some problems within this island itself. It will not solve all those problems but the European context can make a contribution towards resolving certain of those difficulties.
Since efforts were made recently by the European Human Rights Commissioners to address themselves to a serious problem in our country — and more particularly in the H Blocks — it is tragic that the failure by Bobby Sands to adopt the complaint meant that the Commissioners themselves were unable to give that kind of opinion on prison conditions which would have been accepted as objective and impartial.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would hope the Senator would not widen the scope of the debate too much.
Professor Doolan
That is the only point I wished to make — that the European context affords us an opportunity to address ourselves to certain acute national problems.
I welcome the opportunity of making a small contribution on one or two of the points raised in the Development of the European Communities Seventeenth Report. The House has heard me before refer to a document which for me, at any rate, is a rich source of information, that is the document called Eorascáil, produced by our colleague in Europe, An tUasal Ó Ruairc. In the March edition I have here he draws attention to what seem to be recent developments, as he says in Irish:
B'fhéidir go bhfuil an Comhphobal ar tí céim an-tábhachtach a ghlacadh i dtreo comhbheartais eachtraigh.
He points out that there is an inevitable tendency in the EEC to move towards some agreement on external policy. He also points out that although there are many institutional arrangements to look after the economic issues that arise in the EEC there are none to deal with the external issues. He points out that Lord Carrington in his report recommended that some sort of a committee would be set up which would be full-time staffed to look after the important external policies with a view to getting general agreement amongst the Ten. The question is "Do the Ten want to do that?" He expresses it very well in Irish where he says:
Ach, agus cúrsaí idirnáisiúnta ag dul mar atá, is léir, níos soiléire ná riamh, do cheannairí na mballstát nach neart go cur le chéile.
I saw a figure mentioned in relation to matters taken up at the UN that the Ten seem to find agreement in something like 84 per cent of the issues raised in the UN. There obviously is a relentless convergence in the EEC towards having some common external policy. It is interesting that the Germans are in agreement there. It says in the report:
Ba é aire gnóthaí eachtracha na Gearmáine, Hans Dietrich Genscher, a chéad chan an port nua. "Ní ceart dúinn dearmad a dhéanamh de," ar sé, "gur sprioc polaitiúil go príomha atá taobh thiar den iarrachta chun an Eoraip a aontú. Tá níos mó i gceist ná eacnamaíocht, trádáil agus rachmas. Caithfimid ár gcomhghreamú polaitíochta, agus dá bhrí sin áit an hEorpa sa domhan, a dhaingniú más main linn ár leas a chosaint ar bhealach cuí." Chuige sin mhol sé conradh nua Eorpach faoi chomhoibriú i réimse na polaitíochta idirnáisiúnta.
Supporting that line it also says:
tá ráite ag uachtarán na Fraince Valéry Giscard d'Estaing agus ag aire gnóthaí eachtracha na hlodáile, Emilio Colombo, araon gur mithid do thíortha an Chomhphobail céimeanna breise a ghlacadh i dtreo comhbheartais eachtraigh níos fuinniúla.
We as a nation should recognise that there is a need for this political policy for the EEC as well and that when we take a fairly narrow view of things on the one hand we expect everyone in Europe to look after us and provide us with money to pay for all sorts of things, but on the other hand we want a "hands off" policy when it comes to taking a political view. This is the relentless convergence or trend that is emerging in the European scene and it is rather nice to see it written up so well in the Irish language in the "Eorascáil" report.
I recommend that this report should get far more circulation in the Irish scene. Most Fianna Fáil cumainn have a coiste na Gaeilge as have most of the comhairlí and if this report were brought to their attention and used as a basis for discussion on what is happening in Europe we would kill two birds with the one stone. People would discuss important issues as they are taking place in Europe and through the medium of Irish.
