Senator Robinson was in possession and I will go to that side of the House if there is anybody offering.
Developments in the European Communities—Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Reports:
Developments in the European Communities — Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports.
— (Senator Ferris).
We are prepared to facilitate the House and are not offering any more speakers on this motion in light of the temperature in the House and taking everything else into consideration.
It is appropriate that we study these reports. We had an opportunity on the last sitting day of getting from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, a synopsis of the two reports in question. We were fortunate in getting such a detailed outline of the reports from the Minister and we are indebted to him. I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming him to the House and of complimenting him on the excellent work he is doing.
The two reports relate to the period July 1981 to July 1982. While the reports which deal with the activities of the European Communities are first-class and make interesting reading, to my mind they are somewhat out-of-date. In future, arrangements should be made to ensure that such reports will be discussed before they get to the point of being as out-of-date as the reports before the House.
The Common Agricultural Policy is of paramount importance to us as an agricultural country but it is under severe threat. We are a predominantly agricultural country: 45 per cent of our population are directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture and up to 60 per cent of our exports are of an agricultural nature. This highlights the importance of agriculture in our economy. Therefore, at all times we must do everything to protect this central part of EEC policy.
We cannot allow the Common Agricultural Policy to be altered or diminished in a way that will be to our disadvantage. Apart from the large proportion of the population who depend on agriculture for their living, there is a further large percentage who depend on the industry. During the years we have seen that when agriculture has been prosperous and the industry buoyant the economy generally prospered as a result. A prosperous agricultural industry has been and will continue to be the hallmark of progress of our economy and now as never before there is a greater realisation of that fact. The difficult times in the industry unfortunately have coincided with difficult times in other spheres of the economy. However, other outside factors also contributed to difficulties in the other parts of the economy. In the years 1979 to 1981 the agricultural industry was in a state of collapse and this, coupled with the effects of the world recession, has ensured that things have been bad all around.
A major portion of our exports is in agricultural products. We must not forget that for every £1 worth of agricultural goods we export we import only 20 per cent. This is an important factor because it ensures a net gain of 80 per cent in respect of agricultural exports. On the other hand, the figures could be reversed in respect of industry but this is not due to any fault on the part of industry itself. If we are to see agriculture prosper we must increase our stock numbers. At the moment stock numbers are as low, if not lower, than they were ten years ago. If we are to move forward there must be a significant increase in our stock numbers. In this respect I am referring to cattle in particular.
There has been much discussion recently about food imports. We can reduce our food imports bill by between £200 million and £300 million per year. That is a very substantial sum but it will not happen of its own accord. It will require enormous planning from production to the marketing stage. We need a national development and marketing authority. In the final analysis we have to produce for the market place rather than endeavour to market what we produce. This mistake has been made before. We must have production, processing and marketing carried out under the aegis of one organisation. We must ensure that we produce what the housewife wants. All the sectors concerned must co-ordinate their efforts to ensure more efficient production and marketing.
Another vital area where we can contribute enormously is with regard to added value. Basically we have not done much in this sector. For example, 90 per cent of agricultural processing is in the area of milk and of beef. The whole area of horticultural products needs detailed examination. There is a vast potential there in the form of extra jobs, an increase in exports and a decrease in imports. If we achieve an improvement in this area we will help our balance of payments and will provide more employment. A conservative estimate suggests that 20,000 extra jobs could be found if we tackled the whole problem of added value with regard to agricultural products. If one accepts the generally agreed ratio of one to one from the point of view of servicing as compared with the producing sector, one is talking about as many jobs as 40,000. That is a large number of jobs and we should do everything possible to effect an improvement in this area.
The Common Agricultural Policy has been severely criticised. I have attempted to highlight its importance to us. The Common Agricultural Policy provides, not alone for this country but for the whole European community, a very stable food supply. This is extremely important and is not always fully appreciated.
We must bear in mind the serious unemployment in the EEC which is at a very high level. There is, therefore, a very urgent need for a revamping of our regional and social policies and a strengthening of the Common Agricultural Policy. In addition, the whole area of policies in relation to technology should be examined very closely.
