This is the second time in 24 hours that I have been called on to conclude a debate. I hasten to assure Members of the House that on this occasion the reply will not stretch to two hours. We have had a general debate on the question of developments in the EC. It was indicated, when the agreement was made to take this motion and, indeed, indicated again by Senator McDonald in moving the Motion, that the intention was that we should have a general debate on EC matters and, with this debate out of the way, we could then take up individual reports of the joint committee on the EC and discuss a number of problems in greater depth. Accordingly, I think all that is necessary for me to do in replying to this debate is to touch briefly on the major issues that have been raised.
In the course of the debate the Senators taking part ranged over quite a number of issues. A number of Senators talked about the Common Agricultural Policy. A number talked about fisheries. The question of a convergence in both its senses has come up. Development Aid has been touched on. European political co-operation and the present moves towards European Union were mentioned. I would hope to make a brief comment on what I think were the important points made in each of these areas.
In talking about the Common Agricultural Policy, Senator McDonald stressed that in the case of the Common Agricultural Policy the Community has been the victim of its own success. It is the very success of this programme, in order to guarantee an income to the farmers of the community, that has led to the present situation where the Common Agricultural Policy absorbs a high proportion of the budget of the Community. It is clear that this is not a situation which can be ignored. We must be realistic and realise it is not a situation that will last.
Senator Smith was right to point out that the most worrying thing in regard to this is the lack of emergence of a real initiative that will guarantee the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy and at the same time avoid the situation of other programmes in which Senators expressed an interest, such as regional and social policy, from going ahead in the manner in which they should.
We in Ireland have a very real difficulty. Senator Smith adverted to surpluses. With regard to the surplus of milk, it is not the small or medium dairy farmer in Ireland who is largely responsible for this. It is the factory farmer of the Netherlands who has distorted the situation and on the basis of importing feeding stuff and factory type production has changed the agricultural structure and created this crisis. A way must be found out of this.
Senator Hourigan pointed out that the way forward in this regard has to be a cohesion — these are the words he used — cohesion plus individuality. As in many other parts of the operation of the EC it is this balanced approach that is needed. We were glad to hear in the Minister's contribution to this debate of the determination of the Government in this regard. I should like to quote what he said in this connection. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
We must seek to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers, market unity, financial solidarity and Community preference. Moreover, account must be taken of the need for the convergence of income levels between farmers in different parts of the community and for a reduction of the gap between farm and non-farm income.
This is the basis of the Government's approach to this problem. This point of reducing the present gap in income is an exceedingly important one. In Community discussions there are many difficulties of communication not based on language because there is a very efficient interpretation system but based on differences of approach. They are not extremely wide differences in ideological approach, such as Senator Ryan has suggested, but differences based on different levels of development. The question of convergence is one area that brings up this difficulty.
Senator Lanigan spoke of the problem of narrowing the gap between the richer and poorer countries but he used the words "convergence of economics". That is a dangerous type of language to use in this regard. We must be clear when we are talking about problems of convergence within the Community that we are talking about convergence of living standards because to others in the Community if we talk about convergence or if we talk about convergence of economics, they mean the convergence of economic policies, they mean the adoption of common economic policies such as Senator Ryan mentioned. I do not agree with the Senator in regard to his characterisation of some of those policies but apart from that issue we need to keep a degree of freedom in regard to economic policies because of the structure of our economy and because of our level of development.
Senator Lanigan went on to talk of the advantages that would follow from the convergence of VAT rates and how this would ease the frontier problems in regard to goods. We would like to look forward to the time when there could be a convergence of VAT rates throughout the Community but who in this country would be prepared for a convergence of VAT rates to take place in the next budget and to accept that tax rates on income, particularly on PAYE payers, that would result if our budget next year or any time during the next few years, was to adopt as a criterion the question of ensuring a rapid convergence of VAT rates with our partners?
On the question of fisheries there were divergent views. Senator Jim Higgins was concerned with congratulating the Minister on the manner in which he had defended the interests of our fishing industry during the negotiations. Senator Ellis felt that our fishing industry was now in ruins because of what the Minister had not achieved. In this, as in all negotiations, it is quite clear that we did not achieve everything that we would have liked for our own purposes but, on balance, we can say that the achievement of the Irish box in regard to fishing was a substantial achievement and while it was something for which we hoped, there were many times in the course of those negotiations while we might have hoped the expectation went fairly low.
Senator Ellis talked about the depredations of some Spanish fishermen and suggested that the situation would become worse after the entry of Spain. He said there would be worse tricks by the Spaniards once they were inside. I do not think that is necessarily true but even if the tricks remained at the same sort of level the important thing is that once they are in they are subject to discipline. This is the great advantage of the European Community to the smaller countries such as Ireland. If we were not a member of the Community, if we were still in the jungle situation of a small open economy trying to survive during the recession we have had for the past decade, we would be in a powerless condition. It suits a country like Ireland, a small country with an open economy, that there should be rules, that there should be a referee to see that those rules are enforced. This will be true in regard to the question of the operation of the fisheries policy after enlargement.
