I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of developments in the European Communities since January, 1986.
Developments in European Communities: Motion.
I am happy to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on developments in the European Communities since 1 January 1986. The period in question is largely covered by the 27th, 28th and 29th six monthly reports required under section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972, and I understand that the 30th report is now on the verge of publication.
In the period under review in this debate the negotiation and implementation of the Single European Act is of unique and far-reaching importance. The Single European Act, which came into force on 1 July 1987, has been the subject of two previous debates in Seanad Éireann. Therefore on this occasion I plan to deal in the main with its implications for the future of the Community and for Ireland as a member state of that Community, since the future is what we are concerned with.
With the Single European Act, the European Community took as significant a step forward as has been taken on any occasion since the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. While the successive enlargements of the Community were indeed notable events, the ratification by the 12 member states of the Single European Act was a qualitative development in improving the life and vitality of our Community. The Single European Act enshrines in the Treaty of Rome the 1992 deadline for the achievement of the internal market. Under the Single European Act the internal market "shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty". Although the issues at stake are complex and the decision was for that reason difficult to arrive at I believe that, once the provisions of the Single European Act are put into operation, we will all see how beneficial this initiative has been.
As in 1972, when we adhered to the Community, the Irish people approved by referendum the step represented by the Single European Act. The margin by which the cause of the Community was upheld in these two referenda entitles me to say that the Community enterprise has the overwhelming support of the people in Ireland. In this country, as elsewhere in the Community, there is a clear awareness that from the economic point of view the creation of a single internal market and the other policies which are important from our point of view on which the Community rests represent the rational choice. I believe that the Irish people, again like the peoples of our partner states of the Community, are influenced by the political ideals which from the very outset have been so important in the creation of the European Community. More than an attempt to combine economic resources, the Community is a means to bring about a radical understanding among nations who have for so many centuries been ravaged by division and conflict within a democratic context.
As we look at the overall agenda of the Community in the course of the next few years, it will also be possible, I believe, to bring to bear these fundamental values on which the Community is founded. Broadly speaking, the Single European Act has equipped the Community institutionally for the discussions ahead and has defined our economic agenda. From the institutional point of view, the Single European Act has established majority voting across a range of issues, has strengthened the role of a European Parliament which deliberates in the name of the Community as a whole, has increased the management powers of the Commission and has improved the workings of the Court of Justice. The economic agenda defined by the Single European Act and in the package of proposals presented by the President of the Commission includes major issues such as the creation of a single internal market, the promotion of economic and social cohesion in the Community and the establishment of a Community research programme. The Government are approaching this wide ranging agenda by encouraging constructive negotiation among the member states. That is to say, we are supporting a genuine European approach to all of these issues and especially to the Commission's view that the agenda should be seen as an integrated undivisible whole with all of the parts integrated together and pursued as an objective rather than individual aspects of it.
The aforementioned package of proposals bearing the name of the distinguished President of the Commission — the Delors Plan "Making a success of the Single Act"— represents the blueprint for the future economic regeneration of the Community and deserves to be looked at in some detail. It constitutes a package designed to facilitate the future development of the Community through the completion of the internal market, the achievement of progress towards economic and social cohesion, the provision of adequate resources for the Community allied to a system of budgetary discipline and the safeguarding and adaptation of the Common Agricultural Policy. The proposals are set in a medium-term perspective covering the period up to 1992, the target date for the completion of the internal market in the Community.
The promotion of harmonious economic growth in all the member states must be on essential feature of any genuine economic community. This is accepted throughout the Community and it obviously of particular interest to Ireland. It is explicitly provided for in the Single European Act. It was reaffirmed by the Heads of Government at the June European Council. On cohesion, therefore, the common ground between all of the member states — both developed and less-developed — is the certain knowledge that if tensions which would impede the full development of the Community's potential are to be avoided, then regional imbalances and underdevelopment must be tackled and tackled effectively. In a word cohesion makes good sense for the Community as a whole, a community that cannot afford disparities in regard to wealth.
Of course some member states, including Ireland, have a more direct interest in seeing concrete progress in this direction. It is our people who suffer from the effects of regional underdevelopment. It is our people who will benefit from Community policies which address and face up to that underdevelopment.
I am happy to be able to report to the House that the general direction of the Commission's strategy for implementing the cohesion provisions of the Single European Act is positive and encouraging. In our view the Commission's proposals represent a praiseworthy and coherent effort to ensure that we make a success of the challenge posed for all member states by the Single European Act. We welcome in particular the proposal to concentrate the resources of the structural funds on the less developed regions. Helping backward regions to catch up is, in the words of the Commission proposal "the real crux when it comes to cohesion". We welcome also the proposals to give adequate resources to the structural funds so that they can have a real impact for the people who need them most. The Commission's proposal for a doubling of the funds by 1992 is sensible and pragmatic. It takes due account of the extent of the tasks which fall to the structural funds and of the need for adequate resources if these tasks are to be done well. We will be emphasising this point to those of our partners who have difficulty with a doubling of the funds. We welcome the proposal for modulated intervention rates, that is, for fixing the levels of Community assistance in the light of the financing capacities of member states. This is a common sense proposal and one that is of particular importance to Ireland.
