I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Report:
Developments in the European Communities—Twenty-First Report."
Reports on Developments in the European Communities: Motions.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Reports:
Developments in the European Communities—Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Reports."
In speaking to these motions, I consider that, while it might be strictly outside their terms of reference, it would be appropriate for me to welcome and endorse the Taoiseach's earlier statement to the House on the outcome of the Dublin European Council, as a major break through on a number of issues of great importance to the development of the Community.
I was saddened when I heard the Leader of the Opposition reading into the record this morning an obvious piece of misinformation which was published in a British newspaper on Sunday last. That piece of misinformation was designed for purposes which should have been evident to the Deputy, having regard to the record of the relations between the paper concerned and this country for the past month. It is regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition had to stoop to making such a disloyal contribution.
Have the Minister's office corrected officially The Sunday Times report?
I do not spend my time correcting obviously placed pieces of misinformation in newspapers around the world. I trust that at least Irish people will understand that the purpose of the exercise was not to help this country.
There is only one paper entitled The Sunday Times from London and if the information was not correct it should have been corrected.
It was matter of opinion they quoted but one which was not shared by other members of the Community.
That said, I should like to conclude the debate on the Twenty-First Report on Developments in the European Communities on the note that while major problems had not been resolved the Greek Presidency and the Irish delegations were assiduously pursuing possible solutions. In our own case this of course principally concerned the Commission proposal for a special levy on milk production.
The period of the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Reports on Developments in the European Communities embraces the whole of 1983. In June of that year, the European Council in Fontainebleau confirmed a decision which, given the background of the Community's serious financial difficulties, the surplus situation in the milk market and the considerable production cut-backs other member states had to accept, was remarkably favourable for the Irish dairying industry.
I should say also that I welcome the report on the super-levy which the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation prepared and which set out clearly and comprehensively the vital national interest involved for Ireland on this issue.
Another problem which dominated the Community scene in 1983 was that of the British and German contributions to the Community budget. While temporary solutions had, in the past, been arranged for this problem, it continued to resurface and overshadow the other issues facing the Community. Under the agreed arrangement arrived at in Fontainebleau in June 1984 the UK is to be paid a lump sum of 1,000 MECUs for 1984; and, for 1985 and some years thereafter so long as the Community's VAT limit is maintained at 1.4 per cent, the UK will be paid 66 per cent of the gap between its share of VAT payments and its share of Community expenditure. This arrangement does not strike at fundamental Community principles but represents a pragmatic arrangement to resolve a longstanding Community problem.
The European Council in Fontainebleau agreed also that the VAT contributions by member states to the Community budget should be raised from 1.0 per cent to 1.4 per cent by 1 January 1986 at the latest. Moreover it was agreed that this rate may be increased further to 1.6 per cent on 1 January 1988, by unanimous decision of the Council and after agreement has been given in accordance with national procedures. One should not underestimate the importance of this agreement; it will enable the Community to fund its ongoing policies, meet the costs of enlargement and develop the new common policies which are urgently required to tackle the pressing social and economic problems which now confront the peoples of Europe.
Perhaps, I could, for a moment, put this agreement in a broader context. This deadline of January 1986 for the accession of Spain and Portugal is of vital importance for the Community in that two member states, the Federal Republic of Germany and, to a lesser degree, the Netherlands, have directly linked their agreement on increasing the Community's own resources as from 1 January 1986 to the enlargement of the Community, as from that date also. The basic political and economic reality is, therefore, that the availability of increased own resources to the Community is directly linked to enlargement. Hence the vital importance of this issue for the future development of the Community and its range of existing and planned new policies. It is therefore extremely encouraging to note the progress achieved at the European Council in Dublin and reported in detail by the Taoiseach earlier today.
The basic strategy of the Irish Presidency has been, as an immediate priority, to try to secure internal Community positions on all the major negotiating issues.
Having achieved a common Community position, wine and fisheries nevertheless remain difficult and sensitive issues in the negotiations with Spain and Portugal. In this regard, I have stated already on a number of occasions that this Government will, as in the past, continue to defend and advance the best interests of Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry. This is, and will remain, the national priority in the negotiations for us.