Senator McDonald and Senator Lanigan mentioned the question of development aid. We all appreciate the contribution of Senator Bulbulia who dealt with this problem in some detail. We all agree with the emphasis which she laid on the importance of long term aid as the only way for Africa to save itself. Ultimately it will only be by the Africans taking accounts of this recurring situation of drought in their own planning, only when the African countries remove from their present policies their anti-rural and pro-urban bias, will there be hope of a long term solution.
Senator Ryan indicated that Europe had little to boast about whatever our individual position might be in regard to development aid. While I would be inclined to agree that some members of the European Community still tend to follow a somewhat colonial attitude in regard to their aid and trade policy, it is unfair to some of our partners, notably such countries as the Netherlands, to think that we were a lone voice in this regard.
On the question of European political co-operation, which the Minister dealt with at some length, Senator B. Ryan made the remark that the Community had disgraced itself over the question of South Africa and that the Irish Government has capitulated to racism. Of course Senator B. Ryan also talked of the necessity to retain the veto and have no qualified majority voting. I want to deal with the question of the veto and majority voting in the two quite separate areas of decisions on common action under the Treaties and decisions in regard to European political co-operation. In regard to common action in the economic area under the Treaties, the failure of Europe to weather out the recession of the past number of years, as well as areas like the United States and Japan who have comparable populations, has been due to the paralysis of decision making in the Community, to the failure to complete the internal market, to co-ordinate industrial policy and technological development.
Senator Ryan is among those who say that Europe is a failure, that Europe's approach is wrong because of the high prevalence of unemployment. The criticism is often made that, even now in Europe we are talking about institutional reform, we are talking about European union, when we should be talking about how to employ the young people. When we talk about the reform of Europe, when we talk about a relaunch of Europe, we are talking about the only way to give stable employment to the younger people in the decades ahead. If we go on as we have been going, whether under the present manner of operation of the Community, or going our separate way, there is no hope of even denting the problem of youth unemployment before the end of this century. It is only if Europe reforms itself that Europe goes forward, that we have any hope of development.
I want to turn from that necessary reform of which a key element is the question of decision making to the question of European political co-operation. European political co-operation acts on a consensus basis. In the report of the ad hoc committee on institutional affairs in European union of which I was a member, recommendations in regard to European political co-operation do not disturb that position. There is no suggestion in that report, which has formed the basis for the work of the present inter-governmental council, that majority voting should be brought into the areas of foreign policy. That is the position at present. That will be the position virtually certainly in a relaunched Community. That is the way we want it. We do not want to be coerced in foreign policy matters by a majority of Community members. We want to keep our own independent line. We will seek consensus with our Community colleagues. We will make every effort through consultation and discussion to seek consensus.
In the end, if we do not agree we have the right and will continue to have the right, to maintain independent foreign policy. We are proud of this. We like to think of ourselves as a link between the ex-colonies and the western European countries, but we cannot cherish this independence and, at the same time, coerce the United Kingdom in regard to South Africa. The fact that we have the residual power in regard to the issues on which we may differ from our European colleagues to go our own way means that we must also allow the United Kingdom to be, as we think, obdurate and wrong and unjust in regard to the question of South Africa.
Of course we have the power to act independently of the Community. I am proud of the attitude which our Government took in the Community discussions on South Africa in pushing the Community consensus to the extent that it was pushed and to reveal in that process the isolation of the United Kingdom in regard to its attitude to southern Africa, and also in regard to the problems of Central and South America.
It is matter of pride to us that it was under our Presidency that the first formal meeting with the Contadora Group was held and that the Contadora process, which seemed in danger of petering out, was revived. I do not believe that the Community, as a community, has disgraced itself over any issue in the foreign affairs field, in the field of foreign policy, during this period which we have been discussing. Certainly our own Government have not in any way compromised their principles. On the question of European union and the movement towards European union the Minister paid a good deal of attention in his speech to the work of the Inter-Governmental Conference which is now meeting and will report to the heads of Government in a few months concerning the movement towards a relaunched Community. It is very valuable for us that the Minister should have given so much information in regard to this progress and I think all Senators must have been gratified at the Minister's statement in regard to the issues that were being brought forward by us at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
In particular I would like to draw attention to what the Minister said in regard to this problem of convergence of living standards, with regard to the question of the various levels of regional development on which anxiety was expressed by a number of Senators in the course of the debate. I quote from the Minister's speech:
In our approach to the Conference, we attach particular importance, as do some of our partners, to the need to give effective expression in a revised Treaty to the objective of increasing the economic cohesion of the Community, particularly through the reduction of differences in levels of regional development, and to providing for the necessary steps in this regard.
