It seems a long time since the last time we had this debate and it is not easy to pick up the threads. It is particularly difficult to avoid repetition. Senator Lanigan has been consistently asking for a debate on this very important topic and the subject threatened to surface from time to time, but was pushed out by other important business. It is a very important subject, and one or two days should be set aside specially for a debate on the subject at the appropriate time.
I made the point before that the media over a considerable time portrayed Ireland as Caitlín Ní hUallacháin with the begging bowl — indeed, a bottomless begging bowl. There were other references to a "Gimme" situation which I feel were unfair. The UK and Greece have renegotiated their entry terms and the UK have gone through a very stiff negotiation on their budget contribution and I could see no criticism of these. In a book published since our last debate Inside the EEC by Ruth Barrington and John Cooney, there is a caricature of the Taoiseach with his cap in hand, in a begging posture. While it may be an ingenious illustration, it is unfortunate and unfair. That is not to say that I condone the béal bocht attitude in any circumstances. In a recent paper by Joseph Lee termed “Reflections on Ireland in the E.E.C”, which was one of a series commissioned by a study group drawn from members of the Irish Council of the European Movement, the matter is treated in a fairer method, and I quote a small paragraph on page 40:
The strategy of any Irish Government concerned with improving the quality of our performance through the creation of a viable civic culture must aim at curbing the tendency towards escapist self-pity so prominent in the national psyche. The origins of that tendency may be attributed, if we so wish, to the colonial experience. But we are now sixty years into self-government. It is ironic to see the manner in which ‘post-colonialism' has become increasingly fashionable as an explanation of defects as we move ever further from political occupation. If we didn't need the ‘post-colonial' explanation in the ‘60s', then a later generation should have the self-respect to confine it within its proper limits.
I would not disagree with that. Ireland is not looking for something for nothing. We have much to contribute to the Community. I would like to quote another short paragraph from that paper on page 43 which is under the heading "Prospects".
Ireland enjoys a uniquely low standard of living among the thirteen capitalist states of northern and central Europe. While it would be churlish to deny that nobody has done more to deserve it, how the Irish have sustained that position poses one of the more challenging questions in comparitive economic history. It seems reasonable to surmise that none of the other economies operate so far below their potential ceiling as the Irish. I would hazard that the single most important reason has been the relative lack of incentive for performance, and equally importantly, the relative lack of disincentive for non-performance.
The author goes on to quote from James Neenan:
public resources have been freely spent to encourage production. There has been comparatively little insistence on efficiency: the resources have been placed impartially at the disposal of the efficient and the inefficient, particularly in agriculture.
I am not too sure if I would agree with the reference to agriculture, in particular, but the author has put his finger on a very important point there. Inefficiency seems to run through Irish life, whether it be in business, the office, in every sphere and even in the sphere of huge unemployment which can be regarded as a waste and an unfortunate situation about which it seem nothing is being done. With regard to the employment situation, as I said before, the State could very well provide total employment and use up the work force productively.
The Minister gave us a very full report on the last occasion, but there were some topics that he did not mention. In the remainder of my contribution, I would like to confine myself to these. At its constituent meeting of 15 October 1982, the Committee of Inquiry into the Situation of Women in Europe drew up a list of 18 themes of inquiry, including the application of the first two directives on equal pay and equal treatment and the proposals designed to supplement them. The Committee of Inquiry considered the draft report at their meetings of 17 and 18 October 1983, and this report was adopted unanimously at the meetings of 3 and 4 November 1983.
This report —"Working Documents 1983-1984"— is a very large tome of 552 pages. I would like to take out some parts of it and develop them somewhat, but this would take too long. It would give some idea of what the documents are concerned with if I refer to the different topics and give the number of pages devoted to each.
The application of the first two directives, directive on equal pay and directive on equal treatment, and proposals designed to supplement them, 49 pages. The implementation to date of the third directive, social security, target date 1984, 23 pages. Situation of women in Greece, 58 pages. Reduction and reorganisation of working time, 21 pages. Vocational training for women in Europe, 27 pages. Introduction of new technologies and their effect on employment for women, 19 pages. Position of women with respect to the review of the European Social Fund, 26 pages. Women and health, eight pages. Migrant women and wives of immigrants, 31 pages. Problems encountered by self-employed women, particularly in agriculture, trade and crafts, 18 pages. Situation of women in the European Community institutions, 26 pages. Women in the Third World and European aid, 32 pages. Information policy and women, 32 pages. Maternity, parental leave and pre-schools facilities, 19 pages. Taxation, special problems encountered by women, 29 pages. Problems of women in less-favoured regions, 28 pages. Education of girls in the European community, 33 pages. Place of women in the decision-making centres, 60 pages.