This report brings out the point that a myth seems to exist that Brussels is packed with civil servants costing everybody a colossal amount and holding everybody up. Recently a question was put to the European Parliament on this and it seems that the total number of civil servants covering activities in the separate countries represents something like 3 per cent. Out of 260 million people there are 7.5 million civil servants in the nine countries that were examined at that time. There are 11,600 European civil servants which represents .0045 per cent of the population. It is interesting that that small percentage of the population is engaged in bringing about developments in Europe with Senator Doolan rightly reminded us we went for wholeheartedly nine years ago. The point that the chairman, Hans Dietrich Genscher, made is worth highlighting. He said that we should not forget that it was mainly a political objective that was behind the effort to unify Europe. To spend .0045 per cent of the population in bringing that about does not seem to be unreasonable. At the same time I do not say that we should go to town and have excessive unnecessary expenditure just for the sake of having European civil servants.
Chapter 11 of the report goes into the economic issues. It can be seen that the GNP has fallen from 3.4 per cent to 1.3 per cent growth rate and that inflation is running around 13.7 per cent generally in the EEC. It is important to get our situation into perspective. There is a tendency to think that the economic situation here is not in good shape and statements are made by various people, including Deputy FitzGerald, the leader of the Fine Gael Party, who would not tell us his policy for the development of the economy because if he did it would be taken up by others and he said that Fianna Fáil did not release their manifesto until they went to the people in 1977. I have here a 35-page document which outlined the economic policies for Fianna Fáil which was published in September 1976 under the heading "Fianna Fáil Research and Support Services". This is an example of the nonsense that was talked in public about economic policy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is loath to interrupt the Senator but we are discussing the Seventeenth Report on Developments in the European Communities.
Are we not discussing the Irish economic situation as a part of the European economic situation? Surely I can dwell on economic and monetary policy?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are discussing it only in the context of the Seventeenth Report which covers six months in 1980. The Chair would be obliged if the Senator would confine his remarks to that period.
There is a projection up to this period, showing that if the policies of the Coalition were followed at that time we would have no extra employment and would have a balance of payments deficit of £1,200 million. All this was published in September 1976, not when the manifesto was published. I would not mind having a go at my colleague, Deputy McCreevy, on that subject.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair will be quite firm on this matter. This report covers the period from June 1980 to January 1981 and I must insist that the Senator confine his remarks to that period.
I accept the ruling. The growth in our GNP was greater than the EEC average in 1977, 1978 and 1980. That was the result of a policy published in September 1976 by the back-up research group of Fianna Fáil.
The report on the economic situation shows that Europe's share of the world export market has dropped somewhat but the Irish share has gone up. Also the Irish export share of the EEC market has risen. Ireland is more than holding its own in a situation where it is admitted that the difficulties being caused in the EEC are due mainly to the increase in oil costs and to a fall in real private consumption due to a rise in the savings ratio in the EEC. Despite that, through our policy we have been able to achieve a situation where an extra 87,000 people are employed, although no extra people have been employed in the EEC as a whole. We have achieved this at a time when the labour pool has risen by 77,000. A policy is being followed in this country which is enabling us to get over the difficult situations described in this report.
As a result of our following up the monetary rather than the economic aspect of EEC policy we have been in a position to get loans of over £200 million, which brought with them a £45 million interest subsidy, as a result of entry to the EMS. This happened soon after Fianna Fáil came into office. I would remind Senator Lambert that the EEC Joint Committee put forward a lot of good material to the Seanad to enable Senators to find out what is going on at EEC level. There are many such reports available.
I am disappointed that the setting up of the European Monetary Fund which was to come about by March of this year has been delayed. The coming into existence of this fund is important because the gnomes or the people in the City of London who conveniently stayed outside the EMS may put a run on various currencies and large amounts will be required to protect them. I hope the Minister will continue to press for the setting up of this fund. Sometimes I feel that the governors of the Central Bank are not too happy about it because it might mean a diminution of the power of central banks. We have a small, open economy without much discretion regarding the setting of prices of main goods or the price of our imports and it would help if we used our influence to get the Ten to stabilise matters. It is disappointing that what was promised for March 1981 has not yet materialised. The £200 million has, however, been made available and is being used on telecommunications, the development of peat bogs and peat processing and the building of advance factories to provide employment for our young people.