In this regard, the comprehensive report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation is timely and I welcome its publication.
With maximum political goodwill and co-operation from all our partners, the final decisive stage of the negotiations, on which we have now entered, can be brought to an early and successful conclusion.
Important developments took place also in our relations with the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries with whom we are contractually linked under the Lomè Convention.
Negotiations for a third Lomè Convention from 1985 onwards got under way and very recently reached a successful conclusion. The signature of the new Convention will take place in Lomè on 8 December and will preserve a tradition inaugurated in 1975 by the present Taoiseach, of signature of the Lomè Convention by Irish Presidents of the Council.
The new convention will consolidate what has been achieved in its two predecessors but it will also contain some innovations. Most notably it will place a new emphasis on the ACP area achieving self-reliance through integrated rural and agricultural development. The new convention will also contain a new chapter on the long-term fight against drought and desertification which is presently ravaging many parts of Africa. It is my fervent hope that, if we continue these kinds of strategies in our aid programme, terrible tragedies such as that which we are witnessing in Ethiopia today will become a thing of the past. This was noted by the European Council.
I should like to say a special word about the situation in Ethiopia. As you are aware, the Irish Presidency was instrumental in getting the Community to reassess its position on aid to that country. That effort culminated in the recent conclusion by the European Council that 1.2 million tonnes of food aid should be provided to Ethiopia by the Community and its member states between now and the next harvest.
Turning to internal Community affairs, the European Parliament adopted, on 14 September 1983, a resolution on the substance of a preliminary draft treaty establishing the European Union. This was a further step in a process which began in July 1981 when the Parliament resolved to take the initiative in giving a new impetus to the creation of European Union. This process culminated on 14 February 1984 when the European Parliament adopted the draft treaty establishing the European Union, together with a resolution entrusting its President to submit it to the Parliaments and Governments of the member states.
The draft treaty is a document which in its intent and inspiration merits our full attention. While there will inevitably be hesitations on the part of Governments with regard to certain aspects of the draft treaty it serves as a useful model for the Community's long-term goal of European Union and places on Governments the onus of seeking a real consensus for action to achieve that common goal.
The decisions on institutional issues reached at the European Council at Fontainebleau in June 1984 enabled us to begin to give concrete substance to the launching of the Community to which the Heads of State or Government had committed themselves with the signature of the Solemn Declaration on European Union on 19 June 1983. The success of the Council enabled its members to address their attention once more to the further strengthening and development of the Community and the wellbeing of its citizens. It decided to establish an ad hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, representative of the Heads of State or Government, the function of which is to make suggestions for the improvement of the work of the Community in all areas. The Irish Presidency was asked to take the necessary steps to implement that decision and the committee met under the chairmanship of Senator Dooge and submitted an interim report to the European Council in Dublin. That meeting mandated the committee and the ad hoc Committee on a People's Europe to continue their important work.
Employment has been an Irish priority, and as Presidency we have asked the Council and the Commission to examine ways of alleviating the appalling situation of the unemployed in Europe. The Taoiseach has reported on the progress achieved at the European Council in Dublin and we hope that Community-wide action will be taken as soon as possible.
Within the framework of European political co-operation the Ten continued to co-ordinate their positions on important international issues. In the field of political co-operation the Solemn Declaration on European Union, adopted by the Heads of State or Government in June 1983, brought together in a single document various measures which had been introduced over recent years, in order to reinforce the effectiveness of the process.
The Arab-Israel conflict, the Iran-Iraq war and, in particular, the situation in the Lebanon were considered frequently by the Ten during 1983. On 21-22 March 1983 the European Council underlined the urgent need for withdrawal from Lebanon of Israeli, Syrian and PLO troops. The time had come for Israel to show that it was ready for negotiations, on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338 of the UN Security Council, by refraining from expanding existing settlements in the occupied territories or creating new settlements.
