I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his first contribution to the House in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was an appointment that was well merited. The only regret I have is that he is not acting in a permanent capacity, because the Minister for Foreign Affairs is grossly overworked in his office, and, in view of our membership of the EEC, that Department needs a full-time Parliamentary Secretary.
I was rather disappointed with the speech of the Fianna Fáil spokesman, Deputy O'Kennedy, who seemed to be trying to downgrade the Minister, which brings no credit on himself or his party. It is well known abroad that our Minister for Foreign Affairs is a very able man. He has a very high standard not only in Britain but throughout Europe and in America. I do not know why Deputy O'Kennedy decided to attack him; certainly he overplayed his hand. I do not think that matter arises. If our Minister is capable of leading the European Economic Community in certain directions for the benefit not only of Ireland but of the EEC, I think he is entitled to do so, and good luck to him. If we want to become fully involved in European politics and in the development of Europe, I do not think, because we are a small nation, we should play only a small part in such development. On the contrary, I think we have a great deal to offer Europe. If we have a Minister who wants to throw himself into the pool, so to speak, and try to lead Europe into prosperity, I think we should give him our full support, and I would say the criticism levelled at him by the Opposition spokesman was in bad taste.
We have had our Dublin Summit— I do not think we want to call it "Summit" any more, but a meeting of heads of State. We have had the political performance of Mr. Wilson who came over as an actor rather than a politician in order to get certain extra benefits for Britain so that he could go back and tell his Parliament and his people that they may now stay in the EEC. I never believed at any time that Britain's withdrawal was to her advantage. Unfortunately the British Prime Minister was playing politics with the whole question of Europe. Reading Mr. Richard Crossman's diaries in The Sunday Times one gets the distinct impression that Mr. Wilson was in favour of Europe as far back as the mid-sixties. However, I am not interested in the British position, but I am glad that our position was clarified inasmuch as if Britain withdraws we shall not follow suit. I do not believe the British people will withdraw from Europe, because a policy of isolation for Britain at this point would be disastrous for her economy. I do not believe the £ would survive nor do I believe British industry would be able successfully to overcome the trade barriers which would be erected against it. I am sure the British people will give a clear-cut decision in favour of staying in Europe when the referendum takes place, and this is something I would personally welcome.
There is a tendency of drift within the EEC. The slight malaise was brought on by the high level of inflation and by the critical employment situation throughout Europe which developed after the oil crisis. There has been a tendency to doubt the strength of Europe. I believe that the Dublin Summit will have served as a launching pad for another economic takeoff in Europe, a restarting, if you like, of our economic engines. With the anti-inflation policy which has been pursued by Germany and now being pursued by France, I believe that within the next 12 months there will be a return to a satisfactory growth pattern throughout the Community which, of course, will be of great benefit to Ireland.
Everybody admits we are going through a hard period of unemployment here. It is difficult to pinpoint how it happened. A certain amount can be attributed to the oil crisis, but it is not easy to forecast when we shall come out of the valley period. I thought a few months ago that we would have started a solid economic recovery early in the New Year, but I am now inclined to think that we shall see a substantial reduction in unemployment in the next few months.
There should be a great debate concerning a vital matter, that is, the value of the Irish £. We are in an unprecedented state of inflation. Last year the consumer price index increased by 20 per cent and this year it is expected to increase by a similar amount. We have two problems: are we going to preserve the value of the £ as we know it now or are we going to put employment as our first priority, pursue an anti-inflation policy and thus rejuvenate our economy. I have not heard many arguments put forward by economic experts, who should evaluate the alternatives that face us. We are living in very unusual times. There are great social changes coming. This upheaval of the last year will mean a restructuring of our society which may benefit us as a country in the long run.
The question of whether we preserve employment or the value of the £ as we now know it is a very interesting one and I should like to see it aired more in public. The establishment of a regional fund was a step forward, something we sought. We receive £35 million over a period and I hope this will be increased in coming years. It would be interesting to know in what areas this money will be used. Will a particular area be treated as an underdeveloped area or will the fund be used over the whole of Ireland? Will it be used for specialised industries or to improve the infrastructure of the country, such as roads, harbours, piers and so on? These questions are not yet answered but they deserve to be answered and discussed here.
One aspect of the present situation is unfortunate. The Dáil gets a twice yearly report on developments in the European Community, and the one now under discussion is the fourth report. This is quite proper and it is fair to give credit to those who produce the report which is an informative document covering various policy fields within the Community. It gives us an opportunity here of airing our views on any area of the EEC. We hear many voices, the farmers through the farm organisations and the industrialists through the Confederation of Irish Industry, all giving their own pronouncements on EEC developments. But what I miss is a voice from the universities where we have many able people but they seem locked up in their ivory towers. The universities, with their specialised facilities, should have produced a paper discussing the development of the EEC, the institution and the various policies and effects on our society. The universities should be seen as an independent, neutral, expert body and I am disappointed to have heard so little from them on the EEC and its effects here.
In the absence of a university forum —if you like—I suggest that money be provided for the establishment of an Institute of European Studies which should be a non-political, expert body, not a massive institute but capable of employing or commissioning experts to produce papers on various aspects of EEC policy. This would fill a gap in our information on EEC development. Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas receive "cart-loads" of documents weekly from the EEC in large, brown envelopes. I admit I put them aside rather quickly and I do not think I can be blamed for that because they are very technical, specialised documents. There is a gap in our appreciation and criticism of the EEC which since it is not being filled by the universities could be filled by the establishment of the institute I have mentioned. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on this.
