I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Reports:
Developments in the European Communities — Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports.
Developments in the European Communities—Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports: Motion.
I second this motion.
The Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports currently before the House outline developments within the Community for the 12 months from July 1981 to July 1982. Community business during this period was dominated by the issue of the future financing of the Community and the demands of the UK for a reduction in their so-called "net contribution" to the Community budget. This issue has continued to dominate Community business up to the present day and in the months ahead we will be dealing with many more of these issues. Irish policy in these negotiations has remained essentially unchanged under successive Governments. We have continued to press the urgency of the case for an increase in the Community's Own Resources. That, of course, in the main concentrates on getting the VAT limit of 1 per cent raised. At the same time, we have vigorously opposed any attempt to seek so-called "budgetary balance" by undermining the principles or operation of the common agricultural policy.
That is, of course, the area which has the greatest interest for Ireland in the area where we had to defend consistently the policy which is so important to our country.
The fact that the EEC is fast approaching the currently agreed ceiling to their own resources has tended to place a straitjacket on the development of the Community. With unemployment reaching almost unprecedented levels in Europe, there is an urgent need to develop existing policies, in particular the regional and social funds, while at the same time designing new policies in such areas as industry, transport and the new technologies. Only in this way can the Community demonstrate its responsiveness, and thereby its relevance, to the needs of the peoples of Europe. Successive European Councils — the most recent being the Stuttgart meeting of 17-19 June — have underlined the importance of such development. However, the absence of agreement on additional resources effectively continues to hinder its achievement.
The recent Stuttgart Summit, as the Taoiseach indicated to the Dáil on his return, provided a strong impetus for the resolution of the current impasse. A special emergency procedure, for instance, has been instituted to speed up consideration of the basket of measures now on the table. The first phase of that will be tomorrow when we have a special Council meeting in Brussels to agree timetables and arrange this series of meetings that I will refer to over the next six months. Special Councils will be held involving Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance and Agriculture. These councils will review the entire range of questions at issue and will report to the Athens summit on 6 December which, we anticipate, should be in a position to take definitive decisions on the future financing and direction of the European Community. This is of vital importance for the future of the Community, and for Ireland's position within it.
The alternative to an early decision to put new own resources in place would be contraction, decline and disillusionment. I cannot believe that any Government in Europe, conscious of the achievement and potential of the Community, would wish this to happen. Stuttgart, in a sense, bore witness to this. We now, as a result, have the political guidelines and the accelerated procedure to enable us to advance and progress, but we must do so quickly. Time is no longer on our side. In fact, the recent statistics available in regard to agriculture spending bring this point even more closely home to us.
The debate on the future financing of the Community is taking place against the backdrop of the world recession — a recession which has placed severe constraints on the budgets of all Governments and institutions. Its most tragic manifestation for the Community is the escalating rise in unemployment in all member states.
Successive European Councils have devoted considerable attention both to analysing the underlying causes and to the development of policies to counteract the recession. They considered that the objective of reducing unemployment called for a co-ordinated policy among the member states to promote productive investment, to increase competitiveness and productivity, and to develop a Community industrial strategy based on a technology and innovation policy. Agreement was reached to step up efforts to modernise European economic structures, to increase the convergence of the Community economies and to develop a specific Community measure to combat unemployment, especially among our young people. All of you with an interest in this country will see how important these areas are to us at home.
This fight against unemployment continues to be the Community's number one priority. The recent agreement on the review of the European Social Fund marks an important development of the Community's strategy. Two points in this review have special significance for Ireland. First, 40 per cent of fund aid will be devoted to the six "super-priority" regions, which include Ireland and Northern Ireland. Under the Commission's original proposals, it was proposed to abolish the existing legal guarantee of 50 per cent of the fund for regions eligible for regional fund aid. Indeed, some members were opposed to any regional allocation of social fund aid. It is, therefore, a considerable achievement that we have obtained a guarantee of 40 per cent of the fund aid for the super-priority regions which, on average over the last three years, have received a total of 38 per cent of the fund's aid.
The second point in the review which I wish to note is the allocation of 75 per cent of the fund's resources to the promotion of employment among young people. The effect of these two points, the regional and youth allocation, should be to ensure that we can further intensify our efforts to provide employment, training and work experience for the young people of Ireland.
Already, as can be seen from the tables in both reports, Ireland receives considerable aid from the social fund. In 1982, for instance, some IR£73.2 million had been received for operations in Ireland.