In the aftermath of the Single European Act, in the context of the Commission's proposals now under discussion in the Community and in the run-up to the European Council in Copenhagen on 4 and 5 December, Ireland will be seeking to maintain the momentum on cohesion. Much has already been achieved towards reaching a Community consensus on this topic. However it will not be all plain-sailing. There are many competing interests and cohesion is not the only priority. For example, budgetary discipline — that is a mechanism to avoid overruns in any area of Community expenditure — is also regarded by many member states as of vital importance. I cannot however envisage a satisfactory resolution of the multiple issues now engaging the Community as it seeks to cross the new frontier mapped out by the Single European Act if the commitment to narrowing the gap between the richer and poorer regions of the Community is not strengthened and made concrete.
During the period under review, the Community has continued to experience considerable difficulty in agreeing its budget. Disagreement both within and between the two arms of the budgetary authority, the Council and the Parliament, has prevented the timely completion of the budgetary procedure. The Community has been increasingly distracted from long-term planning and restructuring by recurring budgetary crises.
The 1986 budget was not adopted until July of that year, after the European Court of Justice, at the request of the Council, declared invalid a budget adopted unilaterally by the Parliament in December 1985. The 1987 budget was adopted only after difficult negotiations, in February 1987. Moreover the 1988 draft budget has not yet been sent to Parliament. Disagreements within the Council have for the first time prevented it from agreeing the First Reading of the budget and submitting a draft to Parliament by the Treaty deadline of 5 October.
We are hopeful that the decisions to be taken at the European Council in Copenhagen in December will allow the 1988 budgetary procedure to be completed with the minimum of delay, but yet again the orderly management of the Community's policies is threatened with disruption in the first half of next year by uncertainty concerning the final shape of the budget.
It is against this background of continuing and growing budgetary instability that the debate on the future financing of the Community, which has dominated the Community this year, has been conducted. It is widely accepted that the Community's existing own resources, based on sluggishly growing VAT and steadily contracting customs duties and agricultural levies are no longer adequate in any way to meet the increased commitments resulting from the accession of three new member states and the adoption of the new policies contained in the Single European Act. As part of the process of renewal which produced the Single Act, the member states have accepted the need to place the Community on a much firmer financial footing, so that it may confidently adopt policies for the medium and longer term and avoid recourse to short term budgetary expedients. Within this broad consensus however, the member states hold widely varying opinions on the extent and detail of the changes needed.
The Delors Plan to which I have already referred contains proposals on future financing embracing changes to the system of own resources so as to provide for the Community's real needs, changes to the operation of the structural funds to enable them to effectively meet the task of strengthening economic and social cohesion, and further changes to continue the existing efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and achieve stricter budgetary discipline.
To ensure adequate incoming revenue, the plan proposed a new ceiling for own resources of 1.4 per cent of Community GNP and a new contribution system. This would allow the Community's resources to grow in line with growth in the Community's wealth, and produce a better correlation between each member state's own relative prosperity and its contribution to the budget, In other words an own resource based on GNP would mean that more prosperous nations would make an equitable contribution towards less prosperous nations and that the prosperity criterion would be the measuring rod in regard to GNP contributions. In our view that proposal by the Commission represents the most equitable way to expand the own resources revenue capacity and facilities of the Community.
In line with the principles of budgetary discipline agreed upon in 1984, agricultural expenditure would continue to be allowed to grow no faster than the Community's own resources and further stabilising mechanisms would be introduced in the agriculture area. The plan proposed a doubling of the resources allocated to the structural funds, and a greater concentration of their use in the less developed regions.
The Commission also proposed a new mechanism for redressing the imbalance between the UK's budget contribution and its receipts, which would be based on the difference between the UK's share of Community GNP and its share of FEOGA guarantee expenditure, with a view to helping to resolve that long standing difficulty.
The period covered by the reports before you today has seen much activity in the ongoing process of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Various adjustments were introduced in the common organisation of the markets in beef, dairying and cereals sectors aimed at taking greater account of market and budgetary reality. The measures implemented included an extension of the milk quotas system, the introduction and extension of co-responsibility and the weakening of beef, cereals, dairy and other support and intervention systems.
The Government recognise the need to contain agricultural expenditure within reasonable limits, as containing expenditure is an element in the process which will lead to the creation of a secure reformed financial base for the Community. Any agricultural reform proposals must, however, be consistent with the underlying aims of the Common Agricultural Policy. These include giving a fair return to the family farm enterprise and taking account of the special nature of agriculture and of its importance in all member states and in some member states more than others. Decisions on stabilising expenditure in the individual agricultural commodities must take account of the nature of the market organisation and the cause of the expenditure problems.
