Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Apr 1978

Vol. 305 No. 3

Copenhagen Meetings: Statement by Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

In accordance with precedent, I propose to inform the House of the discussions and results of the meeting of the European Council which I attended together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen on Friday and Saturday last, 7-8 April. I have had the Conclusions of the Presidency laid before this House and the Seanad for the information of Deputies and Senators. I also intend to give an account of my separate meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan.

For some years past, progress towards Community aims has been generally disappointing. This is perhaps scarcely surprising given the intensity and persistence of the international economic recession. Since last autumn, however, I detect a renewed sense of purpose in the Community, a process of fresh thinking, a readiness to contemplate more ambitious concepts in pursuit of its basic aims.

I believe that in any future review of the development of the Community, particular significance will be attached to the agreement we reached in Copenhagen that the first direct elections to the European Parliament shall be held in all member states in the period from 7-10 June 1979. The formal decision will be taken shortly by the Council of Foreign Ministers. This agreement marks the end of a battle going back over 20 years. It will invest the European Parliament with full democratic legitimacy. I believe that, in addition, as the concept of accountability of the members to their electorate gradually becomes a reality, it will lead to far-reaching innovations in the institutional development of the Community.

I welcome this prospect, as I do the more immediate prospect of the direct elections campaign itself. I hope that, both in Ireland and throughout the Community, it will give rise to a constructive debate on the major common issues confronting the people of Europe generally. One issue to which we and other smaller member states will need to give attention is the development of the institutional checks and balances against the acts of simple majorities which are characteristic of the constitutions of federal and confederal states.

At Copenhagen, we also adopted a Declaration on Democracy. This is included in the Presidency Conclusions laid before the House. Essentially, it confirms the basic values common to the peoples of Europe—pluralist, representative democracy, respect for the rule of law and for human rights and social justice—which must be upheld in any member state of the Community. The issue of this statement of principles on the occasion of our agreement on direct elections is particularly appropriate. This is also true, I believe, of the timing of our agreement on the establishment of a European Foundation, as proposed in Mr. Tindeman's Report on European Union, Mr. Tindeman being the Belgian Prime Minister. I personally fully share his perception that this union requires greater understanding of European integration and of the European cultural heritage as well as improved mutual knowledge and understanding among the peoples of the Community. These are to be the objectives of the foundation, which will be seated in Paris and set up on a Community basis by means of agreements concluded by the representatives of the Governments of the member states meeting within the Council.

A problem, regrettably common in recent years to almost all member states, which engaged our attention was that of terrorist violence. The European Council declared its deep distress at the kidnapping of the former Prime Minister of Italy, Signor Aldo Moro, and the murder of his escort and expressed its complete solidarity with the Italian people and Government. I avail of this opportunity to reiterate in a parliamentary context the personal concern and sympathy I have already expressed and my hope for the early safe deliverance of Signor Moro, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions and who participated, as Italian Prime Minister, in the first meeting of the European Council in Dublin three years ago.

We agreed that high priority must be given to the intensification of co-operation among the Nine to protect our societies against such terrorist violence. I spoke particularly in support of the proposal—which was agreed—that the relevant Ministers should increase their mutual co-operation and submit as soon as possible their conclusions on the proposals to establish a European judicial area, as suggested at our last meeting by President Giscard d'Estaing.

Also at his initiative and arising from the recent pollution disaster affecting the coast of Britanny, we adopted a text assigning a high Community priority to the prevention and combatting of marine pollution, particularly by hydrocarbons. Community action in this area is very desirable and, of course, greatly in our interest, as an island State with substantial interests in tourism and fishing.

The principal political matters discussed within the framework of European Political Co-operation were East-West relations in the wake of the Belgrade conference, the Middle East and the situation in a number of areas of Africa. In relation to the Middle East, there was full support for the resolutions of the UN Security Council dealing with the situation in Southern Lebanon and with the principles of a general peace and settlement in the area as a whole. The Government, of course, as I was happy to confirm yesterday to Secretary General Waldheim, are fully in accord with this common position of the Nine in their support for these resolutions and for co-operation by all parties with the UN Interim Force for Lebanon in the execution of its mandate. I may mention that the question of Irish participation in the peace-keeping force there was discussed with the Secretary General yesterday and will be decided in the light of developments.

All of the matters I have mentioned are important. But undoubtedly the principal area of concern at the Copenhagen meeting was the international economic and monetary situation.

The general assessment of this situation and of future prospects remained sober and the focus was on how to achieve non-inflationary growth in the Community generally. I am glad to be able to say that the Head of Government of one of the larger member states noted that the Government here seemed already to have discovered the secret of success at national level, by achieving last year and perhaps again this year the highest rate of growth of any country in the Community combined with a substantial reduction in inflation.