It would be an advance if the fixing of agricultural prices was done before 1 April, the beginning of the marketing year. It would be preferable to fix 1984 prices sometime before the end of 1983 or, at the very latest, in the first month of 1984. In this way we would enable people involved in the area of agriculture to plan ahead and it would considerably improve matters. It is very unsatisfactory to have prices for agricultural products fixed in mid to late May. I appreciate prices have been difficult to negotiate but, nevertheless, we must insist, as far as we can, that the time of price fixing be earlier.
Perhaps, on occasions, we as a member of the EEC have been too careful to abide by all the regulations which exist. I am not suggesting we should violate the rules left, right and centre, but there have been occasions when national aids would have been very helpful and would have alleviated serious problems in agriculture. However, we tended to stick rigidly to the rules of the EEC while, at the same time, we could see our friends in France, Germany and other EEC countries blatantly violating rules and regulations. As we know, they were given a period of six months in which to put their house in order. They did so but it did not change the situation much. We should not adopt that kind of policy but when a matter deserves serious examination there may, on occasions, have to be an interpretation of the rules to accommodate an Irish situation.
The question of the accession of Spain and Portugal has been dealt with in these reports and also by the Minister. Can the EEC afford the membership of Spain and Portugal? I know there are widespread, political reasons and ramifications associated with joining Spain and Portugal with the Ten but it is a matter that must be examined in great depth because we must bear in mind that Greece, southern Italy and ourselves are fairly primitive and have a high reliance on agricultural production. Spain and Portugal would put a severe drain on the common agricultural fund. I appreciate that in these reports reference has been made to the in-depth studies and so on which will be made before the final accession of Spain and Portugal. The Minister of State has also referred to this but can we afford their accession, taking into account that the common agricultural fund is at present under such severe attack by the more industrialised nations? This must be looked at very critically by the countries already in the EEC. We have a greater vested interest, with Italy and Greece, than many of the other countries in making certain that we do not lose out by the membership of Spain and Portugal. We are all aware of the serious difficulties arising as a result of the discussions on the whole financing of the Community. Obviously, there is a need for an increase on the present level of 1 per cent on the VAT rate and this would make the EEC more effective, meaningful and make it possible for the Community to do what it aspires to. We must be very careful not to be lumbered with super levies in the dairy product sector and that we do not suffer in a situation which might be unimportant to other countries but which would be very important to us.
There is a great variation in interest and inflation rates within the EEC. This has tended to give a distortion with regard to competitiveness. We recognise, in the recent price adjustments, that we got certain benefits from the devaluation of the green £ but, over the last three or four years, we have been at a great disadvantage vis-á-vis the other members of the EEC. We have not been in a position to compete with them in the various markets because they had a very low inflation rate. They have also enjoyed a low interest rate and while our inflation rate is, thankfully, now coming down, so also is the inflation rate in other countries. Inflation rates are relative and if ours comes down to 9 or 10 per cent and inflation rates in Germany go down to 4 or 5 per cent we have gained nothing, and other countries have still an advantage over us. This is why I believe that Ireland has a case to make as to why we should get special consideration. These variations to which I have referred are one factor. Our location is another, “location” meaning that Ireland is an island away from the market place, the mainland of Europe. This places Ireland at a great disadvantage with regard to the transportation of our produce and also in regard to the high percentage of our population that relies on agriculture, to which I have already referred. It all adds up to a situation where a special case has to be made for Ireland and has been made before. I urge all involved to make certain that we continue along this route.
There are many political dimensions with regard to the EEC which perhaps are not aired that much. They are referred to in the document here. It is good to see that the EEC is taking a very positive interest in trying to influence peace within the borders of the various countries that it is looking, at countries like Lebanon, Poland, Afghanistan, Kampuchea and Turkey. A very encouraging side of the EEC, as presented to us in this documentation here, is the matter of the relief of hunger programme. This has been a very good step forward where, in fact, something very positive has been and is being done.
There are a few further points to which I will refer. One that is quite disturbing at times is that it appears on occasion that we are not always able to take up moneys that are available to us at EEC level. This is because we have to match these moneys pound for pound and we are not always in a position to do that. This is something that is very, very unfortunate. While in no way have we a very serious economic position that has arisen overnight — it has been building up for a number of years — it is a very serious position. If moneys are there that we cannot avail of just because we have not a pound in order to receive a pound. That is serious.