The Nineteenth Report notes that in October 1981 the Commission submitted their proposals to amend the regional fund regulations. I regret that agreement has not yet been reached by the Council on this review. Following discussions at a number of recent council meetings which I attended the major outstanding issue is the degree to which the fund's quota section should be further concentrated on the less developed regions of the Community. Ireland will continue to seek effective further concentration of the fund's resources.
With regard to payments from the fund, the Nineteenth Report points out that in 1981 Ireland received IR£53.9 million from the quota section and IR£0.66 million from the non-quota section for the special border areas programme. The equivalent figures for 1982 were IR£64 million from the quota section and IR£2 million from the non-quota section.
I turn now to agriculture where the prices agreement for the 1982/83 marketing year provided for an overall level of price increase of 11 per cent. Agreement was reached late into the marketing year on 18 May and then only after a UK attempt to block agreement had been successfully challenged. The agreement this year on agricultural prices resulted in an overall increase of 9½ per cent. Once again, however, agreement was not reached until late into the 1983-84 marketing year — on 17 May. Successive Ministers for Agriculture have protested strongly at this tendency for delay in agreement on the prices package. Such agreement should be arrived at prior to the commencement of the marketing year for milk and beef in April.
There were intensive negotiations during the period under review aimed at the establishment of a Common Fisheries Policy, which was finally agreed early this year. The adoption of what is, in effect, the third fully developed policy area in the Community, demonstrates the continuing vitality of the EEC and marks probably the most important development in the Community in recent years. The adoption of the CFP now opens the way for the future long-term development of the Irish fishing industry.
Progress was achieved in the negotiations on the accession of Portugal and Spain to the Community in the first half of last year, when agreement was reached on mini-packages of certain chapters listed in the report. Following the request by the European Council last June, the Commission submitted to the European Council of 2-4 December 1982, an inventory of the problems posed by enlargement. The recent European Council on 17-19 June adopted a declaration which contained a statement that the accession negotiations with Spain and Portugal will be pursued with the objective of concluding them, so that the accession treaties can be submitted for ratification when the result of the negotiation concerning the future financing of the Community is submitted.
Ireland, along with the other member states, wishes to see a speedy and successful conclusion of the negotiations on enlargement of the Community. At the same time, we emphasise that a solution to the problems facing the Community in the area of own resources is required in order to ensure that the Community can cope with the effects of enlargement. The link between enlargement and a solution to the future financing of the Community is recognised in the European Council declaration to which I have referred.
A referendum held in Greenland on 23 February 1982 resulted in a majority in favour of withdrawal from the Community. Arising from the results of this referendum, the Danish Government presented a request that Greenland's status in the European Communities be changed from that of full membership to that of association as one of the overseas countries and territories. The Commission has issued its opinion recommending that the Community accede to this request. Discussion of the subject within the Community is proceeding.
In March 1982, the Greek Government presented a memorandum concerning its position on its relations with the European Community. The memorandum referred to the economic problems of Greece, which it attributed partly to Greece's membership of the European Communities and suggested that special arrangements be adopted to alleviate these problems. The European Council of March 1982 requested the Commission to study and report on the memorandum. In June 1982, the Commission set out the results of its initial consideration of the Greek demand, for which it tried to find answers compatible with existing constraints. In March of this year the Commission presented a more detailed report on the subject. This report sets out a number of proposals for Community measures in response to the memorandum.
The subject was discussed at the European Council on 17-19 June. The European Council welcomed the Commission's examination of the problems. It also welcomed the fact that the Commission intends shortly to submit specific proposals, including their financial aspects, in various sectors complementing its earlier proposals. It invited the Council to examine these proposals with a view to concrete decisions before the next European Council.
Turning now to the Community's external relations, the period under review has seen a deepening of the international recession which has placed some strains on the world trading system. It is very heartening for Ireland, as a small open economy, that the Community and its major trading partners have, in general, avoided a protectionist response to these strains and that at the GATT ministerial meeting in November 1982 delegates undertook to resist protectionist pressures.
This is not to say that there are not difficulties. Senators will recall the dispute with the United States over European steel exports. I am happy to say that an agreement was reached in this matter. The United States and other trading partners such as Australia and New Zealand, have also criticised aspects of the Community's agricultural trade policy. This was also a particular issue at the GATT ministerial meeting. I am confident that a satisfactory accommodation can also be reached in this matter. At any rate the Government will seek to ensure that the Community's right to a fair share of the world market in agricultural produce, which was confirmed in the Tokyo Round negotiations, is maintained.