It is good to see our achievements noted abroad but I have no illusions but that the continued success of our efforts will depend to a considerable extent on successful action to master world economic problems, and on our own ability to act with moderation and foresight.

The Copenhagen meeting was not an occasion for final decisions on action. It concentrated rather on analysis, looking forward to decisions at the next meeting in Bremen in July and at the so-called World Economic Summit in Bonn shortly thereafter. There was concern at the continuing high unemployment and at the sluggish rate of growth in the Community, which at less than 2 per cent last year was totally insufficient even to maintain employment at its existing level, not to mention the difficulties which could emerge with the greatly increased numbers of young people who will be seeking jobs in almost all member states in the next few years. It was felt that the endemic monetary instability of recent years had a large role in creating the problems from which we suffer. Particular attention was given to the effects of disturbances affecting the dollar which are greatly in disproportion to its importance in world trade. It was noted that the EEC was the only one among the three main forces in the developed world suffering from internal monetary disturbances—and this despite the fact that the member states have $150 billion of trade among themselves. We talked of certain ideas on how the Community could make a contribution to world-wide monetary stability that would be commensurate with its importance in world trade.

Further work is to be done on these ideas within the context of a common strategy which we agreed to develop over the coming three months and which, in addition to economic and monetary affairs, will cover employment, energy, trade, industrial affairs and relations with the developing world. There is to be an assessment of the effects of present national economic policies and of the scope for additional co-ordination measures. During this period the Community will make better use of existing common facilities to alleviate present restraints on member states' scope for action, particularly those arising from balance of payments difficulties. This will involve, inter alia, a doubling of the capital of the European Investment Bank and the Community Loan Facility.

It was thought essential that the Community should have achieved an annual growth rate of 4½ per cent by mid-1979 but it was recognised that, even with progress in accord with this guideline, there was a need to advance consideration of complementary, specific measures to combat unemployment, particularly among young people. The Council agreed with the tripartite Standing Committee on employment that, while the best way to deal with unemployment was to create new jobs through active economic, employment and investment policies, there should be further consideration of whether work-sharing measures could play a supplementary part. Here, I might mention that the same committee noted, rightly I believe, the need to overcome difficulties both of principle and implementation, particularly as regards the costs involved.

At my suggestion, with Italian support, the Council pointed out that the pursuit of greater internal cohesion, implying also a reduction in regional imbalances, constitutes one of the key objectives of the Community. It is an ill wind that blows no one any good and one satisfactory result, from our point of view, of the general economic difficulties, is that the larger countries within the Community have come to appreciate how unacceptable is the persistence of high rates of unemployment of the kind to which, unfortunately, the less developed regions have had too lengthy experience. There is a danger that policies to overcome unemployment might be tailored largely or exclusively to meet the more recent problems of the central areas of the Community.

We have indicated clearly both at the meeting in Copenhagen and when the President of the Commission paid a visit here in advance of the meeting, that Community policies generally must be applied with due regard to the different impact between central and peripheral regions and that there must be better coherence between the implementation of industrial structural policies and the objective of reducing regional disparities which requires that less developed states and regions must achieve higher than average growth. Regional policy guidelines, including proposals for systematic assessments of the regional impact of proposals in other areas of Community policy, have been under discussion at official level for some time: in addition, the Commission's work programme for 1978 suggested that there might be a need to establish correcting mechanisms where the regional impact of policies would be harmful. These are useful ideas, so far as they go, but their implementation has been too long delayed. I suggested, therefore, that progress should be expedited with a view, possibly, to an early meeting of the Council, that is the Foreign Ministers, concentrated on regional policy. We will be pressing this further, in the light of the positive attitude of the European Council.

While I might have wished that we had already reached the stage of taking concrete decisions, I am otherwise generally satisfied with the moves envisaged in the economic sphere. In particular, I believe that an enhanced Community role in the promotion of greater monetary stability is necessary and deserves support. The Government have the national implications of this matter under study.

Associated with our general economic discussion we had a report on progress made in Community consultations with Japan with special reference to the reduction of Japanese balance of payments surpluses, consultations which resulted in a joint communiqué in Tokyo on 24 March. This was seen in Copenhagen as a first step in continuing consultations. We wish to increase our exports to Japan and Japanese investment here and I therefore hope that co-operation between the Community and Japan can be further developed and extended in the interests of both sides of the world economy.

Before going to Copenhagen I had written to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan, suggesting that it might be useful if we met on the occasion of the Council to discuss different aspects of the Northern Ireland situation and other matters of mutual interest. Mr. Callaghan readily agreed.