Another major point we must look into a great deal more is the potential that exists for Irish goods in the market place in Europe. I feel we have not, particularly in the whole horticultural area, looked at Europe in the context of it being a market place for our produce. We have tended to leave the supplying of vegetables, fruit and various other things in the horticultural area to other countries. We could do a great deal provided we planned our whole programme here and made certain we produce what the housewife in Europe wants. We can, of course, sophisticate a great deal more our meat products, our dairy products and all our products to suit the needs of the housewife. Our competitors in Europe are doing this and we cannot afford to do otherwise.
The other point which I would like to make is that Ireland, regardless of what we say, is a very great net beneficiary from the EEC. This is something that I believe has not been sufficiently highlighted at all. We must make certain that everybody realises very well that we have gained very substantially from being a member of the EEC over the last ten years. There are certain problems which have arisen due to our membership but no doubt the advantages have outweighed enormously any disadvantages that may have accrued from being involved in the EEC over the last ten years. Without any question it could not be over emphasised that the benefits of the EEC to Ireland have been enormous, to say the least of it, in the last number of years. For that reason I feel that we must make certain that we are vigilant and diligent about all negotiations pertaining to the EEC and make certain that we do not lose any advantages that we have. We have considerable advantages in the normal course of events. We can produce a lot of beef, milk and cereals to greater advantage than our European counterparts, particularly all produce from grass. We must never overlook that we can be better and more efficient producers than any of our EEC counterparts.
I would like again to thank the Minister for his excellent resumé of these reports and for bringing us further along the line. He has given us information in his report which is more up to date and more topical than what is contained in the reports. The one thing that is disturbing is the reference to the Stuttgart meeting which the Minister made in his submission to this House and that the prospects of agreement being reached at the next meeting seem to be somewhat in the balance. Hopefully, things will improve between now and then. I believe that this motion certainly should be noted by this House. I urge that in future in so far as it is practical and possible iscussions on this very very important subject should take place as near as possible to the completion of the reports concerned.
I will not delay the House very long because I can sense an anxiety to finish business for a whole series of reasons. I must say about the two reports that there are a couple of general points that I want to make. I well recall speaking on the First and Second Reports on Developments in the European Communities which were presented to both House of the Oireachtas in the period 1973 to 1977 when I was a Member of this House and a member of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. In the Dáil I spoke on other reports.
One of the points that strikes me as a difference between the nineteenth and twentieth reports is the very thoughtful speech that I have just heard from Senator Hourigan on which I would like to compliment him very sincerely. I feel that these reports come before the Houses rather too rapidly after some initial delay — this is the point he makes — and that they do not get the attention that they should.
There are, however, interesting similarities that arise practically in every report. I note that a decade has not changed this in any way. Indeed, the very first reports seemed to be enthusiastic in that they had longer introductions that adverted to the problems, for example, of the integration of different parts of European Community activity. I recall reports that made reference to the importance of social policy being integrated with regional policy and, in turn, the implications of both of these for agricultural activity. I recall it being drawn to the attention of the Minister of the day that if you were to examine the guidance expenditure under the heading of Agriculture that you could not appropriately speak of amending the way in which the moneys were spent without taking into account expenditure under the headings "Social Policy" and "Regional Policy".
There is one very interesting development which I noticed, that is, the European Council — I hope the Chair will excuse me if I have to be educated — appears in the period to have secured for itself a respectability that I wondered whether it should ever have had. It does not, of course, exist in the Treaty of Rome. These reports are presented to us under the Treaty of Accession. Section 5 of the European Communities Act is the provision which enables these reports to be presented to the House. I have a rather individual view about the European Council. I feel that it struck at the very spirit of the Treaties of Rome. It very seriously eroded most of the principled arguments that had been made in favour of a United Europe. Essentially, it very seriously changed the balance between the institutions of the Community referred to in the Treaties solemnly signed by the acceding countries. The term "European Council" lent it to domination by the stronger Community members.
I do not share Senator Hourigan's reservations about Spain and Portugal or about the inclusion of Greece. The membership of these countries could create within the Community a very important political lobby of people who are like-minded in their common experience of real poverty and also of structural imbalances within their countries which are very serious and very deep. Equally they have pre-industrialisation problems which can be shared with us. While there are disadvantages commercially to expansion, in the medium and long term it is exciting to think of a like-mindedness coming from the accession of these countries rather than anything else.