Agreement on agricultural expenditure restraints is only one element in the package of decisions which must be taken in line with the conclusions of the last European Council. Other elements, including the new financial base and the enlargement and better use of the structural funds, with greater concentration of these funds, at increased recoupment rates, on poorer areas in the Community, must be agreed simultaneously as part of an overall package.
Since the publication of the Delors Plan, serious and difficult negotiations have been conducted between the member states and with the Commission. The broad thrust of the Commission's proposals was accepted in the conclusions of the European Council in Brussels in June, to which 11 member states subscribed. Each member state, however, has its own special concerns and its own areas of difficulty within the overall plan. It is intended to resolve these difficulties and take the final political decisions at Copenhagen shortly.
Ireland has taken an active and positive part in these negotiations, whose outcome is of crucial importance both to this country and to the future development of the Community. We have a strong commitment to that development, demonstrated by the people in the referendum on the Single European Act in May, but we also have vital concerns relating to the future of the CAP and the structural funds which have been stressed to our partners. I am hopeful that the European Council will be able to make the vital decisions in December, and I am confident that those decisions will substantially meet our concerns.
I would like at this stage to mention the question of science and technology. A Japanese White Paper some years ago stated: "Japan considers Science and Technology to be the gold standard of the future and is investing accordingly." A similar singleness of purpose is undoubtedly called for in the Community if European industry is to maintain and improve its competitiveness. Pursuant to the science and technology provisions of the Single European Act the Council of Ministers on 28 September last approved the second framework programme for Community activities in the field of research and technological development for the five years 1987 to 1991. The overall financial envelope for the framework programme amounts to 6,480 million ECUs. Irish firms, universities and research institutes will participate in specific research and development programmes taking place under the umbrella of the overall framework programme.
I would remind the House that the benefits to Irish participants in programmes arising from the first framework programme for 1984 to 1987 came to some £27 million.
We would expect a proportionate return from the second framework programme because it contains a number of features which are of particular relevance to Ireland. I have in mind the fact that for the first time a separate provision has been made in the Community budget for marine science and technology. This is timely from the Irish point of view, coinciding, as it does, with the recent establishment of a Department of the Marine by the Government and also with the expansion of the economic zone out to the limit of the continental shelf which we have achieved under the Law of the Sea Conference. These initiatives which have been taken both internally and externally should provide a significant impetus for the development of our marine resources.
I am also convinced that the continuation and expansion of the programmes aimed at improving Europe's industrial competitiveness in the second framework programme will be of particular interest to Irish industry. The programmes relating to information technologies ESPRIT Programme, telecommunications, RACE Programme, and basic research in industrial technologies, BRITE Programme, will provide further opportunities for Irish industry to participate in research consortia that will be engaged in important research projects.
The provisions of the framework programme aimed at improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and food sectors are also of special interest to Ireland where our major concern of course is to develop the sophisticated downstream activity in the processing area of agriculture and food.
These are only some of the specific areas where developments at Community level will benefit our own science and technology sector and where we in turn can contribute in the wider Community context.
In the area of education I wish to welcome the advent of two new schemes, the COMETT programme and the ERASMUS programme. COMETT, or Community education and training for technology, was initiated last year to encourage co-operation between third level institutions and industry in the field of new technology throughout the Community. Irish third level institutions and other interests have secured funding to enable students to be placed in industry in Community countries. The benefits to Irish business of this worthwhile interaction will be reaped in future years, particularly in view of the large internal market due to come into force in 1992. We can have a very substantial input under a programme of that kind.
ERASMUS, or European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students, was introduced this year with the aim of developing a co-operation network among European third level institutions. In particular, it will increase significantly the number of students who undertake a period of study in another member state. It is expected that 200 Irish students will be grant aided to take part in exchange programmes during the initial three years of the scheme.
Participation in the European Community's development assistance activities continues to account for a significant proportion of Ireland's total aid effort. During the period covered by these reports, Ireland's share of the Community's aid programme amounted to something over 30 per cent of our total development assistance. As a member state, Ireland participates fully in the decision making procedures of the Community and, through the various specialised committees established to assist the Commission in the management of Community aid, is able to play a role in the formulation of Community development policy and in the design, approval and evaluation of Community-funded aid programmes and projects and to ensure that they evolve in the proper direction which we want to see achieved in the sense of practical application of such programme. We wish to see these programmes evolve primarily in the direction of practical developments.