We had an informal and most useful meeting. We looked back to our discussion last September, affirmed the views expressed in the communiqué following that meeting and reviewed the progress since then in the political, economic and security areas. We agreed that there should be further meetings between Ministers, as necessary.

I mentioned our belief that the only basis for permanent peace and stability and a harmonious relationship between Britain and Ireland is the coming together of the people of Ireland under agreed structures. I said that we thought that progress towards this objective would be facilitated if the British Government were to declare its interest in Irish unity and join with us in working towards that end. The difference between us on this issue was clearly and frankly acknowledged. In particular, we agreed that within this known framework of difference, there was scope for the fullest co-operation on political, security and economic areas. All three are, in fact, regularly discussed at political, diplomatic and official level.

I reiterated my belief in the need, in the interim, for structures of government in Northern Ireland involving power-sharing, partnership, or participation—however described—on a basis agreed by both sections of the community there. I am satisfied that the proposals for a system of limited devolution of powers to a Northern Ireland elected body are still on the table and I indicated our support for any effort to advance these proposals on the principles I have mentioned.

On the security and economic issues, we did not go into any great detail. Both of us were concerned that the meeting should look forward, rather than backwards. I stressed the very real commitment of the Government in relation to security. We are anxious that the existing co-operation, which is satisfactory, should continue. This, with political and economic issues, will be among the items to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State.

The meeting in Copenhagen was only the second of the European Councils I attended and I do not propose to give any general assessment of these meetings or of the role of the European Council. Deputies may recall that I was critical of the results of these meetings in replying here to statements by my predecessor. I regard the Copenhagen meeting as having been useful in developing personal contacts and an appreciation of the views and preoccupations of the various heads of state and government. The meeting provided a forum for an exchange of views at the highest level on the critical problems facing the Community and the world, and on possible ways of dealing with them: and it is in that light that increasingly its benefits will be seen.

Dr. FitzGerald

I welcome the Taoiseach's statement to the House in accordance with the practice after these European Council meetings. We are glad on this side of the House that the date of the European elections has finally been fixed. I noted in a statement by the Taoiseach on the radio that within the range of 7 to 10 June, the most likely date for us to hold the election would be on Thursday 7 June, the midweek day, in accordance with our past practice, which would appear to be the same day as the elections are likely to be held in Britain and Northern Ireland. This party accepts that as a reasonable date.

I was, however, a little surprised at his statement in this radio interview that the results of our election here would be published immediately. Has there been a change on this point since the discussion at the European Council on 1 April 1976 when, in order to meet objections by one head of government in regard to the results of elections on later days being influenced by the publication of election results on earlier days of the proposed Thursday to Sunday span, it was agreed at that meeting that the boxes in all countries would not be opened until the close of the poll on Sunday night? I have a record of the discussion in front of me and that was what was agreed at that time because otherwise——

The Taoiseach

It was not discussed. I was not cognisant of what the Deputy has just referred to.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is something which I think is not the subject of any formal decision but, in fact, as I recorded at the time, the agreement to have a span of four days was conditional on the non-publication of the results—"not opening the boxes" was the actual phrase used—until the Sunday night. Perhaps it is something which the Taoiseach might wish to clarify further in consultation with his colleagues in due course. I remember commenting at the time, in respect of one country whose prime minister had suggested this arrangement, which seemed to me an acceptable one that his people must be very incurious if they are willing to wait from Thursday until Sunday night for the results. I am afraid we also will have to be incurious in this respect.

I note the Taoiseach's statement about a feeling that no other election should take place on the same day. Where does this feeling originate from? Has there been a decision of the Council of Ministers of the European Council on this point? Up to the time the Government here changed I do not recall any discussion of this kind. My feeling—I thought some of my colleagues in other countries shared it— was that there could be advantages in having other elections on the same day. In our case, very opportunely the local elections now seem likely to be due at about the same time. There would appear to be advantages in having two rather dissimilar elections which would tend to increase the poll. People whose interests are primarily in local matters and who would come in to vote for their local councillors, would vote also in the European elections and people with broad European interests, not terribly interested in local affairs, might vote additionally in the local elections.

Is there some agreement that there shall not be two kinds of elections, or is this simply a view which the Taoiseach holds? Will the Taoiseach clarify as soon as possible the Government's intentions in this regard? It would seem unreasonable to postpone our local elections for a year, so as not to hold them on the same day, when there seem to be certain advantages in holding them on the same day. I share the Taoiseach's hopes about the kind of debate that should take place on the European elections. I hope the debate will be concerned with the broader European issues with which the European parliamentarians will be concerning themselves and that it will not be concerned too closely with narrow domestic party issues, which will not be excludable from the debate but which should not form its exclusive content.