That resolution was adopted by the European Parliament on 17 January 1984. The result of the vote was: members voting 197, votes for 125, votes against 17, abstentions 55. At the meetings on 27 and 28 April 1982 it was decided to add the 18th topic: place of women in universities, cultural infrastructures and the media, radio, television, newspapers. The title of the report was changed to "The position of women in decision-making centres." It is obvious from the number of pages devoted to each theme that the most important one was the place of women in the decision-making centres. That is one aspect with which I totally agree. The ultimate objective must be equal representation for women on all bodies, an equal number of men and women in the Dáil, an equal number of men and women in the Seanad, in the county councils and on all bodies and in important situations, for example, as principals in schools. On examination boards there should be an equal number of men and women.
Another area which is important is religion, which is not referred to in the report, understandably enough perhaps. Religion is supposed to be based on moral principles but in the Catholic Church women are related to a secondary role. The point has been made by many people that in every sphere women should have the same opportunities as men. I cannot understand why women are not ordained and why women are not bishops. Ultimately I am sure a woman will be Pope. There may be historical reasons why women are not ordained, but they could not be defended in this day and age.
I should like to refer to paragraphs which were inserted into the final motion for resolution. The European Parliament notes that "an analysis of the figures indicating the percentage of women in top jobs in the ten Members States — in government institutions, parliaments, trade unions, universities, management positions in the mass media, the judiciary, diplomatic services and major cultural organisations — indicates overall progress compared with the past. This progress is, however, insufficient and varies widely according to the sectors analysed and the countries examined. Women in particular continue to remain in a minority in decision-making centres, to the point where in some instances there is a total absence of women. Discrimination between men and women increases the higher one rises in the hierarchy of government, parliamentary, cultural and university institutions, in the diplomatic services and in the information and mass media sector so that women ultimately fall back on traditionally feminine sectors.
It proposes "that the Commission, the Council and the Member States examine with the closest possible attention this discrimination against women, undertake detailed inquiries into this problem, take initiatives to promote awareness in political circles, in public opinion and among women themselves and adopt constructive measures to enable equality of opportunity to become a reality at the level of decision-making centres. Calls on the Commission to create scholarships for advance studies to help women reach the highest levels of political, social, scientific, intellectual and artistic activity; suggests that the Commission sponsor a European Conference as part of the action programme on equality of opportunity, with the aim of identifying the measures and initiatives which need to be taken to achieve a fairer representation of women in leading positions in the political, cultural and social life of the ten Member States."
The resolution was adopted on 17 January 1984. There is no need to include the resolution because it is outside the terms of the motion. That document was taken into consideration in relation to the resolution. Before leaving that subject, in case somebody might think that I am patronising or overplaying this role of the place of women in society, I want to say that, if women were taking their rightful share, or perhaps all of their share, the position generally today might not be any better, but it could not be any worse.
With regard to the developments in the European Communities, in the 23rd report, January 1984, under "Education Policy" it is stated that the Education Committee also considered the teaching of Community languages, the problem of employment for teachers and the Community programme of short study visits for local and regional administrators in the education systems.
This is an area where we are falling behind. I saw this borne out in a recent report. I do not feel there is any excuse for it. I am sure grants are available for this specific purpose.
With regard to energy policy in the 23rd report, this is an important area. On 4 November 1983 the Council finalised a report on the development of new Community policies for presentation to the Athens European Council. On 12 July the Council discussed the Commission communications on a balanced solid fuels policy, especially on investment aid for production of coal, peat and lignite and aid for reducing pithead coal stocks. The Council endorsed the need for a balanced overall policy to take account of the interests of all member states, and advised any member state submitting a specific request to the Commission to do so as early as possible. Ireland submitted a comprehensive memorandum to the Commission setting out particular problems.
We have reason to be very concerned with this particular area. I am not sure if we are making as much use of Community funds as we might. An Foras Forbartha are very concerned in this area. I note from the report on Community aid for solid fuel production in relation to research, development and demonstration on forest fields, that the Commission proposals should not exclude the domestic sector as research development and demonstration is also necessary at the domestic level for automation of fuel and ash handling, combustion efficiency, use of energy storage and control systems for small-scale solid fuel fired systems. This is important as a high proportion of solid fuel consumption in this country is in the domestic sector. For example, some 74 per cent of coal and 89 per cent of peat was directly consumed in 1982. The inclusion of peat production in the Commission's proposals for a solid fuel policy is welcomed by An Foras Forbartha.