My point about the European Council is that in the spirit of the Treaties of Rome in many cases practices are translated into principles and principles become equated with terms and sections of treaties when they have no right to do so. I have noticed in recent years, particularly since the threat of unemployment on a very wide European scale, an increasing nationalism, particularly among the stronger members of the European Community. This brings its own dangers with it. This is very important because the Community needs to recover a dynamism which should be evident in the reports if it is to go in a very positive direction. That dynamism involves structural change within parts of the Community, integration of parts of the programme in social policy and regional policy, particularly in the guidance section under the Guarantee and Guidance Fund. While there are overall benefits, as is very clear, to Irish agriculture from membership, another question should be pondered by anybody who lives in an area where the majority of farmers have less than 30 acres of land. The proportion is about 10 to 1 — £390 million for the guarantee section of the fund and £38 million for the guidance section. The more that the emphasis goes the other way, towards guidance, the more we will be addressing structural problems within Irish agriculture and enabling many households to make their living in rural Ireland from agriculture.
There is another difficulty about these reports. The whole purpose of presenting the reports is to enable us to look at developments within a period. The Nineteenth Report deals with the period of the United Kingdom presidency, 19 July to December 1981, the Twentieth Report with January to June 1982. We should also see in them some reflection of our own concerns. I missed from both reports an adequate sense of the size of the unemployment problem in Europe. That is extremely important.
The projections for Europe are very interesting. The recent report published since the Commission figures came out showed that the methodology for assessing the unemployment problem in Europe is deficient and that the figures could be understated by anything up to about 20,000 in any one published estimate. Most of these would be young people. We have at present in the Community, at a conservative figure, over 13 million people now unemployed. The projected 1995 figure is 50 million people. The size of that problem does not come across at the meetings — I am not criticising the Minister — which are reported accurately in the reports. In Europe there is not a sufficient awareness of the size of the unemployment problem. To get back to the old-fashioned definition of a couple per cent we would need to create something like a million jobs a year between now and 1995. The best the Community ever created in any year was 280,000 jobs. Therefore we are likely to have a massive unemployment problem in Europe, particularly a youth unemployment problem, unless one begins to look very seriously at new forms of work definition. In some sections of the reports, under social policy, there is reference — particularly in the Twentieth Report — to meetings which dealt with the problem of unemployment. However, as in the debate in the European Parliament, that discussion was soft and very short on solutions. I am disappointed in that.
I want to make a case for an aspect of social policy which is not discussed in the reports. Some people are not working in the Community but are in the Community almost as illegal migrants. There is no point in pretending that they are not in fact in the Community. They exist as a section of the new proletariat within the European Community. For example, many of them come illegally into countries like West Germany. With the West German economy in difficulties many of them are simply being deported back to their countries of origin. Many of them are being deported to their death as is happening in relation to the Turkish immigrants who are being sent back from West Germany to Turkey.
I have noticed in these reports, for example, the extension of social policy from those who are employed by others to the self-employed, but there is no reference in either report to marginal communities and sub-communities within the Community who are a test of the humanity of the Community.
The Nineteenth Report makes reference to the North-South dialogue suggesting that initiatives be taken to re-start the launching of a new proposed round of local negotiations on economic cooperation for development. In July 1981, during the period under review, the Western Summit, held at Ottawa, discussed relations with developing countries. Unfortunately, that Ottawa meeting and the later October meeting in Kancun in Mexico, were followed by practically no measures taken by the developed countries to enable the developing countries to expand their portion of trade or to develop their trade. The proceedings of these meetings, when reported, fall hollow as rhetoric.
I omitted to do something which is very important and that is to pay tribute to the Minister for his interest and involvement in development. This is my first time to do so in this House and it is a pleasure to pay tribute to him because I know he had a very important influence on Irish consciousness in the whole question of development. This question of development, the North-South dialogue and the new international economic order does not get sufficient attention within the European Community. The larger powers have operated on the basis of self-interest and what is reported tinkles very hollowly.