On the declaration on democracy, I note the statement by the European Council that the principles behind the foundation of the Community and terms of the Copenhagen declaration on the European identity imply a political system of pluralist democracy. In legal terms what force does this declaration of the European Council have? How could such a declaration affect the juridical position of a member state which ceased to be democratic, but which resists pressures on it arising from its departure from the democratic process by threatening to veto all Community decisions thereafter, thus bringing the Community to a halt?

In the discussions at Leeds Castle nine months ago this danger was adverted to; and, in referring the matter to the British permanent representatives for further discussion, one of the suggestions put forward to meet the possible juridical problems that might arise was that, if a situation arose in which one member state ceased to be a pluralist democracy, the majority of member states could refer the matter to the European Court for a decision which would have a juridical effect. This would require an amendment to the Treaty. Is it the case that the inclusion of this declaration on democracy in the statements at the end of this European Council meeting is designed to take the place of any such procedure and that there is no intention to take the matter any further, which would still leave the Community very vulnerable to a departure from democracy on the part of any member countries?

I welcome the European Foundation. I hope it will avoid the bureaucratic influences which have infected other similar bodies and the sometimes unedifying in-fighting for jobs on a national basis regardless of the merit of the individual applicants. The establishment of this foundation, if it follows the pattern of some previous similar bodies, could damage the cause it is intended to serve, which is to improve mutual understanding among the people of the Community and promote a better understanding of the European cultural heritage in its rich diversity and oneness and to further a greater understanding of European integration. Could the Taoiseach tell us if Press reports that his Government are supporting the location of this foundation in France are correct? We are quite prepared to accept that as reasonable and desirable.

I note the statement contained in the communiqué at the end of the meeting about Japan and the continuing concern expressed at the Japanese balance of payments surpluses in the context of the whole world economy. Clearly the discussions between the Commission and Japan recently were not very successful, and the whole world faces a problem in not merely the extreme competitiveness of Japanese goods, which one might be able to accept if at the same time the Japanese market were as open to the goods of other countries as our markets are to goods from that country. I hope that future discussions will lead to an opening up of the Japanese market in a way that will be beneficial to our exporters.

I welcome the statement concerning marine pollution. I hope it will be followed through. Hitherto this matter has not been taken seriously enough. What is disturbing about this statement is that it should be necessary at this stage to call for the implementation of existing international rules, in particular with regard to the minimum standards for the operation of ships, and that it should be necessary to call for a satisfactory functioning of the system of compulsory shipping lanes and for more effective control over vessels which do not meet these standards. It is disturbing that we should be at the stage where not merely is it necessary to take further action to avoid the danger of pollution but where the real problem appears to lie in the fact that existing provisions are not being carried out and that there is, judging from the wording of the statement, a failure under three headings to fulfil the existing compulsory requirements and standards. That is a matter of very great concern to us. It is deplorable that in international relations there should be such apparent large scale failure to carry out existing obligations, given the dangers that this carries for all countries which have coastlines that could be affected.

I welcome the declaration on Namibia and trust that, despite the recent tragic assasination there, this declaration will contribute to a solution of the problem of achieving genuine independence for that country. I also welcome the declaration on terrorism and, on behalf of my party, I join in the expression of distress at the kidnapping of Signor Moro, the murder of his escort, and in the declaration of the European Council of solidarity with the Italian people and Government. I note that the relevant Ministers—it is not stated clearly, but I take it that they are the Ministers for Justice or the Interior—have been asked to submit as soon as possible their conclusions on what is described as the proposals before them for a European judicial area, which the Taoiseach mentioned as having been put forward in some general form by the President of France at the previous European Council meeting.

Could we be informed what these proposals are? Will the Dáil have an opportunity to debate them before a decision is taken by a future European Council or Council of Ministers? Can the Taoiseach assure the House that these proposals conform to the terms of the European Council declaration of 13th July 1976, under which all member states undertake to prosecute or to extradite those who engage in the taking of hostages, and under which Ministers for Justice were invited to draw up a legally binding convention among the nine member states to this effect.

