With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to make a statement on the meeting of the European Council which I attended, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in Brussels on 29/30 March, this being the first opportunity I have had since then to report to the House. In accordance with the established practice, I have already had the conclusions of the meeting laid before both Houses.
A broad range of items were down for discussion including Integrated Mediterranean Programmes, the economic and social situation in the Community, the development of new technologies, the final report of the Dooge Committee on Institutional Affairs, a further report from the Ad Hoc Committee on a People's Europe and the famine situation in Africa. Within the framework of political co-operation, we discussed East/West relations, the Middle East, Latin including Central America and South Africa.
The House will be aware that just before the meeting, the Foreign Affairs Council had, in the early hours of that day, reached agreement on the outstanding and substantive issues in the negotiations between the Community and Spain and Portugal which were primarily in the Fisheries, Agriculture and Social Affairs chapters. The key issue of concern to us, of course, was that of Fisheries. On this I am especially happy to recall that the agreement, reflecting the determined efforts of our three Ministers concerned, represents a very positive outcome in the protection and further development of our fishery interests in the years ahead.
One of the most important elements of the agreement is that Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels will be excluded for 10 years from the Irish 50-mile box around our coast. This was a central element in our negotiating strategy which we maintained and upon which we insisted throughout these most difficult and protracted negotiations. Our eventual success was all the more creditable when one recalls that Spain had continuously pressed for access to the Irish box with immediate effect from the date of its accession to the Community.
This fisheries section of the enlargement agreement also contains a number of other very positive features from an Irish viewpoint, such as a very strict limitation on the number of Spanish and Portuguese boats which will be allowed to fish in the waters of the present Community. A severe limitation will also apply on the maximum number of such boats when the Irish box is opened up in 1996. At most, the number involved would be 93 vessels of standard 700 h.p. size or the equivalent, but, in practice, these vessels, which will be allowed to fish Zones VB, VI and VII, will be fishing in a much larger sea area. All of this is after 1996. We have also secured a commitment from the Spanish authorities that there will be negotiations to secure an orderly and phased access by Spanish boats to the Irish box after that date.
These provisions will be reinforced by very tight controls, including quota limitations, as well as a strict monitoring system whereby Spanish vessels entering present Community waters will have to notify coastal member states on entry and exit and report their catches. This system will be subject not only to surveillance by other member states but also by Community inspectors who will now be enabled to inspect landings and records in Spain which, of course, is not possible at present.
The historic and decisive breakthrough by the Foreign Affairs Council meant that the only outstanding obstacle to enlargement which was left over for the European Council to decide on was that of Integrated Mediterranean Programmes. In this context, the House will recall that at the previous meeting of the European Council here in Dublin in December last, Greece had placed a general reserve on the completion of the enlargement process until such time as a satisfactory position was taken by the Community on the scale of financial commitments to be given to the proposed IMPs. In effect this meant that while these negotiations could proceed, Greece would not agree to enlargement taking place until such time as the IMPs issue was satisfactorily resolved.
An additional complicating factor was a Greek reserve to the board agreement reached by the General Affairs Council on 21 March on a number of budgetary issues. These issues related to the financing of the shortfall in the 1985 Community budget, the increase in own resources and payment of this year's budgetary rebate to the UK. The reserve seemed to be designed to apply further pressure to secure Community agreement on the IMPs.
Because of its concentration on enlargement issues, the Foreign Affairs Council had undertaken little detailed examination in advance of the European Council of the Commission's revised proposals on IMPs which had been submitted on 21 February last. The Commission's original proposals on IMPs, for 6.6 billion ECUs, all of which would be additional Community expenditure in the Mediterranean regions of Greece, Italy and France, had been characterised by some members of the European Council at our Dublin meeting as excessive. In its revised proposals, the Commission proposed a financial envelope of seven billion ECUs broken down as between two billion ECUs in additional funding over and above what would be provided in any case under the Guidance Section of FEOGA and the Regional and Social Funds; 2.5 billion ECUs in "soft" loans — the real budget cost of this would be 0.5 billion ECUs; with a balance of 2.5 million ECUs coming from the existing structural funds.