On 1 May 1986, the Third Lomé Convention entered into force. During the five year period of the Convention over IR£6 billion will be provided by the Community for development assistance to the ACP countries. This assistance will be primarily for agricultural development and food production, but will provide also for industrial development, trade promotion, fisheries and shipping, stabilisation of commodity export earnings, mineral development, investment promotion and combating drought and desertification. We are talking here about a range of problems in areas of the world that are very serious and substantial. The most effective way we feel we can help in this area is through the Lomé Convention that has established an excellent apparatus, in the administration sense, between the Community and ACP countries.
The question of intensification of relations between the Community and developing countries in Asia and Latin America received a good deal of attention during 1986 and 1987. Following proposals from the Commission in November 1986, new guidelines for the provision of technical and financial assistance to these two regions were adopted by the Council. Community assistance to Asia and Latin America is concentrated on the poorest countries in these regions and the neediest sections of their populations, with special importance being attached to rural development and, in particular, the improvement of food production. The Community's aid is divided geographically, on the basis of 75 per cent to Asia and 25 per cent to Latin America.
Conscious of the need to ensure that the provision of Community food aid is carried out efficiently and effectively, the Council of Ministers adopted in November 1986 a new framework regulation on food aid policy and food aid management. The adoption of this regulation followed a major review of the Community's food aid policies and procedures. The new framework regulation provides for accelerated procedures for the mobilisation of food aid, especially in cases of famine or other emergency, makes greater provision for the purchase of food aid commodities in the developing countries for transfer to areas of scarcity and specifies that food aid operations must avoid disrupting local food production in developing countries. The framework regulation is supplemented by a new regulation on the mobilisation of food aid, which was adopted in June 1987. The mobilisation regulation is intended to streamline food mobilisation, transport and distribution procedures. These regulations represent a very important area in the practicality of getting such food to the right areas and quarters and to the right people. I am glad to be able to report that Ireland played an active role in the negotiation of these two new regulations.
Two Community measures to tackle the short term effect and also the long term causes of drought in Africa were implemented during the period under review. The rehabilitation and revival plan for African countries most affected by the 1984-85 drought provided some IR£82 million to help these countries to recover from famine, to revise their agriculture and to improve their capacity to cope with future emergencies. As part of the Community's efforts to tackle the longer term causes of drought and famine, the European Action Plan to Combat Desertification in Africa provides that the Community and its member states will give priority in their development assistance programmes to action to combat the deterioration of natural resources. One of the most serious problems that has happened in that continent is the diminution and disappearance of resources that were already there. This will have very serious consequences for the future unless it is dealt with immediately. In May 1987, following negotiations with the ACP states, Spain and Portugal became parties to the Third Lomé Convention, thus taking yet another step towards full integration into the Community.
Before addressing the specific issues that arose in European Political Co-operation, I should mention that this process is now governed by the Single European Act. This was discussed and debated during the recent referendum. Title III of the Act deals with co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy. It puts in treaty form the EPC process in which Ireland has already been engaged since 1973. It has enabled the Nine, subsequently the Ten and now the Twelve to take a view on foreign policy matters of general interest. It operates on the basis of consensus so that the statements and actions agreed in the process take into account the views of all member states. Its scope is confined — and I want to say this emphatically — to the political and economic aspects of security so that, as was formally declared at the time of ratification of the Single European Act, it does not affect our long-established policy of military neutrality.
The Soviet Union and the United States have reached agreement in principle on removing a whole category of nuclear weapons. It is hoped that President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev will meet shortly in Washington to sign a formal agreement removing all of their short and intermediate range nuclear weapons. This is a beginning, an encouraging step in the right direction. It could achieve for the first time a genuine reduction in the number of weapons held by the US and the Soviet Union. We would attach importance to confirmation of the process thus engaged and would encourage the superpowers to go on to reach agreement on strategic areas and space systems. This, of course, involves astronomical expenditure which in our view is unacceptable in the world of today which requires massive development to provide basic social and economic improvements. At the conference on disarmament there are prospects of an agreement banning the production of chemical weapons and we hope that a start can shortly be made with the CSCE — which originated in Helsinki and which is continuing at a meeting in Vienna at present — and that firm conclusions will be reached there inside the next month in the process of agreeing on reduction of the levels of conventional forces and armaments in Europe.
In the broader East-West framework, in particular, within Europe, we continue to attach a particular importance to the CSCE process. This established framework for dealing with security and co-operation between East and West in Europe dates from 1975. It is still in place today, despite intervening periods of heightened international tensions that at times threatened to diminish or break up the process. However, optimism and constructive effort have prevailed and it has achieved improvements in the conditions of all the people of Europe, as well as facilitating relations between the participating states. It is the only forum where East European and West European states can meet on a regular basis and it also offers a forum where smaller countries like ourselves can contribute to the normalisation of relations between East and West and, in particular, within Europe.