In September 1983, inter-communal fighting broke out in the Lebanon following the withdrawal by Israeli troops to the Awali River. On 12 September the Ten called for a ceasefire and emphasised the necessity of putting an end to sectarian violence and starting a process of national reconciliation. On 9 November, following violence arising from inter-Palestinian rivalries in Northern Lebanon, the Ten expressed their concern at the loss of life and suffering of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.
Speaking on behalf of the Ten to the UN General Assembly on 27 September 1983, the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Haralambopoulos, appealed to Iran and Iraq to spare civilian populations and to observe the international humanitarian conventions which applied in time of war. At their meeting on 27 February 1984, the Foreign Ministers reiterated this plea and called for compliance by the belligerents with the Security Council's resolutions. They also appealed to those involved in a further outbreak of violence in the Lebanon to cease fire.
At their meeting on 27 March 1984 Foreign Ministers of the Ten adopted declarations on the Middle East, which had been prepared but not issued at the European Council on 19-20 March. They hoped that the Lebanese Government and all political forces would continue their efforts to bring about national unity and establish a lasting peace throughout the country. In the Ten's view, a process of negotiating a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict presupposed mutual recognition of the existence and the rights of the parties concerned. On the Iran-Iraq war, the Ten recorded their distress at the allegations of the use of chemical weapons. They condemned any use of such weapons without qualification.
As President-in-Office, I spoke on behalf of the Ten to the UN General Assembly on 27 September 1984. In relation to the Middle East, the Ten expressed the belief that a start towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict could be made with the renunication by all parties of the threat or use of force and with the abandonment by Israel of its settlements policy, which was contrary to international law. The Ten expressed their appreciation for the work of UNIFIL in Lebanon and its efforts to maintain stable conditions and protect the population in its areas of operations. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Ten urged the extending of the process begun by the undertaking by Iran and Iraq not to attack purely civilian targets.
The general return to democratic government throughout most of South America, particularly in Argentina, has been welcomed by the Ten. Unfortunately, the Chilean situation has not developed along these lines. The government of that country have consistently refused to make serious moves in the direction of the restoration of civil liberties and democracy. The recent wave of repressive measures under the state of siege in Chile and the continued violence there is a source of concern to the Ten. In the view of the Ten, it is necessary for the Chilean authorities to resume the dialogue with opposition groups in order to create the conditions which would allow for an early return to democracy in that country.
As regards Central America, the Ten have consistently supported the Contadora process as the best way of achieving peace and stability in Central America. In the view of the Ten, the problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force but only by a political solution springing from the region itself and respecting the principles of non-interference and inviolability of frontiers.
The Conference in San Jose, Costa Rica on 28-29 September of the Foreign Ministers of the European Community, the two applicant countries, Spain and Portugal, the countries of Central America and the Contadora Group marked a significant step forward in relations between the two regions and demonstrated the importance of the support — both political and economic — which the Community and its member states can offer to the region. A process of political dialogue has been initiated and talks will soon get under way with a view to concluding a framework co-operation agreement with Central America. The participants at the San Jose Conference confirmed their support for the Contadora process. Tension in the region, however, has remained close to the surface. The Foreign Ministers of the Ten, meeting in Brussels on 20 November, expressed their deep concern at the increasing tension in and around Nicaragua and called on all parties to act with the utmost restraint in this matter.
East-West relations were tense and difficult during 1983. The shooting down by the Soviet Union of the Korean Airlines jet in September 1983, and the suspension in November, following the initial deployment of Cruise and Pershing II missiles, of the negotiations of intercontinental strategic nuclear weapons (START) and intermediate nuclear forces (INF), severely affected the international climate. In particular, the political relationship between the two superpowers remained strained.
The Ten have been concerned to bring about more predictable and more secure relations between the countries of East and West. They have sought throughout the recent difficult period to keep open the channels of dialogue with the Soviet Union and the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. They welcomed the recently announced US-Soviet agreement to enter into new negotiations with the objective of reaching mutually acceptable agreements on the whole range of questions covering nuclear and outer space arms. The Ten have undertaken to do everything possible to ensure progress in the negotiations in which they themselves are taking part, notably the Conference in Stockholm on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe.