The growth in the Community's adverse trading balance with Japan was a matter of serious concern in the period in question. Senators will appreciate that for certain member states, which manufacture goods such as motor cars, television sets, etc., which are in direct competition with Japanese goods, this is a very sensitive matter. The Community has, therefore, sought to encourage Japan to open its markets to imports of manufactured goods. I am encouraged by the steps which the Japanese Government have taken in this regard. It is, of course, too early to say what their effect will be but the Japanese Government have shown increasing understanding of the concern with which Japan's trade surplus is viewed by her trading partners and this augurs well for future relations between the Community and Japan.
I might perhaps mention two other developments which encourage me in the view that the world trading system will survive the current recession. One was the extension to 1986 of the GATT arrangement on international trade in textiles, the so-called multifibres arrangement. Without the disciplines imposed by this arrangement it would be quite impossible to ensure that while developing and newly industrialised countries got a fair share of the world market in textiles, older textile industries in the developed world had the required breathing-space to adjust to the competition. The other development was the amendment of the OECD arrangement on export credits, adjusting minimum interest rates upwards, particularly for those countries classified as "relatively rich". This avoided a free-for-all in the rates offered under officially supported export credit systems.
An outstanding feature of the Community's development policy is the "Plan of Action to Combat Hunger in the World" which followed an Italian Government initiative and a number of European Parliament Resolutions highlighting the worsening problem of world hunger. As part of this programme, the Development Council of 3 November 1981 agreed to grant 40 million ECU in exceptional food aid to the least developed countries. The plan of action provides for a food strategy approach which seeks to take into account all aspects of the agri-food problems in these countries and to integrate them into a cohesive national development policy. This approach also provides a framework in which the developing countries national policies can be more effectively linked with foreign aid operations. Mali, Kenya, Zambia and Rwanda have been chosen as the initial beneficiary countries.
Progress was made at the Versailles Economic Summit of June 1982 in the direction of agreement on the early launching of global negotiations on international economic co-operation for development, and this was welcomed by the Community. The unfavourable world politico-economic climate has unfortunately meant that further advancement has since then not been realised. Ireland and its Community partners are committed to these negotiations and we are continuing to press for them. A more realistic and pragmatic approach is now being adopted by the developing countries, as evidenced by the non-aligned summit in New Delhi in March and the Buenos Aires ministerial meeting of the G77 in March-April, but the outcome of the recent UNCTAD VI meeting in Belgrade did not live up to the concrete expectations many people had. This meeting concluded last Sunday. It was not a failure but did not reach the level of progress many of us wished. The period under review saw two particularly significant developments in the EPC process. The first of these was the London Report, agreed by Foreign Ministers on 13 October 1981, and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 16 October. The London Report contains a review of the working methods and administrative arrangements of political co-operation. The main body of the report introduces various improvements and adjustments to this machinery, as detailed in Chapter 19 of the 19th Report. In the preamble to the London Report, the Foreign Ministers note with satisfaction that considerable progress has been achieved towards the objective of co-ordinating as closely as possible the foreign policies of the member states. They recognise that EPC has developed to become a central element in the foreign policies of the Ten, so that the Community and its member states are increasingly seen by third countries as a coherent force in international relations. The Foreign Ministers agreed also that foreign policy questions bearing on the political aspects of security would continue to be discussed, thus stating formally what has always been the practice with regard to discussion of security issues within EPC.
The second important development was the launching, on 4 November 1981, of the Genscher/Colombo proposals on European union. These proposals were discussed intensively throughout the period under review. As the House will know, the negotiations on this matter resulted in agreement on the solemn declaration on European union which was signed by the Heads of State or Government of the Community Member States in Stuttgart on 19 June. The solemn declaration on European union involves notably the bringing together under the umbrella of the European Council of the functions of the Communities and of EPC while retaining the essential character of each, the one based on the Treaties and the other on informal ministerial agreements. Closer cultural and legal co-operation is also envisaged.
Ireland sees the signing of the solemn declaration as a particularly timely reaffirmation of the commitment of the member states of the Community to the ideal of economic and political solidarity which inspired the Community at its foundation. Such a reaffirmation is needed as an inspiration to all of us, in all Community countries, as we face into a crucial set of discussions on the future membership, policies and finances of the Community.
The solemn declaration is, of course, in itself no more than an inspiration, it must be followed up by practical action: as Ireland has consistently urged, economic and social progress and the creation of greater convergence between the economies of the member states is the only basis on which to secure progress towards European union. It is the concrete and visible measures taken in these areas which will intensify the interdependence of the member states and which will form the basis of the co-operation which is essential if the task of building a European union is to succeed.