The words "to prosecute or to extradite" were added to the original draft of that declaration on my proposal at that meeting. They are important in view of the clear inability of the process of extradition to resolve this problem and indeed the wider problem of terrorism because of constitutional difficulties in Ireland, in France and what appear to be either political or legal difficulties in the Netherlands and Germany in recent cases. Given that Germany has refused extradition to Italy, that France has refused extradition to Germany, that the Netherlands has refused extradition to Germany and that France has refused extradition to Spain, it is clear that extradition does not provide a very satisfactory basis for dealing with terrorism. I wish to be assured that the proposals which are now under consideration by the Ministers for Justice or the Interior, if they are the relevant Ministers, are one which provide for this alternative without which any further convention among the Nine will be as ineffective as existing arrangements are among the wider Council of Europe group. The system which we have instituted here, although it has not yet been used very much for one reason or another, is one which offers an assurance against the possibility of terrorists avoiding justice by moving from one state to another.

In that connection I am anticipating the question under discussion with the British Prime Minister. Has the Taoiseach been able to establish clearly from the British Prime Minister whether the absence of any application for the arrest of anybody here for a crime committed in Northern Ireland in the four years since this has been brought into effect in respect of murder and the two years since it was brought into effect for other offences of violence represents a position in which the British Government have no evidence against anybody in this State in respect of such offences committed over that period, or whether there is any other explanation of a less satisfactory character for the total absence, except in one instance, of any such application?

I welcome the full support given to the United Nations Declaration on Southern Lebanon. I hope for its early implementation in full by an effectice UN force which will take all necessary steps to stand its ground and operate effectively in the area. This party would welcome the participation of an Irish contingent in that force. We hope that, in the weeks ahead, arrangements can be made for this.

On the economic situation I note, though with a little scepticism, the Taoiseach's reference to a renewed sense of purpose in the Community, to a process of fresh thinking, to a readiness to arouse more ambitious concepts. I welcome his reference to the Heads of Governments noting that the Government here already have discovered the secret of economic success at national level by achieving last year, and perhaps this year, the highest rate of growth in the Community and a sharp drop in inflation. This is a very welcome tribute to the policies of the National Coalition because even the most extravagant propagandist for the Government party has not yet claimed that the new Government's policies have had any perceptible effect on last year's growth rate which I notice has now been assessed at not 5 but 6 per cent by an international organisation, the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva. It is very disturbing that the growth rate of the EEC last year, originally forecast at 4 per cent and during the year reduced, as a forecast, to 3½ per cent, 3 per cent, 2½ per cent and 2 per cent, is now assessed at less than 2 per cent. It really is extremely unsatisfactory that the performance of the economies of the Community countries should fall so far short of the projected levels and that their Governments, neither jointly nor separately, seem able to take action in time to maintain anything like the target growth rate set. It was evident throughout virtually the whole of 1977 that that target of 4 per cent—which may have been 4½ per cent originally— would not be achieved. Yet, as the time passed, no joint action was taken, nor was action taken by certain key member states to ensure that their targets were achieved. Therefore we have this extraordinary shortfall to a level of growth much less than half that projected originally.

I welcome the idea of doubling the European Investment Bank capital and the Community loan facility but, even with provisions of that kind, I have doubts about the growth target of 4½ per cent set for mid-1979. First of all, I consider that growth rate too low to do anything other than stabilise unemployment throughout the Community. Secondly, I find it disturbing that the target is set so far ahead, 15 months away, because experience has shown that if a target for growth is set a long distance away then States—which are reluctant for one reason or another to fulfil their obligations, which is a word one could reasonably use, to achieve the target growth rate—are given an excuse to do nothing for some time ahead on the grounds: "Well, it is still not clear that we are not going to achieve that target." If one sets a target 15 months ahead one will have some Governments telling one nine months hence: "Well, it is still not quite clear that we could not achieve it." Therefore there could well be a period of nine months during which no action was taken to stimulate growth when, once again, there would be a major failure to achieve the target growth rate.

I note the reference in the statement from the European Council about the need to examine sharing methods as a supplement to growth policy. I believe this may well be necessary and that growth policies, even if more effectively operated than heretofore or seems likely to be the case in the foreseeable future, do not seem capable of achieving anything like full employment in anything like the time scale that we in this country or the peoples of other Community countries expect and seek. It is good, as the Taoiseach has said, that larger countries are starting to appreciate how unacceptable is the persistence of high unemployment in the less developed regions of the Community. I agree about the need for differentiated policies as between central and peripheral areas. The early meeting of the Council of Ministers on regional policy, which I understand the Taoiseach sought, could well prove worth while. Certainly it is important that there should be serious discussion of this whole matter. It is of interest not merely to this country—we are not simply pursuing a single national interest here—but indeed to a number of other countries in the Community as well as to some applicant countries. Moreover it is important, in putting forward our views on this whole subject, that we should not appear to be pressing a narrow national interest. It is in the interest of the whole Community that there is a convergence of the economies of member countries and it is to the disadvantage of the whole Community if this is not achieved. Therefore, it is not simply a question of this country going with a begging bowl on its own behalf or on behalf of others. It is a question of achieving a convergence of the economies of member states without which the existing Community arrangements could indeed at some point be endangered.