Regarding the energy situation, in terms of the use of oil our position is worse than the EEC average. They hope in the EEC to reduce oil dependence from 54 per cent to 40 per cent by 1990, while the figure here is 65 per cent. I believe we should spend money on wave energy research. Research people in Europe are not interested in waves off the west coast of Ireland; they are interested in coal in Belgium and nuclear power stations in Germany. We have a renewable sources of energy off the west coast which could in theory supply the full generating capacity of the ESB at present, yet not one penny of EEC money is being spent on this research. Members of the Joint Committee are going to Europe next week to make a plea for such expenditure. Some very good Irish researchers are working in this area and they are not receiving enough encouragement. It will be remembered that many Irish scientists in the past did not receive encouragement and they were later shown to be right.
There should be room for much co-operation in the development of satellite communications and broadcasting. We have now reached the stage where it will soon be economic to have a transmitter in space transmitting a wide range of channels which could be received in domestic homes. This will have a huge impact on the pattern of international communications and we must follow these developments closely. Ní neart go cur le chéile. Clearly the cultural potential for a scheme of broadcasting of that kind would mean that every country would conveniently receive television broadcasting originating in other EEC countries which will add to the integration of the various countries making up the EEC. We would want to make sure that our special cultural attributes, particularly the language, the folk music and art forms will have their position in the European scene. They had them many centuries ago and they led in them. It is important that this should be the case again. I was very pleased to see in the "Eorascáil" report that John Hume, European MP, is behind a debate on what they call the Bille Cearta do Mhionteangacha or a Rights Bill for minority languages. An Italian chaired a committee which produced a report, known as the ARFÉ report, which sets out what should be done in the case of the minority languages. It reads very well in terms of what the Europeans think should happen to minority languages throughout Europe. It is a reminder to us that we must not in any way give up the vigour behind our efforts to sustain our language and develop a bilingulad policy which the Taoiseach laid out so clearly recently in the Ard Fheis. I will not quote all the items but some of them are "mionteangacha a mhúineadh mar chuid dhílis den churaclam ón naíscoil suas go dtí an tríú leibhéal". They want the minority langauges to be on the curriculum for children from pre-school up to the third level. "Mionteangacha a cheadú mar mheán múinte sa chóras oideachais"— to allow minority languages to be used as a means of communication in the educational system. Those are just two items applying to the minority languages. We want to make sure they apply to ours. In other words, charity begins at home. It is very nice to see that it is John Hume who is lending his support to this. I hope we keep an eye on it as time goes on. There is an intention to have a seminar about this organised by Gael Linn along with the oifig eolais and coimisiún here in Dublin.
The Minister raised the question of the Middle East and the report covers the action taken by the EEC in relation to a Middle East initiative by the EEC. The Minister knows that the joint parliamentary committee take an interest in this subject. We are very keen that this initiative is followed up vigorously. I wrote briefly in an article for one of the newspapers that I foresaw a very serious situation developing in Lebanon at the end of last year. That came on stream about a month later. Reference has already been made to the death of one of our soldiers in Lebanon, Private Doherty, and another soldier is still missing. The Minister has conveyed his sympathy and has asked the House to do the same. I hope that Private Joyce will be found.
I took the liberty of making contact with some of the people we met when we visited Lebanon and appealed to them to use any influence they have to locate Private Joyce. As far as I am concerned, as co-chairman of that group I would be equally vociferous in condemning the Palestinians as in condemning Major Haddad or the Israelis if they attack Irish soldiers. It was interesting that in speaking to my contact the answer I got was: "Do you know that there is a war on in this country?" There is a serious situation in Lebanon. Anything that the EEC countries can do to produce some solution in that areas will help Europe. Some people ask why we take an interest in what is going on out there, that it is not our problem. It is Europe's problem because our inflation problems are directly related to the extra cost in the price of oil, which has originated from that area. Any problems in oil which arise because of political problems out there will find themselves in the supermarket in Dublin. The EEC should do everything they can to help.
I am very thankful for the constructive debate we have had in the Seanad. This is a matter of fundamental national interest, because there is a remarkable concensus among our people in regard to the importance of our membership of the Community, the importance to our economy and our society and the potential of our membership for the future development of our society. We got the exceptional result of 83 per cent in the referendum to seek membership of the Community, and I do not believe the percentage support is very much removed from that today. There is a very remarkable concensus among the people of Ireland of support for the European Community that is scarcely matched in other countries. There is great support for the European Communities in some other countries but it is not matched by the support here.