In keeping with their objective of reaching a common stance and speaking with one voice on important questions of foreign policy, the member states have continued to concern themselves with the various areas of tension and conflict in the world. During the past two years the problems of Poland and the Middle East in particular have consistently figured in discussions among the Ten.
The Ten condemned strongly the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in June 1982 and reaffirmed their support for the independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. In addition they are convinced that any attempt to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East must, of necessity, provide for self-determination for the Palestinian people. This, together with the principle that the state of Israel has a right to a secure and peaceful existence within recognised borders, remains central to the Middle East policy of the Ten.
The situation in Poland and the negative impact of that situation on East/West relations generally, continues to be a cause of major concern. Martial law was declared in Poland in December 1981 and the Ten, both jointly and individually, expressed their disapproval, to put it mildly, of events at that time. In their statement on 4 January 1982, the Foreign Ministers appealed for an end to martial law, the release of detainees, and the restoration of a genuine dialogue with the Church and Solidarity. The Council of the European Communities also demonstrated its disapproval of the pressure exerted by the USSR and other Eastern European countries against efforts for renewal in Poland by placing a limit on the importation of certain goods from the Soviet Union.
Although martial law was formally suspended at the end of 1982, this suspension was accompanied by a series of repressive legislative measures which are still in force. The Heads of State and Government of the member states at their recent meeting in Stuttgart expressed their conviction that only a national reconciliation which takes full account of the aspirations of the Polish people, can lead Poland out of its grave crisis.
At the CSCE meeting in Madrid, the Ten have been, and still are, working for agreement on a balanced and substantial concluding document. A decisive stage has now been reached on these negotiations and I hope that it will be possible to bring them to a conclusion soon. There have been considerable developments over the past few days. The Ten, together with a number of other Western delegations, while largely accepting the text of a draft concluding document presented last March by a number of neutral and non-aligned countries consider that some minor improvements to this text are required, designed to strengthen the implementation of the human rights dimension of the Helsinki Final Act.
The period covered by the Twentieth Report saw an outbreak of hostilities in the South Atlantic. This regrettable episode was an issue of major concern to EPC, but I will confine myself here to expressing the hope that we have seen the last of armed conflict in that region of the world.
The situation in Central America in recent years has been marked by large scale human rights violations; the continuation of long-standing social and economic injustices and increased tension within and between certain countries of the region. This has been of considerable concern to all members of the Community. Particular attention was given to the possibility of allocating more Community aid to the region, in an effort to lessen the grave economic and social problems which have given rise to many of the difficulties.
Following its Stuttgart meeting, the European Council issued a statement on Central America in which they expressed their support for the initiative of the Contadora Group, for a political solution springing from the region itself and respecting the principles of non-interference and inviolability of frontiers. The Heads of State and Government underlined the need for the establishment of democratic conditions and the strict observance of human rights throughout the region.
The Ten continue to follow closely events in Africa, particularly in the southern part of the Continent. During the period under review, they welcomed and supported the efforts of the contact group of five western states to find an acceptable basis for the implementation of the United Nations plan on Namibia. The Ten continue to voice their condemnation of the apartheid system in South Africa.
The situation in Afghanistan remains a threat to regional stability and to international peace and security. At its meeting on 29-30 March 1982 the European Council issued a statement which emphasised the importance of reaching a political solution on the basis of the complete withdrawal of foreign troops and respect for the independence, sovereignty and non-alignment of Afghanistan. Unfortunately the troubles in that country still continue.
The Ten continue to the concerned at the failure to achieve any progress towards a negotiated solution to the crisis in Kampuchea. In his statement to the ASEAN meeting on 19 June 1982, the then President-in-Office of the Ten, Mr. Tindemans, reaffirmed that the Ten continue to believe that Vietnamese troops must be withdrawn from Kampuchea, that all internal factions must be disarmed and the right of the Kampuchean people to determine their own future free from intimidation or coercion must be respected.
The situation there is a cause of continuing concern to everybody. The immediate prospects of a solution in that area seem very remote. An unfortunate consequence of the problem in Kampuchea is the very big number of refugees on the border between Kampuchea and Thailand. I mention that having had an opportunity of seeing them when I was attending a recent meeting in Bangkok. It would leave a prominent and indelible mark on anyone to see the conditions under which these unfortunate refugees live, camped between two borders of Thailand and Kampuchea. They cannot get into Thailand and they cannot go back into Kampuchea. In fact, they are hounded along the border strip. In one area I came across a group who had to move for the sixth time because of shellfire. That is an illustration in human terms of what conflict can lead to.