As anticipated, the discussions on IMPs reflected fundamental differences in approach and, as was the case here in December last, were again very difficult. In my initial contribution to the discussions, I repeated our support for the principle of the IMPs and the need for the Community to respond effectively to the problems which enlargement involves for the Mediterranean regions, more particularly for a relatively under-developed member state like Greece. But I recalled the Council's agreement, which as Minister for Foreign Affairs I had secured in July 1976, that on enlargement the financial resources of the Community would be increased sufficiently to ensure the continuation of the common projects and policies of the Community or those which it intended to pursue in the future.
The European Council's eventual agreement on IMPs, including the financial resources to be provided, their duration, and general principles which will apply in their operation, are set out in the conclusions and these will no doubt have been read at this stage by interested Deputies. I do not propose, therefore, to say anything further on this subject except to remind Deputies that our concerns were met and that, on my insistence, it was clearly set out in the conclusions that the part-financing of the IMPs from the structural funds will not adversely affect transfers from these funds — and here I quote —"to other less-prosperous and priority regions of the Community". This covers our position. The cost to our Exchequer of contributing to the extra funding agreed for the IMPs will, we estimate, amount to an average of slightly more than £1 million a year on average over the agreed seven year duration of these programmes.
Our discussions of the economic and social situation were facilitated by the usual Commission communication. I strongly supported the Commission in emphasising the need for more employment-intensive growth but expressed concern at a number of notable omissions, and at the failure of the ECO/FIN Council to submit to us the report which we had requested from them at our last meeting. I accepted the broad thrust of what had been said by colleagues in emphasising the need for structural changes, including that of reducing excessive bureaucratic controls and red tape as it affects small businesses, but I expressed our worries at the over-concentration on these more medium and long term issues at the expense of discussion on the Commission's call for immediate measures to boost growth and employment.
I drew attention to the Commission's comment that 0.5 per cent of the expected growth rate of 2.4 per cent this year is due to the high exchange rate of the US dollar and that this would disappear were the dollar to continue to fall as many commentators feel will happen. In any case, the 2.4 per cent growth rate is already disturbingly low and a drop to 2 per cent or even less would be totally unacceptable in terms of pushing unemployment in Europe even higher than is now foreseen. I referred to our having raised, during our recent EC Presidency, the need to be ready with compensatory measures in the event of a deterioration in the US economy and I pointed out that Europe is already being criticised by the US for not taking adequate action to promote growth in this part of the world. I argued that the improved budgetary and external payments situation in the EC countries as a whole, and the halving of European inflation within the last two years, provide conditions for stimulation of growth, as recommended by the Commission, and I urged that the Community should prepare itself for action in this area, particularly with the likelihood of adverse developments in the US economy.
Apart from a Presidency comment on the need to face this latter possibility, I regret having to say that I was alone in supporting this part of the Commission's proposals. Nevertheless, on my proposal, the conclusions of the European Council request the ECO/FIN Council to report at the next meeting of the Council in Milan on measures to be taken, both by member states and the Community, to combat unemployment through sustained and more employment-intensive economic growth, although I have to say that I do not take much comfort from the inclusion of this request.
As I indicated in a speech in London on 22 March last, there appears to be a failure of imagination on the part of the Community's collective political leadership, a failure to grasp the use to which its economic space and weight can and should be put in the interests of tackling the economic problems besetting our peoples. For our part, the Government will not cease in our efforts to secure a change in this situation. One might now hope, in the light of the recently published estimates which strongly suggest that growth in the US may be faltering, that our efforts and those of the Commission may begin to obtain a better response.
The European Council emphasised the responsibility of all industrialised countries to achieve greater stability on exchange markets, including the strengthening of the international financial system, and stressed the importance it attaches to a new round of multilateral trade negotiations which it sees as representing an important contribution to the campaign against protectionism which is of vital importance to us. Deputies may have noted further developments in these areas in the period since the Brussels meeting.
As regards technology, the Commission, as requested at our last meeting, had submitted a document containing a wide-ranging set of objectives designed to strengthen the Community's technological base and the competitiveness of industry. Action in some of these areas is already in progress under the Community's Framework Programme for Research while detailed proposals in other areas are at present awaited from the Commission. The basic argument in the Commission's paper was that the poor economic performance of the Community relative to that of the US and Japan was due to the Community falling behind these two countries in most high-technology industries which, in turn, is due to a relatively poor business environment discouraging to innovation and to a failure to exploit the Community dimension.