In the European file issue of 1 January 1983 which deals with Community demonstration programmes in energy saving and alternative energy sources there is very little reference to Ireland with the exception of two maps showing energy projects. However, it states that in Counties Offaly and Mayo 600 hectares of woodland are being cropped intensively to feed a power station converted for wood burning. Perhaps we could have more programmes using biomass as in this situation.
The European Community is also involved in demonstration programmes for solar dryers for agricultural byproducts. Ireland could very well avail of some of those projects. The European Community also published in January 1983 a catalogue entitled "The European Community and the Energy Problem" which is worth reading. Ireland's work in this area is controlled by the National Board for Science and Technology. The work is funded by two different sections of the EEC funds — DG. 17 looks after energy and DG. 12 deals with research and education. Research and development are funded by DG. 12 while demonstration projects are funded by DG. 17. The EEC is very strict in its definitions.
It is also generally agreed that we are doing very well out of demonstration projects because they are put forward by industry, but we are doing very badly out of DG. 12. The kind of people who get finances are the research institutes, the energy board, the ESB, Bord Gáis, Bord na Móna and some of the universities, and 50 per cent of the money has to be put forward by these bodies. This could be a serious situation. More could be provided by the EEC, as generally the smaller countries lose out in these fundings. State funding is abysmally poor, for example, the Department of Energy's funding for research and development is non-existent. The National Board for Science and Technology are supposed to provide funds mainly in third level education but they have no budget. In demonstration projects the picture is much better. The quality of applications has been very good, and last year we received £2½ million through Irish companies. Over the last five or six years the amount paid to Irish companies was around £8 million.
In Ireland the open fire always has had a very special significance. As everybody knows, the open fire is particularly wasteful of heat. There was a special design competition about two years ago for an enclosed stove which could use native fuels, because many of the stoves available use only smokeless fuels. The winning designs are undergoing tests with IIRS. Much remains to be done in this area. Even here the EEC could help out more. There are some people who are particularly annoyed at the removal of grants for installation of solid fuel heating systems. They are concerned about whether we will soon or eventually have smokeless zones, because we have smog problems in Dublin. I suppose with natural gas coming into use this problem will end.
Another document I will refer to is the Haagerup Report. It has been praised and criticised and it has been given fairly wide publicity. The date on the report is 20 December 1983. It is a start in that the partition of our country has been taken up and considered by the EEC. We hope that better things will come from it, particularly when the EEC discuss the Forum Report. On page seven of the Haagerup Report it asks the Commission and the Council of Ministers of the European Community to undertake a major review of all current and planned projects in Northern Ireland and in the Border areas of the Republic to present an integrated plan for a major contribution to the development of Northern Ireland in conformity with the overall objectives of the European Community and to report to the European Parliament on the progress achieved as part of this plan. We have also at the same time got the Irish Border Areas Information Report from the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community. This is an EEC-backed development package costing IR£125 million and it is proposed for the Irish Border areas. The area — five counties in the Republic and seven district councils in Northern Ireland — is identified as one of the most under-developed in Europe. Unemployment here is almost double that of the rest of the island.
The report endorses plans for the upgrading of the Newry-Dundalk road at a cost of IR£14 million and calls for an agreement between the authorities North and South on routing and cost-sharing aspects. The press release stated that the natural gas pipeline between Dublin and Northern Ireland should follow an overland route. This would make it possible to supply Drogheda, Dundalk, Portadown, Lurgan and Newry. It goes on to say that spurs could be extended to different places. In view of all this, it is rather disappointing that we have problems with the arrangement between the UK and Ireland regarding the gas and I hope this will be resolved fairly soon.
The country is divided into seven planning regions, Donegal north west, Donegal west, north east, midlands, east, mid-west, south east and south west and I believe they have prepared development strategy plans up to the year 2004. I have examined the one in relation to the Galway-Mayo region which contains four volumes including the report and implementation manual which was completed in September 1983. Similar plans have been prepared by all the other planning regions. They cover tourism, linkage in industry, agricultural policy and aquaculture and fishing. The development strategy for the next 20 years is intended to provide a framework within which executive agencies such as the IDA, Bord Fáilte, local government, county councils and ACOT would work out their detailed plans and programmes and, because they are within the framework, integration and harmonisation of effort will follow. The strategy sets out how available resources and the regions' potential may best be utilised in the national interest.