The member states have followed closely events in Turkey, since the military takeover in September 1980. During the period under review discussions among the Ten have concentrated on human rights issues. In February 1982, Mr. Tindemans visited Ankara and made known to the military authorities the concern of the Governments and of the people of the member states at the situation in Turkey. This concern focussed particularly on alleged instances of torture of prisoners and other human rights violations. It is hoped however that the parliamentary elections scheduled for 6 November next, will herald a return to democracy in Turkey. I hope the next time I report to the House we will have seen a return to democracy there.
The Community are now looking forward to their third enlargement with the accession of Spain and Portugal. The Ten recognize the political importance of membership for these two countries, and have therefore, agreed to associate Spain and Portugal as fully as possible with the procedures of European political co-operation. The two future Community members have been kept informed regularly of developments within political co-operation with a view to gradual harmonisation of their foreign policy positions with those of the Ten. During the period under review, the first meeting at ministerial level took place between the Foreign Ministers of the Ten, and their Spanish and Portuguese colleagues. This meeting saw a valuable exchange of views on matters of current interest to both sides.
All in all, then, there was considerable progress and activity in the area of political co-operation in the period under review.
I have here been able to give only a brief summary of the major developments in the Community in the period covered by the reports being debated today. I would, of course, be happy to respond to any questions which Senators raise on these or other developments related to Community affairs.
The period under review was a difficult time for efforts to develop new policies in the Community. Despite the efforts of member states to move ahead, the necessary political will was missing. To some extent this reflected the depth of the recession but now, as we see the first signs of recovery in the international economy, we perhaps can look forward to a more decisive, coherent and relevant response to the problems of the Europe of the eighties and beyond.
In the meantime, however, the Community will have to come to terms with the central issue facing it and overshadowing all other problems — its future financing. Following Stuttgart, as said earlier, negotiations will be started under a special emergency procedure to enable the necessary decisions to be taken at the earliest possible date. I intend that Ireland will play an active, positive and progessive role in these discussions. It is most important for our very relevance as a Community that we achieve a qualitative move forward in Europe. Ireland will be fully involved in the urgent efforts towards this most important goal.
I welcome this debate but I deplore the fact that it has taken so long for this report to come before the House. The report deals with the affairs of the Community since 1 July 1981. That is two years ago despite the fact that section 5 of the 1972 European Communities Act provides that we should have a twice yearly report and debate in this House on the developments in the Community. In case the Minister might feel aggrieved that I should express annoyance at this, I would add that during the short period in office of the previous Government there was no report either. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that immediately after the recess, in the autumn, we will have the reports covering the period up to this year. It is nonsense to be discussing a report on the affairs and business of the Community two years ago especially during a period when great pressure is being experienced, not only at Community level, but at national level. We are entitled to make some input into the management of the Community.
The concept of the Community comes in for more criticism than praise. Many people, with different political views, view the Community from a negative point of view. Greater emphasis should be placed on the achievements of the Community. There should be recognition of the benefits which have flowed from our membership of the Community. A concerted effort should be made to maximise the support and aid which have flowed from the Community since 1973.
I compliment the Minister of State for the very detailed report he made to the House. He has covered the period under review, paragraph by paragraph. His open approach is welcomed by all concerned. We all support him and his Minister's efforts to bring about greater equality not only here but in the Community as a whole.
Recent figures prove beyond doubt that this country is a net beneficiary from membership of the Community. The indications are that we will continue to be so. A strong Community with well-conceived and developed policies is in Ireland's interest. From the time Mr. Costello proposed that we should seek membership in the early sixties, which was supported by Mr. Seán Lemass when he was Taoiseach, I have followed the progress of the Community. There is need for the development of a number of policies. I urge all Ministers to ensure that the development and the introduction of new policies will not be at the expense of the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP has not only provided benefits for producers and processors but has provided the Community as a whole with a very stable food supply. When people criticise the Common Agricultural Policy they should remember other power blocs such as the Soviet Union and China that are not able to feed their population. It is ironic to find people criticising a policy and seeking to have it dismantled when it is successful in feeding the population of the Community. Through the generous policies of the Community, a considerable amount of food aid is disbursed through the food aid programme to many countries.
In the Minister's speech he mentioned the Community's policy and programme to combat hunger. This is a very laudable policy. He said that Mali, Kenya, Zambia and Rwanda would be the initial chief beneficiaries from this increased aid. I should like to ask the Minister why Niger, which is in many ways one of the more oppressed land-locked countries, has not been included in the first tranche of this programme. Looking at it dispassionately their case would surely rank for a stronger commitment.