The lifting of martial law in Poland on 22 July 1983 was the major development in 1983. On 21 July of this year the Polish authorities announced an amnesty for the great majority of political prisoners. The Foreign Minister of the Ten issued a statement on 23 July welcoming the amnesty. The Ten expressed the hope that the Polish Government's decision reflected a desire to meet the expectations of the Polish people for dialogue and reform and that the amnesty would be followed by further measures of a kind which would help to promote national reconciliation. The Ten recalled their willingness to return to a more normal relationship with Poland as developments in that country warranted. Individual members of the Ten, over the past number of months, have gradually resumed political contacts with representatives of the Polish Government. They are concerned, however, about recent events in Poland, including the deplorable murder of Fr. Popieluszko, and threats affecting human rights in that country.
Under the CSCE process the main development in the period of the 22nd and 23rd reports was the signing on 6 September 1983 of the Concluding Document of the Madrid follow-up meeting of the CSCE. The work of the meeting proved difficult due largely to the climate of East-West relations at the time. Nonetheless, the Ten believe the Concluding Document to be a balanced and substantial text containing worth-while progress on the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. The Ten will continue to seek through the CSCE process more secure and more co-operative relations between the 35 participating states and greater contact between their peoples. The Ten have emphasised and will continue to emphasise the importance which they attach to the full implementation of all the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid Concluding Document, including those relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms as I said when I contributed to the debate on the earlier motion.
On disarmament the Madrid Concluding Document contained the mandate for the Stockholm conference on disarmament in Europe which opened in January of this year. The Ten, in conformity with the mandate agreed at Madrid are seeking negotiated agreement in a first stage on a set of militarily significant and verifiable confidence and security building measures. These measures would be designed to diminish the risk of military confrontation in Europe through making military behaviour more open and military intentions more calculable and thereby pave the way to a second stage of the Conference where the participating states would continue their efforts for security and disarmament in Europe, in particular by controlled reductions of armaments.
Progress at the conference in Stockholm has so far been slow. However, the Ten are encouraged by the fact that the conference has in recent days agreed a working structure. They hope that this agreement will enable substantive negotiations to get under way.
Developments in South Africa have been followed closely by the Ten in recent months. On 27 February 1984, the Foreign Ministers of the Ten issued a statement noting with satisfaction the Lusaka Agreement of 16 February between South Africa and Angola. This agreement provided for the withdrawal of South African forces from Southern Angola, and the Ten have closely followed its implementation, which unfortunately has not taken place as quickly as envisaged. They also noted the understanding between South Africa and Mozambique, which later led to the signing of the Nkomati Accord on 16 March. The Ten have commended the efforts of all parties concerned to bring about increased security and stability in the region. In addition, they have expressed the hope that the Southern African agreements would contribute to a climate of mutual confidence which would facilitate the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 on independence for Namibia. The Ten have noted the continuing diplomatic contacts between Mozambique and South Africa aimed at increasing security and economic prosperity in Mozambique.
As regards South Africa, Ireland and the Ten have continued to express their abhorrence of the South African Government's policy of apartheid. They have kept under close review the events surrounding the implementation of South Africa's new constitution this autumn. At their meeting in Dublin on 11 September, the Foreign Ministers issued a declaration on South Africa in which they took the view that the violence and rioting which had surrounded the elections to the Coloured and Indian Assemblies, reflected, inter alia, the frustration of black South Africans at their deliberate exclusion from South Africa's political life and at the denial to them of adequate political means through which to express their grievances. The Foreign Ministers expressed their concern at the arrest and detention of those involved in the boycott, and sought the immediate release of those detained without charge.
I have not reported in detail on all the activities in the Communities in the period covered by the reports. I have instead confined myself to the major issues addressed in recent years, and I have tried to link these with the most recent developments reported upon earlier today by the Taoiseach.
Deputies will, no doubt, wish to express their views on the wide range of issues which these motions open up, and I will be extremely interested to hear them.