The Nineteenth Report refers to the new technology. It suggests that at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Employment the chairman emphasised the potential of the new technology for employment and for improving the quality of jobs, and indicated that the Community should promote better public understanding of its nature, benefits and challenge. Obviously the chairman of that working group was aware that science of itself need not be as destructive as the possibility of nuclear disaster suggests. It can be benign and the technology derived from it need not pollute the world and can assist people in removing drudgery. However the message is perfectly clear. Unless models for the delivery of the fruits of science and technology into the different Community states are established — for example, that they be under public control — there will not be democratic control on the application of science and technology. It could stop people losing even more jobs. It could have the opposite effect to that stated in the report.
Having visited Turkey recently, I found the reference to Turkey at the beginning of the Twentieth Report to be tragically short. Paragraph 1.11 of the report states:
The European Council heard the report of the President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Tindemans, on his visit to Turkey where he had impressed upon the Turkish Government the need for a return as soon as possible to a democratic regime; the Turkish Government assured him that this would occur within two years at the most.
I cannot emphasise seriously enough the enormous implications for international policy of a statement like that. Effectively it means that people who have signed, together with other countries, developed and undeveloped, international agreements on human rights and other international agreements are choosing to interpret them selectively, suggesting that in the West you can have full democracy and a full code of human rights but that in a country like Turkey, which they would suggest is not a western country, you can have democracy in the future or a lesser form of democracy or a democracy interpreted in the future by the military and equally that you can have human rights which can be suspended under a military regime and restored at some time in the future.
When I visited many of the foreign embassies in Ankara I found this dangerous acceptance of the military regime, of the suspension of human rights and of clear breaches of agreements to which this country and other countries have fixed their signatures in good faith. I would remind people that these human rights conventions were a response to the prisoner of war camps of the Second World War. People felt that humanity should not fall again to that level and that it was important that these conventions and agreements should include in their titles the words "human rights". They should be vigorously defended and I reject the notion that one should in a polite way receive and deal with a military regime who would suggest that democracy could be restored after stability had been brought about by military intervention.
We must remember that we are talking about a country where the average annual income is £1,200, where people have a life expectancy of 57 years, a country which has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world but which proportionately has the second biggest army in the world. There are 800,000 people in the army, supported by the strongest power, the United States of America. It is in such an atmosphere that I feel statements like this are damaging and dangerous. What we need from the European Community in relation to human rights in countries like Turkey is a vigorous defence of the existing codes which have been signed by the community of nations and I would urge this course upon the Minister and his officials. It is too easy to say that there is a period of chaos, followed by military intervention resulting in peace. That is not the case.
There are many other aspects in these reports upon which I have spoken over the years. Some of them strike me as just a little hollow, for example, the report on fisheries. It is interesting to see every Irish Minister of the day going to fight the case for fisheries. They do so in good faith and they will always have my encouragement. The language in the Twentieth Report is the language which has been used in every report, with references to total allowable catches and so on. I remember making the point just before we joined the EEC that it was enormously dangerous to do so without a specific protocol to defend the fishing industry. At that time I could find no audience. The fact that we have had no protocol to defend the specific needs of our fishing industry has been a continual source of difficulty. Every time we have negotiated any matter in relation to fisheries we have found ourselves using the language of nations which have been predators and have been the great destroyers of European fisheries. We found ourselves sitting at the table with those people having to deal within their categories. I am not being recriminatory; I am simply saying that the report reflects the selfishness and greed of the bigger nations in relation to the fisheries question.
In paragraph 12.10 of the Twentieth Report there is reference to two small grants of £35,000 in each case for a regional study in the north east of this country costing £104,880 and a study in the west costing £108,550. I should like to see a far greater amount of money coming so that we could research our structural problems and establish a proper basis for regional planning.
There is reference in the report to poverty, which is reminiscent of the nineteenth century ladies who used to invite the poor working-class children to come to Wapping for tea on a Sunday and send them home in the evening after tea, hoping they had saved their souls. The Community state in the Twentieth Report that poverty is still with us. The time has come to stop being coy about the question of poverty. The European Community contains many industrial nations who have accepted huge differences in income levels and in many cases a structural basis for poverty. They have fudged the question of the real basis of poverty. This country is beginning to get a bit better than that. The Community must realise that we cannot keep talking for ever about poverty in terms of the attributes of individuals or of regions and that we must look at the structural ability of people to have income, to participate in society, to achieve education and to have the equality of life which we all believe is necessary for the development of the human personality. There is a charming coyness, at best, in the remarks on poverty. What is positive and good is the indication that it is very likely that there will be a new programme for poverty in this country which will be assisted by the Community.