The Common Agricultural Policy is constantly under attack. If we were to concentrate our efforts on controlling some of the abuses and, to a lesser extent, some of the minor frauds which are committed against this policy at the expense of Community funds in general, we would make a greater contribution. In dealing with the European Communities we, as a nation, should have a policy which would clearly assist, support, advise and facilitate Irish firms, or Irish farmers, or Irish industrialists, or Irish small business projects, to maximise the benefits they can obtain through European Community policies.
This is very important, It beats me to find after ten years that there are so many headings under which funds could flow to this country, were it not for the fact that the various Departments of State like to keep all these schemes under their hats. This is particularly annoying. For instance, we have organisations such as the health boards. They can requisition whatever funds are required either through the county councils or the Department of Health, so they are not particularly worried about their own funding. If they had a little more energy and investigated all the avenues open to them to claim recoupment under the Social Fund, it would be in the national interest for them to do so.
I hope the Minister's Department will look at this problem. There should be absolutely no secrecy in Government circles about how aid should be applied for, or about the problems associated with it. There is one area in the transport policy where we have slipped up. I spent two years as President of the European Parliament's Commission on Transport. I hoped in the mid-seventies that it would be possible to devise a policy that would recognise this country's inaccessible position vis-á-vis the other eight member states. In the interests of fair competition we should be compensated for the fact that it is so expensive either to import to or export from this country. Yet, the fact of our geographical location has not been compensated for in the policy to date.
I hope the Minister will inform his colleague, the Minister for Transport, of this and ask him to investigate what proposals we could make to assist the transport industry in this regard. To equip himself with rolling stock the private haulier has to pay much higher taxes than his competitors even in Northern Ireland. There is a very obvious and recognisable element of unfair competition here. Our people will have to get a fair crack of the whip. Under the Treaty of Rome we are entitled to be compensated so that our hauliers will be able to compete effectively with competition from Northern Ireland, the UK or the Continent as a whole.
I should like to deal briefly with the situation regarding the budget. It is rather difficult to be effective because in the Nineteenth Report we are talking about the first budget of 1981, that is, the European Community budget. It was decided there that a reduction of 561 million European units of account in the appropriations for the FEOGA Guarantee Section — that is the agricultural price support — would be made. They increased the appropriations to the Regional Fund by 200 million ECU. They increased the appropriations to the FEOGA Guidance Section by 50 million European units of account, and appropriations to the food aid programme by 100 million ECU. I should like to ask the Minister if the actual payments were increased similarly.
I know it is quite laudable to increase the Regional Fund, the appropriations for foreign aid, and the contribution for the Co-operation with Non-Associated Developing Countries. It is acceptable to have a transfer of payments from one side of FEOGA to the other. I do not think we can continue to spend greater amounts of money in other fields at the expense of the common agricultural policy. In the entire community it is the only policy which has been effective, which has worked, which has done exactly what it was designed to do — provide a stable market and a stable supply of high quality food for the population of Europe. It has been successful.
I hope the Minister and our Government will make greater efforts to ensure that the Community will decide to increase their own resources, that is, that they will go above the 1 per cent VAT which is the amount it takes to run the Community. The Community cannot stay static. It must develop. We must have policies that are aware of and recognise the needs of the present vast population and also provide for the future.
Reading over the statistics on the payments to this country, and looking at the way we have benefited from FEOGA, both in the guidance and the guarantee sections, but in the guidance section in particular, it is regrettable that we have been able to take up such a very low percentage of the appropriations which were earmarked for various developments here. We rank second lowest on that list. This, to my mind, means total inefficiency in much of the co-operative sector. The only bright spot in the entire country when it comes to availing of and benefiting from the FEOGA guidance sector is the Kerry Co-op which was in the news recently. If they applied for a grant they went ahead and availed of it. The percentage of the take up in this country is disappointingly low, and something should be done about it.
I want to say to the IDA, to the Department of Agriculture and to the civil servants who are operating the schemes, that they should examine their conscience and see which side are they on. It took many years for the IDA to get around to the payment of enabling grants to enable people to take up FEOGA grants. Now they have finally consented to do that. I admire their work and I believe they have excellent people there. They go after the jobs and they do their best to provide new jobs. They cannot expect that every industrial development they fund will be 100 per cent successful. More of their staff should give greater emphasis to servicing the community.