Finally, on the discussions with the British Prime Minister, from the experience I had in Government, I feel that relatively frequent meetings between Ministers of our two Governments in relation to Northern Ireland are desirable. My experience was that if the period between such meetings ran to more than say, three months, nearly always misunderstandings arose, mini-propaganda wars started, or difficulties of one kind or another emerged which could have been avoided had the meetings been more frequent. Even if there may not be a very major content for discussion at a given point, even if there may not be a prospect of any very hard or concrete decisions emerging, frequent meetings at intervals of approximately three months are desirable if only to avoid the kind of misunderstandings and irritations that can arise in their absence.

I note the Taoiseach's statement that . . . the coming together of the people of Ireland under agreed structures——

and I am using his words

... would be facilitated if the British Government were to declare its interest in Irish unity ....

However, I wonder if the Taoiseach, in making this point, reminded the British Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Government's declaration at Sunningdale at which the word "support" was used in relation to the concept of Irish unity by consent, the only kind of unity which any of us seeks. It would be a pity if, by calling for a new declaration by the United Kingdom Government, we were to devalue the declaration made at that time and which was, to my knowledge, the only such declaration involving the concept of support made by any British Government in the period from 1920 onwards.

I am glad that the unnecessary and undesirable tensions between the two Governments have been alleviated; there is no future in slanging matches across the Irish Sea. The solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will be found only by a meeting of minds between the Irish and United Kingdom Governments paralleling a future coming together of Northern Ireland political representatives who would need perhaps to reflect more accurately than they have done up to now the underlying will of the Northern Ireland people, which has been repeatedly shown in surveys of public opinion there, for a peaceful resolution of the problems of government of that area on the basis of a partnership of both sections of the community. I am glad —I am deducing this by omission— that in his discussions with the British Prime Minister the Taoiseach did not pursue the declaration of intent to withdraw idea, the dangers of which were so cogently exposed by the Deputy Leader of the SDLP a month or two ago in an interview in The Irish Times. I recognise with the Taoiseach, I think realistically, the difficulty of achieving significant movement in the political situation in Northern Ireland in the period between now and the next United Kingdom general election. I recognise our duty to contribute to progress after that election. I feel— and I think the view is fairly widely shared—that we can make a contribution to this by clarifying now our ideas on possible future agreed arrangements for the government of the island of Ireland, an exercise which I believe, if undertaken with honesty and clarity, could dispel many of the fears of unionists in Northern Ireland which have been aroused by past, vague— and consequently to them—threatening talk on our part about unification without the implications of that being spelled out. Therefore I think our aspirations have been misunderstood and have unintentionally contributed to the tensions in Northern Ireland which themselves have led to the violence there.

Mr. Cluskey

I should first of all like to welcome the continued opportunity afforded to the House by the Taoiseach of discussing the Summit meeting. I should like also to thank the Taoiseach for his courtesy in giving me a copy of his statement. I appreciate it but, quite frankly, I appreciated it far more when I got it an hour in advance rather than seven minutes in advance. I found it more useful.

The Taoiseach

In accordance with precedent, it is not too easy to change sometimes.

Mr. Cluskey

My immediate reaction to the Taoiseach's statement must be that we have heard it all before. I intend to deal with the Summit meeting and subsequently with the meeting with Mr. Callaghan and in the same brief way that the Taoiseach dealt with it.

The only positive thing that emerged from the Summit meeting was the date of the direct elections to the European Parliament. This is disappointing. The danger inherent in continuing these meetings at that level without any positive move being made, and this is something becoming quite apparent, is obvious. If the meetings continue on that basis there will be serious need to reconsider the whole concept of the European Community. We welcome the decision that direct elections will take place in June 1979. While we have absolutely no illusions about the present or likely future of the powers of the European Parliament we believe that direct elections will provide the opportunity to advance on two very important fronts.

First of all, direct elections will provide the Community with the novelty of really democratic political activity directly related to the institutions and the policy-making procedures laid down in the Treaty of Rome. The people of the nine member states will be involved, even if initially only for the first few weeks of the election campaign next year, in the life of the Community and that will be a positive move towards some democratic procedures in the Community. Secondly, direct elections will mean there will be a real opportunity for political debate on the key issues which arise in connection with the past performance, the present problems and the future development of the Community.