There are a number of reasons for this. The main reason is the psychological desire to break out from our dependence on British influence and our British partners in the economic sense. That has been justified by what our membership of the European Economic Community has meant over the past eight years. Germany and France are now our second and third customers in the world as a whole after Britain. In regard to Germany and France we have a plus in regard to our trade balance. I mention that as a symptomatic aspect of how we are achieving a diversification in trade which in my view was one of the mainsprings of argument and debate behind going into the Community in the first instance.
This debate is on the Seventeenth Report. Since our membership of the Community we have had such a debate every six months. Senator FitzGerald referred to European political co-operation which is a non-Community type of involvement where the Foreign Ministers of each of the member states co-operate to a growing degree in an ad hoc manner within the European political system with a view to getting to common consensus positions on as many matters as possible. This has proved to be a very dynamic element, as the Senator described it, within the Community and is working very well although it is not written into the Treaty of Rome. The very fact of meeting regularly, reaching common positions on international matters, has meant that we have developed, as a small country, a new dimension of influence within the Community in that way.
This was reflected in many matters, for instance, in the EMS negotiations when the German and French were very helpful and ensured that matters were eased as far as possible. Within European countries there is a greater appreciation of our position than we could ever have got across as an independent country outside a group of nations like the European Economic Community. I agree with Senator FitzGerald that our actual involvement in European political co-operation has added a dimension to our sovereignty that is not always appreciated by people who talk in terms of sovereignty as if it were something one could pursue in the modern world alone. That is not feasible. The facts are that we are thrown together in a globe that has narrowed very much in the past generation and within that globe we are associated with a group of very powerful and influential countries. That enhances our sovereignty by giving us a greater capacity to deal with our national problems.
Senator Brennan and Senator O'Brien referred to the common agricultural policy and its importance for Ireland. Over the past few years I have been at pains with my colleagues of the Council of Ministers and at various discussions with that Council to emphasise one aspect which needs to be emphasised more and more, particularly with regard to our friends across the water who do not see eye to eye with us on the importance of that policy. We agree the CAP benefits food producing countries like Ireland, but the strategy behind the founding fathers of the European Community was not just to benefit food production in this or that region: it was primarily a strategic political matter to ensure that food production was so organised within the Community that it could be guaranteed to emerge through the agricultural cycle year in and year out. To that extent CAP has been a tremendous strategic instrument in making available to the Community an efficient agricultural work force and guaranteed prices, thereby ensuring the regular production of food and the availability of food to be processed in the most scientific and technological way.
Surpluses have occurred and undesireable surpluses are an administrative problem which is being dealt with by the Commission — I think they have got on top of that problem now. The important thing is to ensure that this democratic community of nations, through voluntary food production, has a constant supply of basic food. Inability and incapacity to cope with food production has been the great failure of the communist states of Eastern Europe. It has also been the great failure of many non-communist arbitrary states in the developing world — in Africa, South America and many other parts of the globe,
I believe food will become a vital factor in the years immediately ahead. In a few years' time we will be dealing not just with energy problems but with the food crisis. Here we have a mechanism and organisation that can guarantee and ensure the efficient production of food. There is no way of diminishing the basic structure and principle of the common agricultural policy. We can argue about surpluses; we can have a more refined system of organising prices and we can do something about orientating agricultural production within the Community and relating it to resources within the Community. Imports of foodstuffs like soya, manioc, tapioca and so on, utilised on a factory farm basis add to the strain on the financial resources of the common agricultural policy.
That is a very real weakness in the structure, but it is not a weakness for which we are responsible, Ireland does not contribute to the surpluses and our agricultural production is geared to what we can grow. Ireland is neither importing food stuffs nor causing gluts through irrational food production. Our type of food production if improved—and it can be—is basically sound, has to be better organised, and with other countries can provide a basic back-up of food production for the Community to which we belong for the future.