I apologise for being so late in offering these remarks but it would have been worse if I had allowed the opportunity to pass of contributing to the debate on these reports which contain many valuable matters. The tradition should be sustained in this House of commenting on matters dealt with in reports.
This has been a most interesting debate. I accept the criticisms of those who mentioned that we were very late in the day discussing the Nineteenth and Twentieth Reports. There was a background to that since we went through a rather unstable political period here and a number of elections and time did not permit these reports to be debated as they should have been. I tried in my introductory speech to bring matters up to date and to give these reports relevance to the present day. In the future I would hope that we would have regular half-yearly debates in both Houses as envisaged in the 1972 Act. While lumping the two reports together conforms to the letter of the Act, in my belief it does not conform to the spirit. If we have half-yearly debates it will be an expression of the importance placed on our membership of the EEC and the importance of the views expressed by Members of both Houses in developments in the Community.
The EEC are now at the crossroads. In purely financial terms we are fast approaching the currently agreed ceiling on own resources. This is putting a straitjacket on developments in the European Community. The member states will have to face up to their responsibilities. The alternative to putting new own resources into place at this stage will lead to contraction, decline and disillusionment.
In the EEC, unemployment is running at around 12 or 13 million. There must be more than lip service paid to the problem. High-sounding statements and theoretical rhetoric will not solve the problem or deal with it in a constructive way. Unemployment must be tackled at Community level in an aggressive and determined fashion. The resources to do so must be made available to the Community. This would involve the development of existing policies, particularly the regional and social policies, and designing of new policies in the areas of industry, transport and so on.
The response of the Community to the problem of unemployment has been inadequate and will continue to be so unless the problem of own resources is tackled now. Senator McDonald said that there should be more emphasis on the achievements and benefits of EEC membership. I believe there should be more of an understanding of the situation, both of the benefits and disadvantages of membership. Being members of the Community does not mean we are on a gravy train. It is generally held by most people that the advantages considerably outweigh the disadvantages but it is important that we should all have an understanding of the situation.
Senator McDonald mentioned the Community food strategy. He asked why Niger was not included as a beneficiary of the strategy. I take his point. He could have mentioned 25 other countries. In regard to the strategy, four countries were selected — Mali, Kenya, Zambia and Rwanda. They were selected on a pilot basis and on their overall suitability to benefit from it. It is hoped to extend the scheme to other ACP countries. I hope this approach will be successful.
The Senator referred to transfers within the 1981 amending budget. This is normal budgetary procedure. In 1981 agricultural guarantee expenditure did not reach anticipated levels and the surplus was then reallocated to other headings. He mentioned obstacles to trade within the Community. This is a matter of considerable concern to a small country such as ours which relies so much on trade. I came across a figure recently when I was being briefed to address an OECD meeting in Paris which surprised me. It was that our overall trade, taking imports and exports, exceeds our GNP. It is 120 per cent of our GNP. This shows the importance of removing any obstacles to free trade.
Over the last six months there have been a series of councils devoted to strengthening the Community's internal market. I attended four or five of them over the past six months. Some progress was made. There was agreement on procedures for the exchange of information and allowing for objections to new technical standards and regulations. There were other areas where we came near to agreement and where further efforts will continue to be made to reach agreement. At Stuttgart the Taoiseach expressed strong support for the work of these councils. Under the Greek Presidency this work will continue.
Senator Lanigan made a number of interesting points. He criticised the fact that little progress had been made in achieving a convergence of living standards between various regions of the Community. I totally agree with him. The failure of the Community to achieve progress in reducing regional disparities is one of its greatest failures. There is little prospect of progress in this area until the Community's financial crisis has been solved. This crisis is blocking the development of the Community. I am glad the Senator highlighted that in this debate.