A Community with 6,000,000 out of work as a result of its slavish adherence to an economic system devoted to commerce rather than human interest requires a real political debate. A Community where regional imbalances are increasing rather than decreasing, because of its total failure to match its policies to its greatest problems, calls for a political debate and we must look forward to that debate both here and in the Nine because we believe we have something positive and relevant to say about the issues now confronting Europe. We also believe that in the months ahead we will see for the first time a very fundamental discussion about the future of the Community in which the main emphasis will have to be on the capacity of the Community to do something worth while as a group of nations about the problems with which it is faced. Failure to adopt policies relevant to the scale of the problem will surely lead to serious questioning of the whole future of the EEC. The parliament has often been called a talking shop and unless there is some meaningful action soon the other institutions of the Community will be seen in the same light and will receive the same negative public response. The European Council above all stands most in this danger.

On the broad range of economic problems facing Europe, notably those of unemployment, economic growth and currency, we are told that the Copenhagen meeting is to be a preparatory one for the Bremen meeting which, in turn, will be preparatory to the world economic Summit in Bonn. All this may sound very impressive, but I wonder is it getting us anywhere so far as the problems in the Community are concerned because, while preparations go on, so also do redundancies and dole queues in the Community. A growth rate of 4.5 per cent is projected this year on the basis of likely policies and one has to ask is such a growth rate sufficient to make any inroads into the massive problem of unemployment. I doubt it and, in so far as it fails, it can only add to the difficulties and the disillusionment I find to be widely growing regarding the whole EEC.

I had some personal experience of the Community's approach to the unemployment problem and I must say that, sitting there in the forum used by the social partners to deal with unemployment, one began to wonder whether or not unemployment was being taken seriously at all because the only thing that seemed to come out at the other end was discussion documents. There did not seem to be any really serious attempt to tackle the very severe unemployment problem within the Community, a problem of 6,000,000 people out of work, and I believe that unless some new positive and serious initiative is taken in this regard the view our people already take of the Community will become even more negative.

The Taoiseach referred to regional policy and he claimed some credit for having a sentence or two included in the report of the President. We must face the fact that the regional policy of the Community has been, to say the least of it, extremely disappointing. It is in no way a regional policy or a social policy. It adumbrates no prospects of employment. It in no way lives up to the expectations raised among our people during the campaign for entry into the EEC. The expectations raised then by the Fianna Fáil Party and others here are now seen to have been just election promises which have failed and one detects from the Government now an approach similar to the approach taken by this party then. We are hearing now from the Government statements we made during the referendum campaign in regard to our entry into the EEC.

With regard to the question of protective measures to ensure the continuance of our industries, some of which are very vulnerable, Protocol 30 must be invoked and used firmly by the Government to ensure that we give protection to these vulnerable industries because so long as the declared intentions of the Treaty of Rome to correct the economic imbalances in the Community are not seriously faced up to we must use these protective measures. The approach initially made in regard to free trade, regarding many of the provisions which we have found to our great disadvantage from the point of view not only of increased employment but of continuing employment here were made on the basis that they were among nations that were somewhat of equal economic strength. That is not the case with us. So far as the peripheral areas of the Community are concerned, such as Ireland, it has been a considerable disappointment.

It is fair to say that if we go to the Community and talk about a transfer of resources from one area within the nine countries to another area that is poorer and that needs development and growth, we are looking for a transfer of resources from the rich to the poor. If we do that internationally it does not strengthen our case when we see what the Government are doing nationally because there has not been any serious attempt by this Government to transfer resources, to have some kind of distribution of the existing wealth within the country. As long as the Government pursue that policy of not trying to distribute equitably and fairly the existing wealth in the country it will not give us a serious voice in Europe on the question of regional policy. It is no use in our going to Europe and saying we are entitled to get paid under the regional fund because we are a peripheral area in relation to the central part of the Common Market and we need assistance because there are 20 per cent of our own people who could be described accurately in that context as a peripheral area and the Government have done nothing to help them. It would help the Government considerably if they would practise on the national scene what they are printing on the international scene.

This party would like to be associated with the Taoiseach's remarks regarding the kidnapping of the former Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Moro, and the murder of his bodyguards. We wish to be totally and unreservedly associated with the Taoiseach's comments on the matter.

With regard to the Taoiseach's meeting with the British Prime Minister, I shall be fairly brief. I do not think it would be helpful in the national interest for me to make some of the comments that I could make on the situation that led to the strained relations that developed between the British and Irish Governments and I shall refrain from doing so. However, I have one comment to make. In the Taoiseach's statement he said:

I am satisfied that the proposals for a system of limited devolution of powers to a Northern Ireland elected body are still on the table ....