On those grounds our case for a common agriculture policy, reformed, improved and adjusted, is unanswerable. The people who seek to erode and destroy the common agricultural policy have a short-term and narrow view. Some of them feel very strongly about other matters, for example, when they talk in terms of strategy and strategic matters and relate them to military aspects. Food and energy can be considered as strategy in the modern world. These are the real facts and our case rests on that type of attitude. We are not arguing in a protectionist way. We are arguing for something that is important to Ireland and fundamental to the EEC.
Senator Brugha referred to sovereignty and emphasised one important aspect concerning our membership of the United Nations and our contribution towards peacekeeping. I want to emphasise—and Herr Schmidt, the German Chancellor, referred to this in Bonn recently—that our role within the UN is very useful and constructive as far as the Community is concerned. Some people say there is some incompatibility between our membership of and participation in the EEC and our role in the United Nations. That is far from the case. It is very useful and helpful to have a diversity in regard to political attitudes within Europe as a whole rather than adopting a monolithic approach. It is very useful, for instance, that Ireland is now a member of the UN Security Council, something which was largely achieved by the support of countries outside the Community. It is useful that we are acceptable to countries outside the EEC for a peacekeeping role. That is valuable from the point of view of the EEC countries. They realise that because of their power, position and history, some of them—Germany, France and the UK, for instance—are not acceptable in some cases for peacekeeping roles. We are acceptable because of our non-colonial past. We are strongly in favour of the democratic philosophy of the EEC, but our role as a small country enables us to play a part in the UN that is not incompatible with our EEC role.
Senator Whitaker raised the question of nuclear power. There is no compulsion on us to go nuclear or in any other direction in regard to energy utilisation. I agree with him that it is important for us as a small country to diversify as much as possible, to try to apply a policy of energy substitution and exploitation, and to be careful about embarking on any new high investment areas in regard to energy utilisation. The Senator is right and we are hopeful of developments in regard to offshore and onshore gas and oil. This hope has been added to by the likely favourable outcome for us of the Law of the Sea-Conference which may add to us substantial interests in the Continental Shelf. It means new interests for us in regard to resource exploitation. It behoves us, therefore, to be careful about rushing into new energy utilisation. It is more important to concentrate on the hard slog of existing energy conservation and substitution.
Senator Lambert spoke on the same theme and he added a dimension in regard to culture which I will have investigated. As he was speaking I noticed that there is an absence of a cultural section in the report. This is primarily a national rather than an EEC area, although I find one of the biggest elements in projecting the proper image of a nation is its cultural contribution, how a nation projects itself in a cultural manner. I would point to the recent exhibition in the US, the National Museum exhibition, of Irish gold and silver objects. A similar one is in mind, though much larger, for Germany and France and there is great excitement in both countries about it. This sort of cultural projection can bring us enormous benefits as a small country. The French, in particular, over the years have emphasised in a big way the importance of this type of promotion. Apart from the uplifting of the soul, there is a practical side to projecting the image of a country, especially a small country, its history vis-à-vis its present position. A lot of good practical business can be done——
Good strategy.
Senator Doolan spoke about the wider connotation of a regional policy. I agree with him. The whole negative accountancy approach to EEC revenues is all wrong. It is good business for the whole Community to have a dynamic, positive regional policy, but it is not there at the moment. It is good business for the EEC to develop the regions, to have communities prospering throughout the EEC. It makes very good sense from the point of view of the wealthier areas in the Community. Therefore, the 1 per cent limitation on own resources as far as VAT is concerned is no longer credible. The Community will cease to function if that is adhered to longer than next year.
In all countries in the Community there are budgetary and financial problems, but if the Community is to be serious, the present financial limitations which are constraining seriously the administration of social and regional funds and the CAP simply make the Community inoperable. Either one believes in a Community in which there will be a growing convergence in regard to prosperity and capacity or one does not believe in it, and if one does not one is opting for a group of nations operating together in a free trade area or association.
That is not what the Community is about. It is a positive living instrument in which the peoples are moving gradually towards political, economic and monetary union. Those are the stated principles and policies of the Community and if we are serious about these stated principles, the 1 per cent limitation in regard to revenue earnings from own resources is not on. It is a severely limiting factor in the context of declared policies.