The CDE, that is the Conference on Confidence and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, successfully concluded its work in Stockholm in September 1986. The Stockholm Agreement, which came into effect in January 1987, provides for further development of the confidence and security-building measures in the CSCE and has significant potential for the reduction of tension in Europe. The agreement provides for observation of manoeuvres in the participating states and Irish military observers have already participated in observation of a number of manoeuvres under this heading.
The members of the two alliances are meeting in the course of the current session of the CSCE meeting in Vienna to try to work out a mandate for conventional armaments negotiations which would in due course be integrated within the overall CSCE framework. While our priority is ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, we also attach very real importance to conventional arms negotiations. These would be particularly significant in reducing tension in an area of great concentration of such forces as Europe is.
Security in Europe cannot, however, be significantly enhanced, until more progress is achieved in the area of human rights and human contacts. This is what is called the human dimension. Together with our partners in the Twelve, we have sponsored a wide range of proposals covering such areas as religious freedom, freedom of movement, human contacts and freedom of information and, in the economic field, proposals on business contacts, information and tourism. The objective is to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference of 1975 and the Concluding Document of the Madrid follow-up meeting of 1983 and to add to the commitments entered into by the participating states in these areas so that the benefits of the reduction of tension and greater mutual trust can be brought home to every individual in all the participating states.
As the House is aware the Twelve have been closely involved since the inception of EPC in trying to promote a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although it has recently been over-shadowed by the war between Iran and Iraq, the conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbours remains deep-seated, deep-rooted and seemingly intractable. The fundamental principles which the Twelve see as being at the basis of a settlement were first set out in the 1980 Venice Declaration. The Twelve developed their policy further by the adoption of the Brussels Declaration on 23 February this year which supports the convening of an international conference on the Middle East to be held under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of the parties concerned and of any party able to make a direct and positive contribution to the restoration and maintenance of peace and to the region's economic and social development.
The war between Iraq and Iran is now in its eighth year and has been increasingly engaging the attention of the Twelve both because of the human cost of the conflict and because of the danger it poses to international peace and security. The continued death and destruction is appalling. Along with our partners we have condemned the resort to chemical weapons and underlined the importance we attach to freedom of navigation in international waters in the Gulf. We also fully support Security Council Resolution 598 which sets out a basis for a comprehensive, just, lasting and honourable settlement of the conflict and we call on both parties to comply with the resolution.
The protracted religious and communal antagonisms in the Lebanon have continued to preoccupy the Twelve who have reiterated their support for the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. We of course are particularly concerned with the situation in regard to UNIFIL, to which we contribute a contingent and have done so consistently since UNIFIL was established. We have made clear our insistence on the need for maximum co-operation with the force and the unacceptability of any actions which might threaten the security of our personnel. The Twelve have also expressed their support for UNIFIL and have called on all parties to respect UNIFIL's role and to co-operate fully with it.
The situation in South Africa still is far from being satisfactory. The imposition of a state of emergency, the detention without charge of large numbers of people and draconian restrictions of press freedom have not contributed to resolving the problems that country has to face — far from it. The result of the whites-only election in May was very discouraging for those hoping that the Pretoria Government would come to realise that there has to be a genuine dialogue with the majority population. The election result did not contribute to the necessary movement towards such a dialogue.
The South African Government continue to pursue their mistaken policy of seeking stability by pursuit of the black opposition beyond their borders and by destabilising neighbouring states. Since the beginning of 1986 South Africa has launched attacks in Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These actions of the South African Government have contributed to the catastrophic economic situation in some of the frontline states; in particular, in Angola and Mozambique. The recent public involvement of South African troops in military action in Angola marked a further escalation in South African aggression against its neighbours. The real interests of all the peoples of South Africa lie in political dialogue at home, leading to the dismantling of apartheid and peaceful relations with its neighbours.
Twenty-one years after the United Nations General Assembly relieved South Africa of its mandate for Namibia, and nine years after Security Council Resolution 435, South Africa seems no nearer to giving the people of that country that independence which the international community has formally recognised. It is time to take a fresh look at the further steps that can be taken to hasten the day when the Namibian people are finally able to exercise their right to independence.
The Twelve's policy remains the total dismantlement of apartheid and its replacement by a genuinely democratic, non-racial system of government. That may take time but a start must be made. As the former British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillian, said many years ago, there must be a wind of change. They decided in September 1986 to ban imports of South African iron, steel and gold coins as well as new investment in South Africa. The Community has also launched a programme of financial and material assistance to the victims of apartheid, including political prisoners. Ireland has decided to ban imports of fruit and vegetables from South Africa. We consider that continuing pressure must be maintained on South Africa and we will be urging the further extension of the range of measures already decided. We are considering that aspect as of now.
