Vol. 263 No. 5
I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such charges on and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof and such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to make provision with respect to membership of the State of the European Communities.
I would like the Minister to tell us if the procedures for this authorisation will be the same as those obtaining at the moment and, in particular, if we have a regulation which is applicable directly in this country and which, consequently, involves a charge on the Exchequer, whether it would be possible to incorporate a discussion of money arising out of such a direct regulation under the existing procedure, for instance, under Estimates, or would it be necessary that Estimates for discussion in this House will be matters over which the House can have control? As I understand it, a directly applicable resolution will not be a matter over which this House will have any control regarding the amount of money to be spent whereas the Estimates which we approve here each year are in relation to matters over which the House, theoretically, can have some control. Are the existing Estimates procedures adequate to deal with such a situation? This matter needs to be clarified. It is essential that some procedure be set up to screen such proposed charges on the Irish Exchequer in advance of their being agreed by the EEC Council of Ministers. For that reason I would support the proposal of a committee of the House.
Perhaps the Minister would clear up one point for me. If it is decided in Brussels that there is to be, say, serious credit restrictions in all member countries and since this would be a matter over which this House would have no control, surely in the interest of the economy of the country opinions should be expressed in Parliament as to the implications of any such decision.
On a point of order——
This Money Resolution relates to Irish money in EEC funds.
That is the point I was about to make.
I would ask again that Deputies who supported the referendum vote for membership of the EEC would accept the responsibility that goes with membership, that is, the acceptance of the application of community regulations here as they will be accepted by the other eight member countries. There is no alternative to this.
The Minister misunderstood me completely. I asked what are to be the procedures under which these expenditures will be approved by the House.
I have said nothing yet that would have given the Deputy any right to say I misunderstood him. A fundamental flaw in our situation here is that while everybody is talking nobody is listening. That is not a healthy state of affairs. The procedures are not settled. They are still under consideration but in general payment to the institutions of the Communities would be met from the Central Fund under authority sought through regulations under this Bill. They would include our contributions to the Communities budget, the capital and reserves of the European Investment Bank, the funds of the European Coal and Steel Community and Community aid programmes.
May I ask the Minister—
It appears to be impossible for Deputies to listen. I do not see how any business can be done here.
I am seeking clarification as to whether the Minister is talking of the period before 1975.
The procedures have not been settled yet and I am giving only a general idea of what will be the position.
Is the Minister speaking of the period before 1975 or after?
After 1975 there will be the direct own resources of which the Deputy spoke.
That is what I wanted clarified.
But the Deputy knew.
I am entitled to know what the Minister meant.
This is an indication of the value of a committee system.
I cannot imagine any business being done on a committee where members would all talk at the one time and where nobody would be prepared to listen.
The Minister is being offensive now.
I do not wish to be offensive.
He is being arrogant.
He interrupted Deputy Ryan.
Yes, after Deputy Ryan had made a total misstatement of the facts.
I did not.
The Minister is being very smart now.
If only the Deputies opposite had held a party meeting before coming into the House we might have got some business done but they are contradicting each other. They have tabled resolutions which, basically, contradict each other.
I asked the Minister merely to clarify a matter that was ambiguous.
On Second Stage they spoke against a committee. It is envisaged that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will be the intervention agency for Ireland. An intervention agency must be set up for each member state for the purpose of regulating the market for agricultural produce which is subject to common organisation. Some of the administrative expenses of this agency will be met from the Vote for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and it is likely that part of the expenditure on measures for the structural reform of agriculture will be met by the individual states. In our case this expenditure will be met from voted moneys, again, primarily from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and possibly from the Votes for the Department of Land and Social Welfare. It is likely that expenditure on training in the Department of Labour which would be eligible for part recruitment from the European Social Fund would continue to be met from the voted moneys.