He referred to the problem of interest rates and again I agree with his remarks. Interest rates are too high and will continue to be so while we are dependent on the interest rates in other countries. The problem regarding interest rates is tied up with interest rates in the United States. The interest rates in that country will remain high as long as the current deficit there continues at its present high level. I agree that the process of pulling out of the recession in international terms is slow because of high international interest rates. At every opportunity, we should press the view that we are concerned about this and that steps should be taken by those countries which are in a position to do so to ensure that the interest rates are lowered.
Senator Lanigan mentioned the Middle East and I am very well aware of his interest in that area and share his concern. A deadlock is the only way to describe the present position there. I should like to emphasise that Ireland and the Community have a quite clearcut policy here, based on the twin principles, first, the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the possibility of a homeland or state if that is what they desire and, secondly, the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. It is not opportune at the moment to go into further detail, but as a nation and within the Community and individually we shall continue to press for a solution to the Middle East problem along the lines of those two principles.
Senator Lanigan referred to the conference on the question of Palestine originally scheduled to be held in Paris and said that the Community countries were boycotting the conference. That statement is not quite correct. The conference has been rescheduled for the end of August in Geneva. A preparatory meeting of the European countries was held in Geneva last week and four of the Community countries were represented — France, Italy, Greece and Ireland. Within the course of the next few weeks we shall be assessing the results of that meeting, with a view to deciding if we should be represented at the conference proper.
A number of other international areas were referred to by the Senator, among them Poland. He mentioned what he called the failure of the EEC to play any major part in attempting to solve the problem there, but I cannot entirely accept his criticism. In my opening statement, I listed some of the steps taken by the Ten following the imposition of martial law in Poland and of the continuing efforts by the Community which were directed towards promoting a return to dialogue between the government and the main social forces in that country. Quite bluntly, the European Community cannot solve this problem. Its solution will be found within Poland. Unfortunately, there are external influences there which are not helping towards that solution. It can be taken, however, that the problem of Poland has been and continues to be discussed regularly at Community level and we shall do everything possible towards nudging the principal forces there towards a solution. The recent Papal visit, it is hoped, will provide an impetus towards that solution. I heard on this morning's news a suggestion that on Poland's national day — which I think is 22 July — there may be some developments including, possibly, the lifting of many of the present restrictions.
The Senator also referred to the debates surrounding the negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear weapons. Like every other country, Ireland has a vital stake in the success of these and negotiations of a similar kind, being a country with a neutral position, outside military alliances and not directly involved in the major arms control negotiations now taking place in Geneva between the Soviet Union and the United States. Given the frightening reality of the nuclear arms race and the dangers to mankind which it represents, the Government have the hope, I am sure shared by Members of this House, that the parties to the different negotiations in this area will show the necessary political will and skill to enable each to be brought to an early and successful conclusion.
Senator Robinson, in a reflective contribution, said that many of the important powers of member states have been ceded to the Community without the necessary financial underpinning. I take her point that the Community need more resources to implement the policies which have not yet, in some instances, even been designed, let alone put into practice. She also said that because of our membership we are unable to use national instruments — quotas, tariffs and so on — to deal with unemployment in particular, and with other problems here. I accept that but if one takes into account the views expressed that there should be less protectionism, one wonders how effective such instruments on a national basis would be today. One must also take into account that we are not just restricted in that area because of our membership of the European Community, but that GATT rules and many other international organisations ensure that today, even if one wished and it were in one's interest, which I question, these varied instruments would not, in any event, be available to us.
The Senator also raised the question, as did Senator Hourigan and some other speakers, of the agricultural prices and the delay in fixing these. Naturally, we are very anxious that these should be fixed as early as possible in the year. There are difficulties. Let us be brutally blunt about it: other countries do not share our interest in this area. On the contrary, they are quite anxious to ensure that agricultural price fixing is delayed. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. Our approach, which has been that of all our Governments since we joined the Community, is to try to ensure that the agricultural package is finalised on the best terms available at the earliest possible date. Unfortunately, because of others not being as interested in that result as we are, we have not always been as successful over the years as we would have hoped.
Senator Hourigan, in a contribution mentioned by Senator Higgins as being a thoughtful one, with which I agree, concentrated to a considerable degree on the agricultural area and the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy. None of us can underestimate its importance to this country. As the Senator said, it is the most important common policy of the Community as far as we are concerned. From time to time it comes under threat, but we will continue to ensure, certainly by using our best efforts, that the Common Agricultural Policy retains its present integrity and value for this country.