As regards environment issues, our discussions focussed on a short Commission paper containing three specific proposals, namely the treatment of environmental protection as an integral part of economic and social policies; the necessity for national actions to be part of an overall Community framework; and the designation of 1987 as European Environment Year. These received unanimous support. I was particularly pleased that the instructions from the Dublin European Council had been followed up and that Environment Ministers had, at their Council meeting on 20-21 March, reached agreement at last on a Community approach to the control of motor vehicle emissions while at the same time preserving the unity of the Common Market.
We also discussed the continuing tragedy of the famine crisis in Africa and noted that the commitments made at the Dublin European Council, on the proposal of the Irish Presidency, had been rapidly implemented. The latest indications from a Commission report showed that the target of 1.2 million tonnes of cereals to be provided by the Community and the member states will, in fact, be exceeded, as well as the target of 0.8 million tonnes which we had set as the target to be met by other donor countries. We agreed, however, that there is no room for complacency and undertook to keep the situation under close and continuing review, in consultation with other donors, as well as continuing the efforts underway to improve co-ordination, transport and distribution so that relief supplies reach all the victims in need. The Commission is to furnish a report on these and other aspects relating to the implementation of emergency aid, following a visit to Africa by Vice-President Natali with whom I had the opportunity to discuss this problem yesterday.
On the second day of the Council meeting we discussed the procedure to be adopted to prepare for the discussion at the Milan European Council of the final report of the ad hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs. As in the case of the interim report, the final report reflects a broad consensus but also contains dissenting comments by two member states, a number of reservations and an expression of the section on Security and Chairman, Senator Dooge, on the inclusion of the Section on Security and Defence in the Committee's report. Senator Dooge also indicated that, while in agreement with the principle underlying the part of the text proposing extension of majority voting in the Council, he felt unable to support the actual text on this matter because, although not excluding the pleading in exceptional circumstances of a vital interest, it did not include an explicit reference to this point, although it may be the case that some of the members, and their Heads of Government, understand this to be implicit in the wording employed.
There was no substantive discussion on the Committee's report partly, at least, because of the limited time available in view of the extensive discussion of the IMPs. The Council confined itself to a discussion on procedures. It agreed that the Milan European Council on 28-29 June — which we had agreed in Dublin will be mainly devoted to a detailed discussion of the Committee's report— will be prepared over the coming months on the basis of bilateral contacts to be undertaken by Mr. Craxi in an effort to resolve the outstanding differences identified in the Committee's report and thus to enable us to arrive at clear conclusions at the June meeting. Consideration of the Committee's suggestion of holding an inter-governmental conference will be deferred until the Milan Council meeting.
The Council then turned its attention to discussing a further interim report which had been submitted by the ad hoc Committee on a People's Europe. This report contained a number of recommendations to ease rules and practices in ways which would visibly offer tangible benefits to Community citizens in their daily lives. The report dealt with freedom of movement for Community citizens; freedom of movement of goods, including transport services; administrative formalities for border-area traffic; and wider opportunities for employment and residence.
Under the first topic, the Committee proposed a simplified system for the free movement of citizens travelling by vehicle across intra-Community borders. Such a system has been in existence on the Franco-German border since last July. Under this system, citizens, by showing on their vehicles a disc, declare that they are in conformity with police-custom rules, and pass across that frontier at a slow speed, subject only to spot checks. Under the second topic, the Committee proposed certain changes in the level of travellers' allowances, relating to goods purchased in a member state on which the Community traveller has already paid tax and which he or she wishes to take into another member state.
The European Council agreed to all the Committee's proposals and requested the Council, the Commission and the member states to implement as quickly as possible those decisions which are within their respective competences.
In the discussions, I supported, in the overall interests of advancing European Union, the objective set out in the report of easing frontier controls, while at the same time supporting the point which had been made by colleagues about the need to retain adequate frontier checks to deal with terrorism and drugs. I emphasised, however, our particular concerns arising from the differences in taxation levels between Ireland and the UK, including Northern Ireland, which are substantial in respect of a number of items and have led to such a diversion of trade as to force us to make major concessions in respect of some taxes, at considerable cost to our Exchequer.