I thank the Minister for giving me an opportunity to have this discussion today. I regret that there are so few people here to participate in it. That could be due to lunch time or to the fact that we have had major statements about Europe earlier this morning by the Taoiseach, the leader of my party and the leader of The Workers' Party. From the ordinary person's point of view there is a very great and growing cynicism and scepticism about the EC and where it is going.
I was out of the country at the weekend. As the Minister knows, I was helping my leader do the business of the Government in Libya. I am glad to see that this is recognised by the Minister for Agriculture, as reported in one of this morning's papers. I will assume that that report is correct unless it is changed.
To many of the 220,000 people out of work this weekend's conference in Dublin Castle has not been a success. They would regard it as a failure in that again nothing positive has emerged from the summit with regard to providing employment for them. They are more concerned about trying to live an ordinary life than people in this House might appreciate having regard to the fact that they were seeing the leaders of Europe haggling for a long weekend over wine problems, wine lakes, olive oil problems and fishery problems.
Nothing emerged from that meeting of the leaders of Europe that would in any way resolve the problems facing these people. I am not blaming the Minister for Foreign Affairs — we all stand accused in this area — but young people, in particular, have now become so demoralised because nothing positive is emerging for them despite all the summits and reports thereon we have had in this House in recent years in which the public at large were told that unemployment constituted our principal problem. If it was, it still is and the people on the dole queues are still there. There is nothing but growing concern being felt by those people in those dole queues, by their families, a feeling that nothing worthwhile is being done for them. That is the real picture as seen by the ordinary person. We would be very foolish and unwise in this Parliament this afternoon to believe that anything other than that constitutes the real picture. Unemployment is a very big problem. One might contend that there are very few farmers who would appreciate the enthusiasm of the Government that this latest summit was a success or that 1984 or the latter part of 1983 were as successful as the Minister and Government would have us believe.
The super-levy is now beginning to bite heavily. There is nothing but confusion being felt amongst our dairy farmers as to where they are going or what they will do. It is cold comfort to them to read in the Press yesterday that this latest summit was a success. Many of them, particularly those who have not yet reached full development stage, are now placed in the position in which they will be penalised because they are endeavouring to reach that development stage which they must if they are to survive economically in their dairying activities. It is regrettable that that is so. Farmers are equally disturbed and upset that when their case was being made by the Government in the course of the year the wrong information was given by the Minister for Agriculture with regard to the gallonage of milk on which the super-levy terms were to be negotiated and implemented.
It is difficult to understand that in 1984 we have not a reasonably — and I say specifically "reasonably"— modern system of counting the gallonage of milk received at the different intake points throughout the length and breadth of the country. Now, as a result of this unbelievable cock up in the compilation of these important statistics required — so that we might know what would be the effects on us of the super-levy — we could not even get that sum right. We are now in the position in which, seemingly, we still use the pencil, adding columns and lines of figures that any 14 year old commencing in any of our secondary schools could do with accuracy with the aid of the facilities now available to us by way of calculators, computers etc. It appears we are now likely to lose out on that levy because of the mistake made earlier. It is poor consolation to those involved in the dairying industry, to those people at present unemployed, to read of major breakthroughs being effected, as was reported in some of yesterday's papers, at this latest summit. Of course we all wanted the summit to be a success. We all want to see Europe go from strength to strength. It is highly important to every member state that the European concept be extremely successful. But beyond that it is vital for us that Europe succeeds and that it would be seen to succeed.
There must also be great concern felt among our fishermen. Nobody seems to know what is happening in regard to the efforts required for the protection of our fisheries interests as a result of negotiations in train with Spain at present. I say Spain deliberately because I understand the problem is primarily one with that country. We are all aware of the strength of the Spanish fishing armada and the damage it can do to our fisheries — that it could wipe them out — if we are not adequately protected along the way. In the course of parliamentary questions at the commencement of this session on this subject, in questions put by me to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I sought a categoric assurance from the Minister that the fisheries question be resolved completely before Spain's entry, and that we would have a chance of discussing the final position in this House. That is what I and many other Members of this House would like to see happen rather than have the type of situation which developed in the Greek case. The Greeks were able to renegotiate a whole new package from within. We would not wish anything like that to occur in relation to the fisheries question.