We have, therefore, tabled two complementary proposals in this area, one on regional policy and one on increasing the Community's economic and social cohesion.
We will all appreciate that this is being done and congratulate the Minister on taking this attitude in the negotiations and wish him every success in persuading his colleagues that this is vital if we are to have a community of the type that the founding fathers of the European Community envisaged.
Some Senators expressed worries about where these developments might lead. Senator Lanigan thought there was a danger of a two speed Europe and also a danger of us being entangled in a military alliance and, indeed, worried about the position in regard to the veto.
Senator Brendan Ryan was worried that we would compromise ourselves that membership of the EC was in effect linked to NATO and spoke of the need for us to be able to exercise a veto in defence of a national interest. I want to deal with that last part first. Senator Ryan said we should be able to veto a proposal in defence of a national interest. In other words, any national interest. That way lies disaster. That is what has happened to the Community. That is not what is really involved and that is not what I attempted to defend in the ad hoc committee or that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is defending in the present negotiations. I want to make this distinction vitally clear, and vital is the correct word. It is proper that Ireland in any negotiations should ensure that we can defend a vital national interest.
If we attempt and all of our partners attempted to defend every national interest, then there would never be any agreement about anything. We must distinguish between the degree of cohesion that is needed for the Community to grow, for the Community in the world of today, in the world of the next decade, to be able to provide adequate and increasing living standards for all its citizens and for that we need a degree of cohesion in which we reach compromises between our national interests, confident that in doing so we will improve the economic performance of the Community so that by trading off one national interest against another in the end everybody will be better off. That is what the whole Community is about. But there do arise issues of vital, national interest where the issue is so important that exceptionally and hopefully only on rare occasions one or other member would say that interest is so vital that it cannot be agreed.
In the work of the ad hoc committee a majority of the members of that committee sought to put a wording in the report which would indicate there should be a very large increase in majority voting. Far from agreeing to any abolition of the right to invoke a vital national interest on that committee I dissented from that wording even though it did not specifically preclude the pleading of a vital national interest. I am quite convinced that in the discussions of the Foreign Ministers in the end no country will be prepared to say that there should be majority voting on each and every single issue. Our rights in regard to vital national interests have been defended on the part of this country and will continue to be defended. But we should not slip into the error which Senator Brendan Ryan slipped into of saying that we must defend every national interest because that way lies chaos.
In regard to the question of a possible two speed Europe, again I think it is here necessary to make a distinction. There was talk some years ago of a possible two speed Europe in which the original founding six might well move ahead of the others and that we would have two groups at a slower and a faster speed divided for all purposes into these two groups. I do not believe that is a possibility at the moment but, on the other hand, there may well be a necessity for what has come to be called differentiation where, in regard to individual policies on an exceptional basis, there should be temporary derogation or a difference in pace, but to talk of differentiation in this way is not to accept the idea of a two-speed Europe for all purposes.
Senator Lanigan was also concerned that any move towards European Union would result in our becoming involved in a military alliance. Senator Brendan Ryan indicated that he did not think that either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael would defend Irish neutrality. I want to say, as I have said before, we should be clear in regard to this position. Our neutrality, together with the fact the other members are all members of a military alliance, is, of course, a matter that must give rise to some inconvenience and to some difficulty.
There is no real pressure on us by our partners to change our position in this regard. Far from it being indicated that it is essential for continued membership of the Community or membership of a new Community that we should be linked to NATO there is not even any attempt to say that it is highly desirable. It is, of course, a matter of regret to our partners that we do not join them in defence matters, and, equally, it is a matter of regret to us if at any time through inadvertance they fail to realise exactly where the border lies between the political aspects of security, which are properly part of European political co-operation, and military matters, which certainly are not.
From what has happened to date there would appear to be no further difficulty involved in what is being proposed at present. It is quite clear that we would not be concerned or would not take part in any such activities which might be proposed, such as a meeting of Defence Ministers of the Community or meetings of Foreign Affairs Ministers and Defence Ministers together. Equally, Denmark and Greece would not be prepared for any such development which, I may add, has not even been suggested. It is for this reason that all the emphasis in regard to establishing what has been called a "European pillar of NATO," has been discussed in the context of the Western European Union, which is also a defence alliance which very conveniently contains a number of members of the Community but not Ireland, Denmark or Greece. Every indication is that the enthusiasm of the particular individuals in some Community countries who wish to see a closer linkage is all directed to the Western European Union, which is no concern of ours.