I cannot understand why after ten years every official in the IDA dealing with FEOGA grants, or dealing with the regional fund does not understand the section down to the very last comma, the very last detail. It is unacceptable that they can make mistakes, and drag their heels and force Irish companies starting off to borrow bridging capital — to take up the slack where IDA grants should have been paid — at 20 per cent interest from the Industrial Credit Corporation, another semi-State organisation. Do we want these companies to get off the ground? Do we really believe in providing job opportunities, or are we going to sit back and see indolence in one semi-State organisation forcing young industrialists to go out of business — especially smaller companies where they have not got the expertise. The big industrial corporations have their own accountants and project managers. They are able to look after their own business. Small concerns employing 20 to 40 people in the processing sector or in the input sector have not got the experience and you cannot expect them to have the professional expertise from day one.
There should be somebody in the IDA who could give them an indication step by step as to how to apply for a FEOGA grant and how to claim the grant when the grant is paid. The enabling grants should be paid the day they are sanctioned instead of forcing these people to pay 20 per cent or 22 per cent to the ICC in the form of bridging capital. I estimate that some 80 per cent of the FEOGA grants made available to industrial development in this country goes to the banks, the ICC and the ACC by way of interest on bridging capital.
That is a disgrace and the Government must look seriously at that situation. It is grossly unfair to the entire concept of the common agricultural policy or the European regional policy whereby the moneys are made available for the specific purpose of assisting the development of industries in rural Ireland or, indeed, in any part of the country. I would ask the Minister to see in what way the processing of these loans can be speeded up, and how people with ideas who are making the investment can be assisted in the process.
I should like to deal very briefly with the Nineteenth Report, paragraph 10.14, page 44, under the heading Energy R & D and Demonstration Programme (1979-1902). Paragraph 10.14 is the Alternative Energy Sources Demonstration Programme. I quote:
The contract for phases II and III of the Bord na Móna, Forestry and Wildlife Service and Electricity Supply Board short rotative forestry project has been signed.
I have been interested in this programme since the first energy crisis back in 1974. In Counties Laois, Offaly, Kildare and Westmeath there is a concentration of workers who are engaged by both Bord na Móna and the ESB. The bogs will be cut out over a period of the next 20 years. I am appalled that there is no long-term plan by either of those excellent bodies to conserve jobs in the Midlands or to create further jobs. The biomass project which I thought held out a ray of hope that workers in the Midlands could continue in industrial employment seems to be suffering from apathy and the indolence in both Bord na Móna and the ESB. Of course DG 17 I believe must bear a significant part of the blame for this. I am not satisfied that either of these semi-State organisations have availed of the finance, the funds, the grants made available to carry out this biomass experiment and see if we could have an alternative, an ongoing self-replacing energy source by way of fast growing trees. Bord na Móna reluctantly made available some 50 acrea in Clonsast and then seemingly forgot about them. The last time I looked at them they were in an unholy mess and finding it difficult to compete with the weeds, or whatever.
I also know that the ESB have not been terribly co-operative. They have not put in furnaces that are necessary. They too have adopted a half-hearted approach. I believe the planners in the ESB were peeved because they were not allowed to build their four nuclear energy reactors in Wexford. I do not think that is good enough. If funds are made available from the Community, and especially if the people who are going to benefit directly, the agents handling them, or semi-State organisations, there must be some share of accountability.
I should like to contrast the way we do our business with the United States where the Office of Technology Assessment reports directly to the Senate and the President on what should or should not be done by way of technological advancement and development. They are given a ruthless examination. We have the National Board of Science and Technology. That organisation got off to a marvellous start when it was under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, but recently it was transferred to a different Department. It does not have the same clout, it does not have the same teeth. It obviously has lost all its power. It has no supervisory role worth a damn at present. That transfer alone caused the relegation and the demise of the experiment on biomass. It did not get a fair chance because in the first report I read it was possible for figures of ten tons per acre to be achieved.
Experiments carried out in the US and Canada, in France and in Sweden were successful and in all those countries they do not have the same growing facilities that we have. I am going by the agricultural scientific reports I come across or that are made available to me. The best use is certainly not being made of those EEC grants. The whole experiment was mismanaged and, to my mind, there is no obvious Government supervision. The authority of the National Board of Science and Technology has been eroded. That body should be taken back under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach so that they would have at least some influence in the pecking order.
There is an article by M.J. Drennan, A.J. Cole and J. O'Dwyer in the current issue of Farm & Food Research, a publication by An Foras Talúntais. The article headed “Two Beef Production Systems on Peat Land” is relevant and I should like to quote two paragraphs from it which will illustrate the point I want to make:
Previous studies have shown the potential of reclaimed cutover peatland to produce grass. Likewise, satisfactory performance has been obtained with mature cattle in grazing studies on peatland. When provided with adequate copper a suckler herd has been satisfactorily carried on reclaimed cutover peatland. The objective of the present work was to use grass grown on peatland (grazed in summer and as silage in winter) to take calves from birth to slaughter and also to keep high producing cows (multiple sucklers). The only other source of that feed consisted of milk in the calf stage and beet pulp based concentrate.