The Senator mentioned the need for further added value in this country on agricultural products and also the question of agricultural imports. There is considerable progress to be made in that area and we are not half way there. For a country which has such an enormous agricultural base, we should question our dependence, which is growing, on imported agricultural goods, the figures for which are frightening. That point was raised by Senator Hourigan.
If I interpreted him correctly I think he questioned whether we should encourage Spain and Portugal to join the Community. We wish to see a successful conclusion to the negotiations on the enlargement of the Community. At the same time — and this may deal with the fear raised by Senator Hourigan — we emphasise that a solution to the problems facing the Community in the area of own resources is required in order to ensure that the Community can cope with the effects of enlargement. There is a link between enlargement and a solution to the future financing of the Community. This is recognised in the European Council Declaration. I hope Senator Hourigan would not be opposed to enlargement. I think I interpreted him rightly when I referred to the financial aspects. He was concerned about them and so are we.
Senator Higgins referred to the European Councils. They have developed over the years. I too question whether they are achieving very much and whether too many of them are being held. About three are held each year. I wonder whether they achieve what they were intended to achieve. I doubt it. To a large extent I share the views expressed by Senator Higgins on that point.
He also referred to the question of unemployment. His point was that in the reports an adequate sense of concern about this problem is not evident. These are reports on developments within the Community. The Senator may have answered his own point. There were not very many developments in dealing with unemployment and, therefore, there was not much in the reports about them. I do not think Senator Higgins was criticising the reports but the fact that there was not a sufficient response or a sense of dynamism within the Community to deal with this growing problem.
I agree with Senator Higgins that this is a problem which has developed over the years and has now exploded into alarming numbers. The projections made by Senator Higgins must bring home to us that this problem must get the attention it deserves from the Community. Nobody doubts that, but it is difficult to get the message through to our colleagues in the Community. The Irish Government will continue to highlight the problem at every available opportunity, and the need for an appropriate response at Community level.
I was glad to hear his comments about the migrant workers and the North-South dialogue. The Community must have a human face. From time to time in hard bargaining in the agricultural area and other areas, that face tends to get a rather poor showing. While the Community are making a fairly reasonable contribution in world terms to the problems of the developing world, they should be doing much more. They should be giving a lead to the countries which are lagging behind.
I will point the finger very clearly here. The United States and the Soviet Union are belting out money on armaments. They are the two big ones. The United States are not doing half enough in contributing to the solution of the problems of the developing world and, let us be honest, the Soviet Union are doing virtually nothing. That could lead us into an interesting discussion on the relationship between disarmament and development. I will not launch into it at this stage, but I take this opportunity to voice my concern about the fact that the two super powers are acting in that fashion while hundreds of millions of people are living in destitution and poverty in the Third World.
Senator Higgins referred to Turkey. I read an interview in one of the Sunday papers last Sunday. In the light of what Senator Higgins had to say I understand why he is voicing his concern here. As in the case of Poland, the Community cannot solve the problems of Turkey. They can adopt a stance designed towards nudging, or pressurising, or cajoling a country like Turkey to return to democracy and abide by the conventions and, in particular, the Convention on Human Rights. At a ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe I saw a similar type of pressure being exerted. The Turkish Prime Minister had to come in and make a report. At that meeting it was somewhat encouraging to find specific commitments being made to holding elections and so on. The Community have communicated with the authorities in Turkey their concern about the serious abuses of human rights and the fact that democratic practices have been abolished.
To give a concrete example: it was decided by the Community to suspend the Fourth European Community Turkey Protocol. It is not fair to say the Community have not responded to the problems there. The reason why the situation was not expressed in stronger terms in the report is that a certain degree of diplomacy is needed between countries in the Community and other states. The same could be said in regard to Afghanistan. That is another issue that concerns the Community. We have been continually making our views known in regard to the Soviet invasion there and using what leverage and pressure we can to try to ensure that that country gets an opportunity of resolving its own affairs without outside interference. The visit of Mr. Tindemans was in that category, to impress on the authorities there the concern of the Community. I have only been able to touch on a few of the points raised in the course of the debate which has been an interesting one. I look forward to the opportunity, after the recess, of a discussion on the 21st Report.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 July 1983.