I wish, finally, to make a few comments in regard to the question of the present moves towards European Union. Of course, greater integration in Europe leading possibly to eventual European Union does involve major political decisions in this country and for the other countries of the Community. Therefore, it is essential that the deliberations and the conclusions of the inter-governmental conference and the decisions of the heads of Government should be characterised by imaginative political thinking. I hope all the participants will avoid the temptation to adopt only the minimum proposed to them. Such an approach could lead only to the establishment of a Community in which, as in the recent past, the individual interests of the member states predominated to the detriment of a balanced whole.
The concept of European Union is something much more than this and it requires both courage and imagination from the European political leaders for the creation of a more dynamic Europe. It requires almost the same degree of courage and imagination as was shown by their predecessors when they drew up the Treaty of Rome which launched the Community initially.
However, when I say we should avoid the temptation to be minimalist and avoid undue defence of individual interests, this does not mean that our negotiators or any other negotiators should neglect important national interests. It is an immediate priority, as I have mentioned before, for Ireland in these negotiations to secure firm legal commitment to the objective of convergence of living standards, the closing of the disparity between the regional areas of the Community. It is generally acknowledged that the language of the Treaty of Rome, which mentions the need to reduce differences between the regions, has failed to produce effective measures by the Community in favour of the convergence of living standards. This is one of the signal failures of the Community to date and must be remedied in any relaunching.
The inter-governmental conference provides an ideal opportunity to have this objective, which was there in the Treaty of Rome, restated in a fashion that will ensure that effective action will flow from it. Whether that is done in a treaty or on a non-treaty form it is essential that action must follow. Accordingly, we in the Seanad should all welcome the Government's decision, as announced by the Minister, to submit to the conference a specific proposal to promote the economic cohesion of the Community by the strengthening of structural bonds.
Of course this raises, as many other matters raise, the question of the amount of financial resources available to the Community. While this might be considered as something apart from the subject matter of the Inter-Governmental Council, nevertheless, it is an essential part of the whole process. We witnessed the continual wrangling about budget problems and about the increase in own resources. Ultimately there was the agreement to increase the VAT rate, the Community base of its own resources, from 1 per cent to 1.4 per cent, with a further increase to 1.6 per cent in 1988.
Even before this agreement has been ratified by all the members it is almost out of date. In 1986, which will be the first year of the 1.4 per cent level, the estimated needs of the Community will be 1.38 per cent leaving absolutely no leeway at all for the Community to take further common action in the areas of regional policy, of the Social Fund, or of technological development. We must be quite clear that any European union, which fails to tackle this problem of regional imbalance, is not likely to find favour among the Irish people or from any Irish Government.
If there is to be an effective European union, there must be effective institutions and effective organs for that European union. The role of each of the Community institutions must be more clearly defined, and their powers and decisions reinforced and, if necessary, extended or increased. Probably more important than that is to find the new balance among the decision-making organs of the Community. In particular, we have supported giving further powers to the European Parliament. This attitude has sometimes been criticised as if it involved some diminution of the powers of this House and of the other House of the Oireachtas.
I want to make it quite clear that it involves nothing of the sort. It involves a redistribution inside the Community framework of powers that we have already transferred to the Community. What has been proposed in various fora in regard to increased powers to the European Parliament is a reallocation of powers between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I believe this will give real meaning to the work of our directly elected Parliament and, even though our numbers within that Parliament are few, our vital interests will not be affected as long as within the Council of Ministers there is a retention for the invocation of a vital national interest.
Equally, the powers of the Commission need to be increased. Really, all we are talking about here is restoring the powers of the Commission to the role which was envisaged for it in the original Treaty of Rome. Its authority, vis-á-vis the Council of Ministers should be enhanced. I will probably be expelled from the trade union of ex-Foreign Ministers for making this particular point, but I believe it is an essential one. For a small country such as ourselves it is essential that we support the creation of a Commission that will have much more power of initiative, not merely the formal power of initiative itself, but a really effective informal power of initiative, a Commission that will have authority, be streamlined and be able to act and, if necessary, to act with audacity.
This means, primarily, giving an enhanced role to the President of the Commission who should probably be appointed by the European Council, by the heads of Government and who should be allowed much more say in the selection of his Commissioners than happens at present. If these things are done, then there is hope for Europe. If we can reform ourselves in Europe in regard to our institutions and in regard to the question of decision-making, then we can turn the tide that has run against Europe strongly in recent years. We will then be in a position to see Europe advance and we will be in a position to give real hope to the young people of Europe who have little cause for hope under these circumstances.
I have covered most of the points that were raised in the debate. I am grateful to those Senators who took part in the debate. I would like, on behalf of the Seanad, to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose schedule is indeed a busy one, for coming to the House and making a comprehensive statement. It almost, but not quite, forgives the neglect of the Minister's Department in not providing us with the up to date report of developments in the EC which is required by its statute. I understand that steps have been taken to remedy that situation and we hope that when we next have a general debate of this type, the matter will have been remedied. I commend this motion to the House.