It must be discussed here.
I accept that it must be finalised so that no door is left ajar to enable the Spanish to negotiate on an ongoing basis having joined the Community.
We have had extremely useful discussions at meetings of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and I know much effort is being put into this matter. There is very great concern about the lack of definite information as to what is happening. We do not want a situation whereby the Spanish can continue to reject out of hand the proposals put forward by the Commission and continuously gain ground at the expense of our fishermen. I would dread the day when the Spanish fishing fleet would fish up to our shores, because it would wipe out our fishing stock in a short while.
It has been agreed that the own resources limit of 1 per cent will be increased to 1.4 per cent, but only when Spain and Portugal are admitted. This has been made a condition by the West German and Dutch Governments. That is blackmail. It can only be interpreted as putting the gun to the head of other member states, particularly Ireland. We are being told that if trouble between Ireland and Spain on the fishing question delays accession the resources will not be increased. This is an effort at blackmail.
The Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, is reported as having walked out of the Summit meeting in Dublin Castle because he wants billions made available for the Mediterranean scheme. That action was also wrong. All this causes serious problems. Regarding the financing problems, 1 per cent is certainly not enough. Recently the Minister for Finance came into this House seeking approval for the making available of moneys to run the EC. We hear daily about the shortage of money and we recognise the seriousness of the problem. With the increase to 1.4 per cent, have we any guarantee that the schemes being financed by the EC will continue to be financed at the same level as at present? I should like to hear the Minister's view on this extremely important matter. It is hoped in some years' time to increase the level to 1.6 per cent.
It appears that almost all the negotiations with Portugal have been concluded and the few remaining items could be concluded within a matter of hours if there was the political will to do so. Would the Minister not agree that it would be fair to the Portuguese people to finalise their business? They applied about seven months before Spain. I say this following an all-party meeting with a deputation from the Portuguese parliament last week. They very much want to be told that their package is concluded and that the way is open for them to become a member at the same time as Spain. They should be taken out of the misery of not knowing what problems might arise. I say this not just because it would be the nice thing to do but because the Portuguese parliamentarians assured us that it is important to democracy and stability within their country that this should be done. I would ask the Minister to inquire into the matter and to use his good offices if he feels they should be helped.
We made the solemn declaration about three weeks ago.
They were here only last week.
I think they were under a misapprehension. Of course the negotiations are not completed yet. A Council meeting is to be held on Monday and Tuesday week and I expect a lot of progress to be made.
I thank the Minister for the intervention and I stand corrected. I would hope that somebody in the Minister's Department would get in touch with the Portuguese, because as of last week an all-party deputation from the Portuguese parliament were of the view that this was not so.
The negotiations are not completed but we did make the solemn declaration.
I accept that and would hope that their business would be finalised.
The Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Soares, was here about three weeks ago for the solemn declaration.
He must have had very poor PR at his press conference when he went home.
He got plenty of publicity in Portugal.
I am serious in what I say. Deputy Manning and Deputy Durkan from Fine Gael, the Minister's colleague in Government, Deputy Quinn, and others also heard what was said. There is some failure of communication along the lines.
I note the comments made by the Minister on the important developments which took place with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and I welcome the fact that the new Convention will be signed shortly, preserving a tradition inaugurated by the present Taoiseach in 1975. I also welcome the innovations in this Convention. The Minister states that it will contain a new chapter on the long-term fight against drought and desertification which is ravaging many parts of Africa. The Minister said that this was noted by the European Council. I hope I am wrong in interpreting this to mean "we agree in principle, something should be done about it but we will long-finger it". If I am wrong perhaps the Minister would correct me.
With regard to Ethiopia, the all-party discussion on this matter in late October was helpful to the Minister in strengthening his resolve — although I do not believe it would have needed strengthening on a personal basis — to do something about the terrible problem which was presented to the world on the television screen of the many hundreds of thousands of people who were on the verge of death through starvation. I welcomed the Minister's move here to make more funds available and at the time I went on record as saying that if he got agreement from the Government to seek the permission of the House for more funds we would support such a move. I repeat that offer today.