The article goes on to tell us in great detail exactly how they arrived at the present result. I quote again:
The results of these trials show that with suitable copper administration calves can be satisfactorily taken from birth to slaughter at 2 years of age on cutover peatland when the main feed source is grazed grass in summer and silage in winter.
That brings us back to 1974. I have read over that report. I want to compliment the people who have been working assiduously on that research project. It is a rather optimistic report. I should like to say to Bord na Móna that under the Turf Development Acts they have not got the power or the statutory authority to engage in any activity other than the production of fuel and energy. If Bord na Móna think it is desirable or expedient for them to start farming 5,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 acres in 1,000 acre farms and think they can get away with that kind of State farming in this country, how can the average Irish farmer with 35 or 36 acres compete with such a semi-State organisation?
My other objection is that if the 10,000 or 12,000 acres in the counties of Offaly, Laois, Westmeath and Kildare were all turned in over the next 15 years when they are cutover and are no longer of use in the production of peat, and turned into 1,000 acre State farms, they will not be able to carry 1 per cent of the workforce engaged in the energy industry at present. That would be a shame. I ask the Minister of State, having regard to the fact that there is obvious mismanagement in the administration of grants from the European energy programme to ask his colleague with responsibility for the Irish Land Commission to look again at the question of reallocating the bogs to the farmers from whom they were compulsorily acquired for as little as half a crown an acre in the thirties and forties.
In paragraph 10.14 on page 44 of the Nineteenth Report we see that the contract for phases II and III of the Bord na Móna, Forestry and Wildlife Service and Electricity Supply Board short rotating project has been signed. The House should concern itself with what has gone on since then. I know it is two years ago, but they have very little to show for it. They have not even shown the will to succeed or to make any great contribution towards this. I am most annoyed that obviously in those semi-State organisations there is no forward planning. No hope is held out for the continued employment of the very large and excellent workforce those semi-State companies have in the midland counties I have just mentioned.
The problem arises that it is difficult to get information on those programmes. I do not see why in any public bodies there should be such secrecy surrounding such experiments or such parts of the activities of either Bord na Móna or the ESB. We must look at the usage of those bogs. We are concerned about energy. Experiments in the US on the liquid fuel production — that would be alcohol production — have been most successful. If the grants are available to us to carry out similar experiments, we have an obligation to do so.
Under the Social Fund there are quite a number of training programmes. The European Community provide the funds for AnCO or any other of these semi-State organisations for training or retraining programmes and there is no reason why they should not be prudently spent and very closely looked at. Above all, there should not be duplication. I note in our area in the last year or so that some of these European-financed courses have tended to compete with the normal courses under the aegis of the Department of Education. For example, a course can be organised in any vocational school and the Department of Education insist that adult education courses must be self-financing. From the advertisements in the provincial papers it appears that in the midland counties last year some of those courses had a £30 enrolment fee. The following week on the same paper there will be an advertisement for a European-financed AnCO course where £30 per week is paid to students to pursue the same studies.
Is it just because the money is coming from, Europe by way of a grant that it should be spent without regard for the taxpayers or for what the end product will be? It is wrong that there should be competition between one agency and another. It is wrong to have Social Fund moneys used in direct competition with the Irish taxpayers' funds in this way. This calls for scrutiny and I would ask the Minister to have a look at that aspect of the expenditure of the Social Fund. I do not accept that there can be one course under the aegis of the Department of Education through the VECs who are insisting on £15 or £30 as an enrolment fee while in some rented accommodation, with teachers who may not have their ceard teastas and all the qualifications they would need if they applied for a full-time teaching post under the Department, pupils can be paid to pursue much the same kind of studies. This is a gross violation of the spirit of the Community and it cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely.
I would like now to talk very briefly on the powers of the European Parliament. In the seven-and-a-half years that I spent there we had great visions, as we prepared for direct elections, of the new directly elected Parliament having a greater say and greater powers. It is necessary if the policies are to be effective that they should reflect the views and the aspirations of the citizens from all over the Community. It has not happened like that. I am disappointed that the Parliament has not taken greater powers in its first term as a directly elected Parliament and as representatives of the people of this Community. I believe in the democratic process but if the Council of Ministers continue in so many ways to frustrate the wishes of the elected representatives of the European Parliament then I do not think the Council are helping the Community.