The Twelve support the Contadora process aimed at bringing peace to Central America. It conforms with our common view that the problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force, but only by political solutions springing from the region itself, an agreement based on the principles of independence, nonintervention, self-determination and the inviolability of frontiers. The Twelve have agreed with the Central American and the Contadora countries that peace in Central America can only come about as a result of an authentic democratic process that was pluralistic and participatory and which implied the promotion of social justice and respect for human rights, the sovereignty and integrity of states and the right of all states to determine, freely and without outside interference of any kind, their own economic, political and social model provided this is based on the freely expressed will of the people.
The Twelve have been very active and have participated in these discussions in encouraging the Central American States to work together by opening a dialogue with them and the Contadora states. The aim is to build a relationship between Europe and Central America which will help to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights and to promote badly-needed economic development. The third Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve, the Central American and Contradora countries took place in Guatemala last February. The proposals put forward by President Arias of Costa Rica earlier this year with the aim of restoring momentum to the Contadora process resulted in the Guatemala Agreement signed by the presidents of the five Central American States in August.
I want to say that the Twelve through the political process of European political co-operation played a very leading role in the achievement of this objective which now marks the first real ray of light, as it were, in this South American scene. The Government greatly welcome this Agreement signed in August and support for it has also been expressed in the Dáil by a resolution adopted as recently as on 5 November. The agreement enhances the prospects of national reconciliation, peace and the strengthening of democracy in the region and has raised practical hopes that urgently needed improvements in the areas of human rights and social justice will be undertaken. We will avail of every suitable opportunity both as a country and as a member of the Community of asserting our support for this potentially historic accord. We have also joined with our partners in the Twelve in welcoming and supporting the agreement. In recent days as we know, President Ortega of Nicaragua has initiated discussions with the Contras that hopefully will lead to the ceasefire within Nicaragua.
I have covered the main themes which have been discussed within European political co-operation. The account illustrates the extent of co-ordination which now exists among the member states of the Community in the area of foreign policy. The foreign ministers meet four times every year to deal with foreign policy questions. In addition, foreign policy issues are often addressed over lunch when foreign ministers are meeting in the Council. Co-operation now covers the whole range of questions arising internationally which are of general interest and has now become a routine aspect in international fora, such as the UN and the CSCE. In the course of this co-operation the influence which the Twelve can collectively bring to bear is maximised. We can do far more in a collective sense than we can do as an individual nation. Taking into account the views of all member states we can maximise a collective political will to bring real moral pressure and other pressure to bear in resolving such matters. It is important to emphasise this aspect because, as I read in The Irish Times recently, commentators sometimes think that there is only a military or defence dimension to political co-operation. There is a very real political, social and economic dimension outside the military dimension altogether. That has been Ireland's role in participating in the European political co-operations system. Ireland can play a very constructive role without being in any way involved in military or defence matters.
My intention in these remarks was not only to comment on developments in the Community as outlined in the three published six monthly reports referred to at the beginning, but to convey to the House an indication of the current position regarding those developments. I feel that the Community is now set on a course which presents both a challenge and an opportunity for each member state. Our sense of commitment and determination will be tested, as never before, and in this regard, I can assure the House that the Government will not be found lacking in the protection and promotion of Ireland's interests. At no stage do I see any real conflict between the protection and promotion of Ireland's interest and the pursuit of positive European Community policies.
I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House. He has given a very extensive and broad ranging address on the developments that have been taking place in the European Communities since 1 January 1986. The Minister dwelt in the latter part of his speech with the many areas of the world that are in conflict. It is probably distressing for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a neutral country to come before the House and dwell so extensively on the areas of international conflict in the world at present. Perhaps the greatest trigger point is the Middle Eastern situation and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Iraq. We would like to see an end to the conflict but with the reputation of Iran, it is difficult to see reasonable progress being made in the near future.
The Minister referred in the course of his speech to the international dimension of the US-Soviet arms talks that are proceeding at official level at present. We all hope that the negotiations which are coming to a conclusion at a Summit in the US shortly will, for the sake of world peace, bring about an early reduction in the armaments and missiles that are located in the European Communities. It is very encouraging to see the response of a number of countries in the past 12 months to various proposals that have been made. During the past three months there has been a very genuine spirit of compromise prevailing in the international arena.
In order to dwell a little more on matters that immediately pertain to this country the Minister dwelt at length with the Single European Act. I, for one, was extremely pleased that the vast majority decided during the referendum in 1987 to ratify the Single European Act. The extent of the majority in favour of that Act demonstrated clearly Ireland's wish to contribute in a constructive way to the development of Europe not only for our own personal interest but in the interest of the Twelve to bring about a more cohesive economic unit in this part of the world vis-á-vis the eastern and western blocs pitted against us in the marketplace.
The internal market is of extreme importance to this country. The internal negotiations will be finalised in 1992 and when they come into effect it is important that the Irish interest is well noted. Ireland can now respond to the market opportunities in the broader European dimension on which we have become part since the ratification of the Single European Act. It is important that Irish exporters take full advantage of the tremendous internal market in Europe that will open up for our various products, particularly in agriculture, technology, and the computer and pharmaceutical industries. We have untapped potential in the enormous market of 325 million people that has opened up.