I compliment the Minister on the way, as President of the Council of Foreign Ministers, he tackled the problem and on the progress he made in shaking the conscience of our European partners. As Irishmen and women we can all feel proud of the fact that per head of the population we have contributed more to the unfortunate starving people of Ethiopia than any other country.
It was magnificent.
We are all pleased at the response. I pay tribute to those responsible for making the film that was shown on television, to the press who highlighted the plight of those people and to the Members for their mature approach to this situation which shocked us all. I hope we do not leave it at that and that as a nation we continue to maintain our generosity because the problem has just about been tackled and no more. I compliment the voluntary organisations for their great work. It appears that they have succeeded in areas where official agencies did not. I am not trying to take from the efforts of the official agencies but the voluntary bodies have done tremendous work. We will willingly give the Minister any support he needs to do more to help those people.
I can recall discussing hunger and famine in Africa at a meeting some years ago and suggesting to a colleague that we should not deal with the problem by a reaction from having seen people dying from hunger. I suggested that it might be better to teach the poor people to fish, give them a fishing rod and show them how to use it rather than giving them fish which we had caught for them. That representative from another country had not heard that expression and we had a long discussion about the matter. We are all deeply concerned about the problem in Ethiopia but had the Minister for Foreign Affairs not put on the pressure in Europe — I mean this and I give credit where it is due — we might not have had such a good response from Europe. I thank the Minister for that work. I hope that for the remainder of his term as President of the Council he will continue that pressure. I urge the Minister to pass on that message to his successor, Italian Foreign Minister Andriotti. He should impress on the Italian Foreign Minister that he will have the support of the Irish Government and people to do everything possible to help those people.
What the European Council decided to do on Monday is very significant. The 1.2 million tonnes of grain, while it may not cure the problem, will hold it back until the next harvest.
I accept that that is a step in the right direction. I do not know enough about the problem to say how far that contribution will go to deal with it but the effort should be maintained or strengthened.
In referring to Ethiopia I am expressing concern about all places in Africa where there is hunger and famine. The problem is not confined to one country. I am sure the Minister and other Members were disturbed, as I was, when viewing the TV programme recently which indicated that in spite of the tragedy in Ethiopia some of the supplies gathered in America and Europe are being mishandled or mismanaged. The ghouls of the black market who do not have any regard for human misery and suffering are stealing the supplies destined for the very hungry. I do not know how that problem can be dealt with and I accept that it is not a matter for the Minister but he is in a better position that I to see to it that the supplies get through to the starving people. I fear that the television programme may do some harm to those seeking voluntary contributions. People may ask why there is not proper management of the supplies and may decide not to contribute further to such collections.
That is one of the dangers.
It might weaken our personal resolve to continue with our great generosity and to do something worthwhile to help those people who are not as fortunate or as lucky as we. They do not have food, water, shelter or clothes. In paying tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I must include his Minister of State who deserves great thanks. I had great sympathy for him when on his return home from a visit to those countries he had difficulty at a press conference in trying to describe what he saw.
I should like to ask the Minister about the Dooge Committee who presented an interim report to the summit. Has that report been published?
It is being published. Permission was given on Tuesday to publish it.
Now that permission has been given to publish the document I will wait to see what it contains.
I will send the Deputy a copy of it.
I will not deal with this important document until I have had an opportunity of analysing its contents. I recognise from what the Taoiseach said this morning that the comminiqué after the Summit indicated that people are worried about unemployment, but the unemployed are with us although communiqués issued after the last five or six Summits referred to their plight. Unfortunately, nothing has materialised. I urge that priority be given to this problem and something definite be embarked upon to deal with it.
I was glad to hear the Minister's comments on the Middle East. We all followed developments there very carefully not just because we have troops of the Irish Army involved in the Lebanon, of whom we are all very proud, and not just because we have an Irishman in charge of the UNIFIL force there, Major Bill Callaghan, who is doing an excellent job, but because we recognise the potential for a full scale war if common sense does not prevail and if peace is not restored there. We all support the moves of the European Council in their demands for the withdrawal from Lebanon of Israeli, Syrian and PLO troops. We recognise the difficulties that are there but we assure the Minister of our support in this area in the interests of peace.