Development strategy for all the regions was completed and published last year and perhaps the Minister would give us some information about this. I would be particularly interested in the eastern region which included my own county of Meath. Indeed in the future I would welcome a full debate on these development strategy studies. They give a special and human aspect to social policies, but they should not be considered inviolable or sacrosanct and the Government might profitably encourage flexibility to meet special and evolving needs as these arise. I would like to get information on future EEC policy regarding investment in the development area and the change in emphasis from single projects to programmes. For example, are we ready to adopt the forward planning system to meet the requirements of the EEC?
I referred already to European Community environmental protection and apparently this is confined solely to the natural environment. This should also be extended to deal with buildings in our cities and towns. In the European file catalogue of November 1983 which is No. 18/83, there is reference to the European Regional Development Fund. This states that the fund breaks down into two sections termed "quota" and "non-quota". The quota section refers to 95 per cent of available resources. It states that three-quarters of the money in this section is reserved for Greece, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom. I notice that Greece gets 13 per cent, Ireland 5.94 per cent, Italy 35.49 per cent and the United Kingdom 23.80 per cent which seems to be an area where perhaps our negotiators could do better because all this brings us back to the criticism of Ireland always looking for more. What do the media want? Would they be satisfied, for example, if our negotiators at the table said "thanks very much, but you are giving too much" instead of looking for more? Our negotiators do a very good and important job and I would be supportive of every endeavour to do the best we can to raise our standard of living to that of other countries.
Another document published last year in respect of member states, regions and administrative units, shows the population trend for the year 2000. Belgium will be +1.5 per cent, Germany -6.1 per cent, Denmark -0.4 per cent, France +7.9 per cent, the United Kingdom +4.1 per cent, Greece +11.1 per cent, Italy +3.4 per cent, Luxembourg +0.8 per cent, Netherlands +8.6 per cent and Ireland heading the list at +19.9 per cent. As our population is predicted to increase by 19 per cent by the year 2000 it gives us great concern with regard to crime and drugs, employment, housing and education. It is something towards which we should be devoting our energies from now on. I mentioned on the last occasion the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme, its reintroduction and the fact that some farmers were not satisfied with the situation and I will not elaborate on it today except to point out again that farming is the backbone of the community. The farm modernisation scheme should be looked at again and improved if at all possible.
Finally, I want to refer to a document which was published on 7 July 1983 and which is termed European Parliament Working Documents, 1983-1984 — Towards European Economic Recovery in the 1980s. On 14 December 1983 the enlarged bureau of the European Parliament under the chairmanship of Mr. Dankert authorised a group for recovery of the European economy consisting of the chairman of the six parliamentary committees to appoint economists to draw up a report on the economic crisis affecting the European Community and on the ways and means of bringing about a recovery of growth. This was presented to the European Parliament and prepared by Mr. M. Albert and Professor R. J. Ball. It would be impossible to give a précis of it, but overall it is not a very optimistic document. I quote a few sections from the conclusion:
What set the seal on the foundations of European unity at the beginning was the economic growth of the member countries. Nowadays it is a new factor which is giving impetus to European unity. A new factor which is gaining ground rapidly. This common factor is decadence. This is an abstract, vague sort of term whose real scope is difficult for us to grasp since our generation continues to harp back implicitly to its experience of rebirth and growth. But the facts are there.
Further on it refers to certain countries and it states:
The game they are playing is the zero-sum game, the game of zero growth which they have experienced for three years and from which they will not escape if they continue, each man for himself, to cultivate their private gardens separated by their mutual differences. Without realising that they are walling themselves in, and that all are prisoners. Instead of looking for a driving force which can pull them along together, they are wasting their energies in quarrels which serve only to slow each other down.
It was, of course, easier to embark on the building of Europe while sharing out the spoils of rapid growth than it is to continue when the growth in wealth stops. But one needs only to look at the débacle Europe has suffered in information technology to understand that there are only a few years left to indulge this petty self-destructive game of every man for himself.
Tomorrow, when the Community is nothing more than a poor old cripple, it will be too late to learn that "soft" growth builds a robust society, and that slow growth leads to run-down societies. Europe will have entered a new middle ages, the era of its own "balkanisation".
A final paragraph:
This recovery is possible. In Europe there is a mine of growth and social progress which has hardly been explored and is totally unexploited. This mine consists of the "multipliers of Community efficiency" which are described in this report.
How can they be put to work? At Community level strong impetus must be given, strong enough to create a psychological shock but prudent enough to prevent financial upheaval and particularly intelligent enough to command the broad support of all those involved.