I am interested in the development the EEC are undertaking in association with outside countries and also in the various agreements undertaken with what is, perhaps, described as the Third World, the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the agreement in Lome. I agree that Ireland has a part to play in providing assistance to Third World countries but there are some countries relatively well off. In the case of any trade agreement which develops between, say, New Zealand, Australia, Canada or the Argentine —especially New Zealand and the Argentine which are strong competitors of ours on the European meat market—we should voice our opinion clearly that the Irish provision should be protected. At the Dublin Summit one of the problems which emerged from the British position was the situation in relation to cheese and butter exports from New Zealand. I am not very interested in developments in New Zealand but I am interested in the protection of the European market, if at all possible, for Irish products and I object vehemently to any importation of meat from the Argentine or any other source, into European countries. The greatest advantage the EEC offered us and which we accepted was the advantage of a high-priced European market for our meat and other products. Every step should be taken by our Ministers to protect our interests and we should fight very strongly against opening the European market to imports of meat products from these other countries.
Before leaving the matter of agreements with countries outside Europe I believe we should not be too interested in developing trade with countries from which we import substantially more than we export to them. We should, where possible—and if we are strong enough, it should be possible—concentrate on bilateral trade agreements ensuring that we export to various countries amounts similar to what we import from them. I am talking particularly about the East European bloc. Our imports from them are substantially greater than our exports to them. Also, although we are members of the EEC we should not neglect the American and Canadian markets which can be very strong markets.
Assuming that a policy of open international trade is pursued, and that a protectionist policy does not emerge in those countries, we should keep our eye on those markets, and make sure that all our eggs are not in one basket. We should be aware of the advantages which lie in America and especially in Canada which is a developing, strong, industrial nation.
Dumping of goods from Far Eastern countries, such as Taiwan and Japan, in the EEC has come to my attention. There is the perennial question of the definition of dumping, but I am satisfied that goods are being sold in Ireland from those countries at uneconomic prices, at prices which are damaging to the development of certain industries, such as the leather industry in Ireland. We should put our foot down. I do not see why we should allow these cheap imports to come in from Taiwan and Japan. We owe nothing to those countries. We owe it to ourselves to protect and develop and foster our own industries where at all possible. I understand that there may be technical reasons within the EEC agreement which make it difficult to stop this dumping. Stronger steps should be taken to protect ourselves from Far Eastern dumping.
The political developments within the EEC are interesting. As a member of the Council of Europe I am familiar with the question of Cyprus. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus was an act of war and of aggression. Unfortunately, it was allowed to happen because the American Government and the British Government stood idly by. This was most unfortunate. The situation now emerging in Cyprus is that the Turks have literally drawn a border across the island and intend to annex the prosperous northern part of the island for use by Turkish Cypriots. This will lead to a long-term war-like situation on the island because I do not believe that the Greek Cypriots who are to be pushed to the south will live in peace under those circumstances.
I voiced my opinions very strongly on the Political Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe when this question was discussed. I did not get very far because the big nations did not want to upset what looked like a short-term settlement. The long-term prob-terms which will emerge from the existence of the border, and which we in Ireland would perhaps be more aware of than many other nations, will be a constant source of aggression and trouble in that area. I do not believe the EEC did enough to avert that situation. I have been watching it quite carefully in Europe. The big powers have done nothing. They just let the situation slide and, in the meantime, the Turkish forces have entrenched themselves even more solidly on the island. Because of the distance from Cyprus to Greece Greek forces are not in existence, nor can the Greek Government bring any influence to bear on the situation.
The guarantor powers did nothing. The British did nothing and they should have done something. The position of the Americans on the whole problem of Cyprus is very much open to question. I was in Greece last December on an official visit from the Council of Europe. The Greek people are satisfied that American involvement was quite strong in the overthrow of the Makarios Government, and they think that perhaps the CIA assisted in the assassination attempt on Makarios. The Americans are in pretty poor standing in Greece. That is not the only place where they are in poor standing, but I saw it there at first hand. The question of Cyprus is a sad one and the EEC did very little about it. They are to be condemned for not trying to avert this situation which has led to the creation of another border.
The political situation in Portugal is giving concern. The overthrow of the dictatorship was welcomed. The forces of the left which are very evident in Portugal now are skating on thin ice. There is no doubt that the existing ruling parties in Portugal, even though they are facing an election in a few weeks' time, intend to hold on to power. This gave rise to the abortive attempt earlier this week at a coup d' état by certain forces within the army. The democratic situation in Portugal is very delicate and I doubt very much that the coming elections will be successful. They are in for a difficult period in Portugal. Again I get this awful feeling that the EEC are not that much interested in getting involved with the situation in Portugal, any more than they were interested in getting involved in the Cyprus situation last year.
On the question of Greece which was also referred to in the report, the association the EEC had with Greece, which was suspended in 1967 when the dictatorship took over, has now been restored. The re-establishment of democracy in Greece has been welcomed. I witnessed this at first hand. I was rapporteur on behalf of the Council of Europe on the readmission of Greece to the Council of Europe and I was over there with a delegation last December. The Greek people have come through a very dark period. The torture centres were very evident. The people who were tortured are very happy that that period is over. The re-establishment under Karamanlis of a conservative Government has been welcomed in a country which is quite active politically and which is quite used to having confrontations between the left and the right.