We are severely disturbed about the situation in Iran and Iraq. We support the call of the Council with regard to the sparing of the civilian population and hope that the international humanitarian conventions will be observed. We see on television the consequences of that dreadful war. We wish the Foreign Ministers of the Council every success in their efforts to help improve the situation.
I am not sure if the Minister mentioned Afghanistan. I mention this because we are approaching Christmas and four years ago, either on Christmas Day or on St. Stephen's Day when normal people of goodwill are enjoying life with their families, the unfortunate people of Afghanistan were invaded, and are still occupied by the troops of the Soviet Government. If this is not in the Minister's speech I am sure this omission is not intentional but at every opportunity we should keep the pressure on the mighty Soviets and prick their conscience because we do not condone or approve of their actions. I would like the people of that small, poor country to know that they are not forgotten.
I share the Minister's view with regard to the improvements that have taken place in Argentina and their return to democratic government. I welcome that move but I regret that the Chilian Government have consistently refused to move in this direction or to restore civil liberty or democracy. The repressive regime in that country must be condemned out of hand at every opportunity.
As regards Central America, only two days ago I spoke to a member of the government of Nicaragua, whom I met in Libya, on the situation in his country. We had an enlightened discussion with him. I have also spoken to members on all sides of the House who had the privilege of visiting Nicaragua recently — I deliberately used the word "privilege"— to observe the system of elections which we were told 12 or 18 months ago would not be democratic, fair or above board, and I say this in the presence of Deputy Allen who was there. I have been told that their system was very fair, that everything was conducted as it should be at election time. The people in the northern part of this island might learn something about democratic elections if they had had the privilege of visiting that country.
I regret the tension in Nicaragua and the feeling they have that they are about to be crushed by the American forces. This is a tragedy, because this feeling is genuinely held. I very much regret that the young people of that small country, with whom we have a lot in common because we have the same type of history, background and economic circumstances, are not in a position to harvest their coffee crop which is so important for their economic survival. Instead, they have to down their agricultural weapons and take up weapons of war because they believe they are about to be invaded. I regret that these tensions exist. I think I understand the difficulties, but the more I reflect on them the more doubt comes to mind that I fully understand the difficulties of both sides. The Minister will know from his officials that when I was Foreign Minister I had discussions with the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua. I understand he is coming to the city of Cork in February on private business and I have asked to see him so that I will know what the situation is in his country. I wish the Minister and his colleagues in Europe every success in their efforts to try to bring about peace and stability in that region.
With regard to Poland I am happy that in 1983 we saw martial law lifted and there was an amnesty for the majority of political prisoners. I am glad that is so, but I hope these improvements will be followed by further measures which will help promote national reconciliation. We were all concerned about the murder of Fr. Popieluszko and regret that such a thing could happen.
I agree with the Minister's comments on the Conference on Disarmament in Europe and the developments in South Africa. We will support him in the views being expressed with regard to our abhorrence of the South African government's policies of apartheid.
There is a very serious problem in this country so far as the ordinary people we try to represent are concerned. This was evident in the European elections when only half the people voted. Scepticism and cynicism are growing because of the failure of Europe, through the Government, to deal with the problems facing many sections of the community. The problem did not start when the Minister took office, I would not like him to think I am implying that. Everybody in this House will support my view that we want to see a stronger, healthier and more constructive community attitude towards what is happening in Europe. Up to recently the farming community were the strongest supporters of Europe. There are Deputies here representing rural communities, as I do, and it is only fair to say that the confidence the farming community had in Europe is not as strong today as it was. Admittedly, we had it good for a while but things are tightening up now. Many good schemes which were partly financed by Europe no longer exist. This has helped undermine the confidence of the farming community in the institutions of Europe. I would like to see a strong healthy attitude to Europe, critical of course, each section vying with the other for a greater input into the discussions and each hoping to make their case as strongly as they could to ensure that they get whatever help is available.
Debate adjourned.