We have relied in the past on the domestic market. We have tried to a lesser extent to tap the Middle East market because of our links there due to the importation of petroleum products or whatever. However, I think that our marketing agencies should immediately embark on a programme to capitalise on the enormous potential that exists for our exports. Our economic recovery will primarily depend on the impact we can make on the international markets that are available to us in the European context. I appeal to the Minister to co-ordinate all the Government Departments to provide plans to tap the potential in the export area.
I refer also to the contribution we can make to creating employment for our young people in Europe. Various politicians and successive Governments have referred to the problem of emigration down through the years. Despite a great deal of talk and apparent action, we all know that the problems of unemployment and emigration still exist, and if we are honest with ourselves will exist for some time to come. Emigration in a European context is something we have failed to capitalise on for the benefit of our young people. I see nothing wrong in a small country with 3.5 million people developing and co-ordinating employment programmes in Europe. We could benefit tremendously because the Irish educational system equips our young people to take their place in any employment in any nation of the world. We should direct our efforts to the German, Dutch or Danish economy and assist our young people to gain employment on a temporary basis in Europe. Hopefully in the future they will be better equipped with the experience they have gained, to come back and serve our country again. This would benefit the country in the long run.
The present budgetary crisis is probably one of the most serious budgetary crises that we could have. Indeed, we are well used to budgetary crisis. The present economic situation in our country is very similar to the economic situation in Europe as a whole. On 3 July 1986 the European Court of Justice declared invalid the 1986 budget that was adopted by the Parliament in December 1985, which demonstrates the enormous difficulties the Commission and the European Parliament have in meeting the budgetary requirements of the European Communities.
I certainly hope that the VAT ceiling could be raised in order to enlarge the financial base because it is not in Ireland's interest to have a contracting budget in Europe. We are net beneficiaries of an enormous amount of resources; in fact 30 per cent of our total resources are derived from the European Communities. A contracting European budget is bound to affect the inflow of resources into this country and will eventually lead to less money for the Common Agricultural Policy, the regional fund and the structural aid that is available from the European Social Fund.
Another problem that will have to be confronted in the future is the rural challenge to the European Community. In recent times the community has begun to assert itself in devising programmes to develop the rural community and meet the challenge that will take place in rural communities and I would treat the whole of Ireland as a rural community in the European context.
With the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal, many of the resources of the Community are now being focussed on the Mediterranean region in order to provide structural aid for the less well off areas of those countries. The rural areas in those countries are sapping up much of the resources that would otherwise be going to peripheral regions like Ireland. We must be vigilant at all times. We should seek to gain benefits for Ireland in the context of our rural development in the same way as Spain, Portugal and Greece are developing their particular programmes at present. Better living conditions are essential and new job opportunities must be developed if the population is to stay put. At present Irish people are speaking about alternative enterprises in farming and even in areas that were considered formerly as sissy projects such as rabbit farming, deer farming and agri-tourism. These have become very important alternative enterprises. The traditional farming enterprises are no longer yielding the margin of profit that we were used to getting over the past 15 years.
Agriculture, which concerns almost two-thirds of the inhabited area of the Community faces an unprecedented challenge in order to adapt to the budgetary situation in Europe. There is a general attempt being made to reduce intervention supports for most of our traditional enterprises. I appeal to the Minister to resist any attempts that are being made to carry out a programme of destruction on the Common Agricultural Policy. Such a move will have to be resisted even to the point of veto. European parliamentarians, particularly the Germans, speak as if Ireland was an enormous contributor to the problem of surpluses in the Community.
Despite the fact that we have a very low output in terms of total European agricultural output, the Germans are going to tremendous efforts in order to secure a reduction of surplus production in the Community and are totally ignoring the tremendous economic impact that would have on Ireland — a country dependent on agriculture. There can be no substitute for the Common Agricultural Policy and the type of aid we get through FEOGA and the various funds.
Many structural aids were due to come into effect in 1987 through the structural fund of the Common Agricultural Policy and I am disappointed that greater efforts were not made by the Government to reclassify areas that are already disadvantaged and to include new areas so that we could get more resources from Europe. Various people have said that if you can get a pound from Europe which you have to match with a pound here, it is excellent value for money. Agriculture is a tremendous vehicle by which we can get more resources from structural funds such as the disadvantaged area scheme. If we are serious about continuing the programme of maintaining our rural communities on the land, it is extremely important that the Government seek to include as much of the country as possible in the disadvantaged areas scheme. This would provide much needed resources for the rural communities in order to stabilise incomes and maintain the rural population and prevent the further flight from the land that is taking place.