The only comment I wish to make on that is that they have been on the table a helluva long time and it is about time the British Government picked them up. It would not do any harm if the Taoiseach were a little more insistent on the British Government picking them up off the table and making a serious attempt to implement their policy with regard to power-sharing or partnership, or as the Taoiseach said, that would involve both communities in devolved government in Northern Ireland.

On some occasions the Taoiseach seems to have an extraordinary understanding of the difficulties of the British Government. On other occasions he does not have that understanding but I think this is one occasion in the interest of this country and of the lives of men and women living on this island when the Taoiseach could be a little less sympathetic with regard to the difficulties of the British Government and where he should be more insistent on the implementation by them of their own declared policy. I do not think that raising some of the political hares that he has been doing in the past is helpful in this respect. In fact, I believe this is welcomed by the British Government. They are only too glad to chase after them if it distracts from what should be the priority—the implementation of power-sharing by the British Government in Northern Ireland. That is the starting point and I sincerely hope the Taoiseach will be a little more insistent with the British Government on that issue.

I note that the question of British withdrawal was not mentioned by the Taoiseach when he spoke to Mr. Callaghan. At least I assume it was not; it is not in the statement. I can only hope that we do not have again what happened before, where he spoke to the British Prime Minister and where the question of British withdrawal was not mentioned but a week later the Taoiseach in a speech was looking for withdrawal by the British Government. If the Taoiseach wants withdrawal by the British Government and if that is the policy of his party, surely he should say that to Mr. Callaghan when he is talking to him? I do not think it is helpful from anyone's point of view that he should meet Mr. Callaghan, not discuss an issue of major importance— whatever one's view may be of it—and subsequently in a radio interview or at a meeting of a cumann in Skibbereen to mention the matter. That is not helpful in the circumstances that exist on this island. I will not go any further on this point. I am glad that normal relations have been restored. If they are strained again I hope it will be as the result of some statement or action by the British Government rather than any contributing factor from anyone in our own country. In the circumstances that exist it is necessary to have constant communication with the British Government. The interests of the nation as a whole cannot be best served by a strain in that relationship, particularly one that is not necessary.

The Taoiseach

Normally I do not think a statement like this calls for reply but there were one or two points raised by Deputy FitzGerald about the holding of the European elections and whether they should be on the same day as other elections in member countries.

More than one member country expressed difficulty about the proximity of their statutory local elections to the proposed date of the European elections. I specifically raised the matter whether it would be considered desirable or undesirable if the dates of such elections should coincide and the only reply I got was that it would be a matter for each member country. I then expressed, as the Deputy pointed out, in reply to a question on a radio interview my preference for holding them on a Thursday. I said I thought it would be better to announce the results as soon as the count was over. I did not realise it was envisaged that the ballot boxes would remain closed until Sunday night in the event of our elections taking place on Thursday.

Another point is that it is just not only one other form of election everywhere in this country that would take place because we have areas where county council elections and urban council elections are held at the same time. I should like to give some consideration as to whether or not having a third form of election in which there would have to be separate ballot boxes would tend to confuse the issue. It is a matter for consideration and one that I, naturally, will give more thought to. I believe the gist of my reply on that occasion was that I would give it some thought before any decision was made.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Taoiseach will recall that there is a precedent of sorts in that in 1945 a Presidential Election coincided with local elections.

The Taoiseach

I am aware of that.

Mr. Corish

Would the Taoiseach not take the opportunity now of having the elections on a Sunday?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies cannot interrupt this brief reply from the Taoiseach.

Mr. Corish

The Taoiseach has a half an hour to reply, if he needs it.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to establish this precedent because I was never given the facility, when I was on that side, of getting information I sought in the course of a reply to a statement by my predecessor. However, I am not going to create that as a hard and fast precedent, Many of the matters raised would require a longer period than a few minutes to reply to.

With regard to the judicial area proposed by President Giscard of France, I should like to state that the examination of the Ministers for Justice will take account of the results of the meeting of July 1976 and in particular the concept of the phrase, aut dedere, aut judicare, which was agreed upon then at the Deputy's suggestion.

With reference to another point—I can take Deputy Cluskey's comment into consideration with this—I should like to state that it is not envisaged, even if we reach 4½ per cent growth within a 12-month or 15-month period, that that would have any impact itself on the level of unemployment. In fact, it is believed that 4½ per cent would only maintain the level of employment at the existing level.

Many different points of view were expressed and some members of the Council suggested that we should set a higher target that may not be realised. Others wanted to be more realistic and set a target that could be realised, while others did not want to set any target. As Deputy FitzGerald is aware, in areas of discussion and some dissension of that nature, we have to strike the best balance we can get.