However, as we did not want our particular problems to hold up desirable Community developments. I stated that we were lifting our reserve on this issue but on the understanding that our partners would recognise the special situation that exists on our land frontier and would give favourable consideration to any requests from us for derogations in respect of travellers' allowance. This, I am happy to say, was accepted, and will be taken into account when the Council adopts the implementing decisions in this area. Under the new limits to apply, we will continue to maintain our derogation of £55 value for any single item.
As the House will be aware, the European Council did not adopt formal conclusions on political topics. This was because one or two of our partners felt that the European Council did not have enough time to consider these issues in detail. Instead, it was agreed that Mr. Craxi, as President of the European Council, would outline to the press the positions set out in the draft conclusions agreed at official level.
As regards East-West relations, the Ten noted recent positive developments. They welcomed the opening of the US-Soviet arms negotiations in Geneva and expressed the hope that the negotiations would make possible radical reductions in strategic and medium-range nuclear armaments and prevent a new arms race occurring in outer space.
As regards the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mr. Craxi outlined our welcome for the recent initiatives of King Hussein and Mr. Arafat on the one hand and President Mubarak of Egypt on the other. The Ten's concern at the continuing Iran-Iraq war and their desire for an end to that conflict were reaffirmed. In relation to Lebanon, Mr. Craxi reaffirmed the Ten's support for UNIFIL and declared that the Ten called on all parties to respect UNIFIL's role, to co-operate fully with the force, and to ensure the safety of its personnel.
As regards Latin America, Mr. Craxi contrasted the return to democracy in countries such as Uruguay and Brazil with the deterioration of the situation in Chile. He reaffirmed the Ten's support for a peaceful solution to the problems of Central America, and in particular the efforts of the Contadora Group to that end. As regards South Africa, the Ten recalled their appeal for the ending of the apartheid system and their statement on 25 March condemning the violent action of the South African police at Uitenhage.
As a brief meeting with the British Prime Minister in the margins of the Council, we reviewed progress on the dialogue agreed between us at our meeting in Chequers last year, which has been conducted since then at ministerial and official level. We agreed that there was real merit in continuing with the process although it was, however, not possible at this stage to predict the eventual outcome.
This Brussels meeting of the European Council was a very successful one, indeed a historic meeting. All the obstacles to enlargement were cleared out of the way. The European Council was able to call upon the Community bodies, together with the applicant countries, to complete the drafting of the Accession Treaty as soon as possible so that enlargement can take place on 1 January next. The Treaty, when completed and signed will, of course, come before the Dáil for ratification. Without wishing to pre-empt the debate on that occasion, I feel confident that all Deputies will share the satisfaction felt by the Government, and by me personally, that we will shortly welcome into the European Community the old historic nations of Spain and Portugal, with which Ireland has had so many links from the earliest times.
As a result of the Brussels meeting the way is also clear for the ratification by national Parliaments of the increase in the Community's Own Resources — a matter of major importance to Ireland as a country to which membership brings not alone crucial support for the prices of our farm products but also net financial benefits which, in relation to our national resources and our budget, are significantly greater than in the case of any other member state.
The Community is now in a position to chart the course of its further development towards a genuine European Union. A certain amount of momentum for new steps along this road has been generated. I believe that Ireland should be actively and constructively involved in this endeavour, putting forward our views and ideas, while ensuring that designs for the future safeguard and promote the interests of our people. The bilateral contacts to take place between now and the end of June, pursuant to the Dooge Report, and the Milan meeting of the European Council now assume a vital importance. The Government will ensure full Irish participation in this process.
It appears possible, even likely, that we in Ireland, will very shortly be faced with decisions of major importance in regard to the revitalisation and further evolution of the European enterprise and our own part in, and contribution to, that development. It appears appropriate and timely to have a major national debate on these large questions, assessing the impact and significance of our membership of the Community; how our interests may be affected, and can best be advanced, in the context of the evolving Europe and world of the future; how we wish to see the European Community develop; and what distinctive role we can play. The Government accordingly propose to arrange for a discussion in this House between now and the Milan European Council on the report of the Dooge Committee, on European Union, and on European developments generally.