We hear a great deal about the Common Agricultural Policy proposals presented to the European Council of Ministers. There is a process of stabilisation going on in Europe in relation to our traditional agricultural enterprises. There is a new word in Europe, "stabilisers", and that word does not augur well for the future of this country. A ceiling on output in any enterprise will have severe consequences for future income and employment in that sector. I appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to assist the Minister for Agriculture and Food by exerting whatever pressure he can at European Council level to ensure that the stabilisers being mooted for agriculture will not come to pass and that the special importance of agriculture to this country is made patently clear to our European partners.
It is important that European low interest loans are made available to the farming community. Over the past number of years agricultural development has been inhibited by the high cost of finance which was regarded as the highest input cost of all into agricultural development. In September 1986 an effort was made to introduce EURO currency loans to agriculture. The principle of establishing a EURO loan scheme for the agricultural community has worked fairly well. I hope the Government will continue to extend the scheme so as to reduce the input costs and ease the price margin squeeze. The agricultural community are working at present under difficult circumstances with tight margins and the need for greater efficiency.
Under the terms of the Single European Act we were promised that the funds accruing under the European Regional Fund and the Social Fund would be doubled. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that there is no quid pro quo in relation to these funds and the Common Agricultural Policy. It is important that there is not a trade-off made in the European context. Commission officials will be attempting this trade-off in order to ensure that the net gains to the country will not be much greater than they are at the moment. We must be vigilant. Again in regard to our regional policy, the Hume report was carried out by John Hume as a result of a motion which one of our Members of the European Parliament, Mr. Tom O'Donnell, was in a position to bring to the Regional Policy Committee of the European Parliament in 1985 when he was vice-chairman of that Committee. The motion was carried, and a rapporteur was appointed. We were fortunate that John Hume was the man put in charge of developing a regional policy on how best we could provide aid in an integrated way under the integrated programmes proposal that is presently being mooted. I hope the Government will not apply these programmes to specific areas of the country or small areas in a couple of regions but will deal, as the Hume report did, with integrated programmes for the entire country. Ireland is a small country in the context of the European Communities. It is important that we adopt the spirit of the Hume report and that any integrated programmes that the Government have in mind for assisting rural areas will be on a national rather than on a regional scale. I hope that when implementing these programmes, the Minister will look at the work the local authorities could do in this regard. Local authorities have been denuded of many significant powers over the past ten years, and this would provide a unique opportunity for local authority representatives to get involved in assisting the community in the broad range of economic and social activities through the aid provided under the integrated programmes.
The Government have decided to suspend or abolish the regional development organisations which might have been the vehicle for implementing the integrated programmes. The fact that they are gone but however, the local authorities are still there, and they could assist in the implementation of these programmes whenever they come to pass. Integrated programmes are no substitute for the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP will continue to be the only mechanism in which we as a country can continue to keep our rural communities intact and the people on the land. While integrated programmes might assist in that process they would be the tip of the iceberg in meeting the requirements to maintain our rural population intact.
In regard to the European Economic and Social Committee report on the Border areas, that report even though it was adopted in 1983, made many significant proposals for the Border regions which could be the means of obtaining resources under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will pursue that matter. The Minister referred to infrastructural developments such as the development of the gas grid across the Border. We are receiving aid under the international fund to bolster the Anglo-Irish Agreement and we could make more use of European Community funds for a regional development programme specifically for the Border areas. The Minister will appreciate that the Border areas have suffered significantly over the last few years. Trade has diminished and commercial businesses have gone to the wall. They have suffered tremendously because our costs are much higher than those prevailing on the other side of the Border.
I know you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, have a tremendous interest in the activities of some of the commercial concerns in the Border area. I would appeal to the Minister to look at the possibility, in the context of his integrated programme discussions, of an integrated programme for the Border areas in the context of the Brussels report from the European and Social Committee 1983.
Finally, Ireland is a peripheral location in Europe, something we have not emphasised enough to our European partners. We have to be vigilant in regard to the fact that the focus of attention has shifted since our accession to the European Communities to the new areas that have joined the Communities such as the Mediterranean countries of Greece, Spain and Portugal. We have to be vigilant to the fact that too much attention could focus on the resources that are available for distribution in the European Community to the detriment of Ireland as a peripheral location. There is nothing common at the moment in the Common Market. We are a tremendous distance from the market place and that is where the internal market will, I hope, assist us. We have differences in interest rates, differences in education systems, differences in infrastructure and differences in a wide variety of things. We are a different people, different culturally. I hope the differences that are in Ireland will be recognised during the course of negotiations in the future. Ireland is now in a position where the greatest challenge to our membership of the European Community will take place over the next year or so. I would support the Government in every move they will make in order to ensure that the policies that have served us well in Europe and the policies like the Common Agricultural Policy which will continue to serve us well will be kept intact.
Debate adjourned.
When is it proposed sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 November 1987.