I should like to clarify one aspect. Some of the countries within the Community who have adopted an over accountancy approach do not really quantify fully from their own point of view what the Community is about. It can be said that it costs £x to ensure a transfer of resources through the social fund, the regional fund or the common agricultural policy but it is a fact — although difficult to quantify — that the free trade area itself, within the community, for the passage of industrial and manufactured goods and services has been of enormous benefit to some of the major industrial countries within the Community. From a practical, economic and industrial point of view they have gained tremendously from the market and the free trade within the market. If these countries have to pay a price in regard to the transference of resources it is a legitimate price having regard to the market which has been very good to them. There is also the strategic aspect that the very existence of the Community, its structure and administration, in a key part of the world, has meant a degree of safety for all the countries within the Community.
Senator Martin raised the point about migrant workers. His remarks were very valid from a social point of view. This is not a Community matter, it is a matter for countries within the Community where these workers are the first to suffer in a recession. They also suffer from the disability of not having their families with them and so on. As the Senator said, it is a reflection of today's social conscience in certain parts of the Community. His remarks were relevant. Fortunately, we do not have that problem but other countries in the Community do. It is something which should be emphasised and I intend to do all I can in that respect, although we are not really involved. It is one of the great problems in Europe. A potential source of difficulties and troubles is the enormous numbers of Turks, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Portuguese, Algerians, Moroccans and Libyans who are living in very bad circumstances in many European cities.
There were a number of other points raised. Senator McDonald mentioned processing of grants and so on. I want to assure Senator McDonald that while, in individual cases, what he says may be right, that firms or co-operatives may through slowness in building or construction or submitting applications delay receipt of grants, there is no delay as far as the public service is concerned. As far as moneys due to this country directly through State agencies are concerned, we have the best record in the Community in regard to preparing and submitting applications and getting the money back. That is borne out in Annex II of the report under the heading "Applications Awaiting Decision". The big delay there is the £10.5 million under the guidance section of FEOGA. That is primarily various agricultural processing projects within the competence of particular firms or co-operatives. In areas where the State itself or State agencies are the applicants and recipients, there are practically no delays, as can be seen from the figures. The big amount outstanding for 1980 relates to the private area of application. It is important to look at the figure and to re-emphasise the total figures both in regard to grants and loans as far as benefit to this country from the Community is concerned.
When one adds up the total amounts approved in 1980 under the various headings, FEOGA, Guarantee and Guidance, European Social Fund, European Regional Fund and so on, the total figure comes to £569.5 million, practically £570 million in direct grants. When one adds to that for 1980 the total loans received by Ireland from Community institutions, one has a figure of £225.9 million. There is £256 million by way of loans, £570 million by way of grants directly attributable to Community sources for 1980 and the subsidies on the particular loans that I have referred to of £260 million odd. The subsidies relating to those loans comes to £45 million. That is a substantial benefit accruing to this country.
I do not put the case for being a member of the Community entirely on that aspect, I put it on the broader aspect that we have been enabled to participate in a much fuller way as far as developing our economy and our society are concerned. It is of psychological value to Irish society and it has been of tremendous benefit. It has broadened the dimensions of our young people who are showing an increasing interest in a broader Community which hopefully in time will mean we can out-run and remove the prejudices which still, unfortunately, bedevil certain aspects of life here. I hoped eight years ago that our membership of the Community would have done that by now. It has not, but it does represent the only hope and the only real way forward for sensible Irish people, North and South. It is important to realise that the problems of Northern Ireland and the problems of our community are the same, the problems of an island community on the periphery of Europe, the same regional and social agricultural policy problems. I would like to see within the Community an appreciation of that fact on both sides of the Border and by our neighbouring island. It should be realised that there is a certain mutuality of interest, to put it no further.
Does the Minister agree that the IDA should assist individuals, firms and co-operatives in the matter of enabling grants?
What does the Senator mean by enabling grants?
FEOGA will not grant-aid projects unless they qualify for grant aid from the national government. Some of the neighbouring countries give enabling grants at 3 or 4 per cent in order that people may qualify for the 25 per cent FEOGA grant. However, the IDA have consistently refused to help small industries in this country.
That is in respect of the small industries section. It does not apply to major milk and meat processing projects. They qualify for grants. However, I will be in touch with the Senator on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.10 p.m.sine die.