To that extent the Minister will appreciate that I am at something of a disadvantage. I can only speak on the basis of what has been reported in the public Press.
As I said, from our point of view the summit was a disastrous disappointment on both counts. I do not think anything of significance has been achieved in the overall context of promoting the European ideals. In his introductory remarks the Minister spoke at some length about what should be our attitude and our approach in conferences of this sort. He pointed out that any representatives of this country going to such a conference have to keep in mind two different and perhaps conflicting objectives. On the one hand he has to pursue the interests of this country, but on the other hand he has to make a contribution to the overall European ideal. I recognise that it can be a difficult matter in any conference to try to reconcile those two frequently conflicting considerations.
We have a fundamental interest in ensuring that the Community progresses, that integration proceeds and that the overall objectives of the Community are pursued. We have just as vital an interest in that as we have in any particular matter where our immediate interest is concerned. I would instance the question of regional policy. As a member of the Community we have a vital interest in the establishment of a meaningful regional policy in the Community. Side by side with that, the Community itself also has, or should have, the same interest, from the point of view of its own welfare as a Community ultimately, in the establishment of such a meaningful regional policy. In pursuing a particular line which in the short-term would appear to be very much in our own interests, it could also happen that it was in the overall interest of the Community.
I do not think that the summit made any useful contribution to the development of any of the significant policies. There are some policies and some questions which are on the table of this House which are of urgent and immediate concern and there are others which are more long-term in their implications. One thinks immediately of the whole energy question and the evolution of some policy by the Community in regard to energy. As far as I can ascertain nothing of any great significance was achieved in that regard at the summit.
In the longer term the question of political integration and the progress towards a common monetary policy seem to have been pushed away into the background. From our point of view the real failure is in regard to regional policy. We must recognise that in fact what has happened is just a piece of window dressing and that the Community has not accepted the principle of the need for a comprehensive, meaningful and adequately financed regional policy. The amount of money which has been allocated to this country is pathetically inadequate. From that point of view if our deputation had been seen off by a guard of honour they should have been met on their arrival home by a firing squad. Great hopes were pinned on the possibility of the emergence of a meaningful regional policy from the Community.
There is tragic disappointment throughout the west of Ireland on the outcome and it is difficult for the general public to understand how this country could be allocated a total of £35 million over a three-year period when Britain, whom we have always regarded as advanced, developed and a comparatively prosperous nation, will receive £132 million. The figure of £8 million for 1975 is quite meaningless in our circumstances. In fact, I might be a bit unrealistic to suggest it but one could sympathise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he had said to his colleagues: "Keep it, it is of no importance to us, it is a gratuitous insult."
In this connection I should like to put forward a suggestion to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to the Government. Last week the Minister for Finance, by a very simple statutory operation, raised a sum which he says will be equivalent to £27½ million in one year but which others have calculated will be £35 million. When one realises that our budgetary situation has now moved forward to a point where one single operation of that sort raises something in the region of £35 million one can see how pitifully inadequate the sum given to us from the regional fund for next year is.
Great hopes had been built up, particularly in the west, for some positive meaningful results from the regional policy. The Minister for Finance, in putting his proposal before the Dáil, said he was not interested in the revenue which the new tax on petrol was going to provide. I suggest to him that he should put the revenue from this taxation on petrol into a regional fund. If that money was added to the £8 million which we will receive from the Community in 1975 we would have a figure of some significance. If we are to accept the statement of the Minister for Finance that his primary purpose in putting this additional tax on petrol was not to raise revenue then there is every reason for him to accept this suggestion.
From the point of view of textbook economics it would be a perfect exercise to take this money from current taxation and put it into a capital fund. I put that suggestion forward to the Minister in all seriousness. There is no doubt that a radical approach is needed from the point of view of economic development in the western counties. We have failed to procure what we need from EEC sources and it is clear that in the next three years we cannot rely on the European Regional Fund for the amount of money we need to make any impact on the economic problems of the west.
I listened to the Minister last night on the radio as he went through what I would describe as a very cynical exercise. He stated that he was not all that seriously disappointed at the inadequacy of the amount provided under the EEC regional policy, and that he had not dared say so during the course of the negotiations in case that would impede his arguing for the highest possible level but that in fact he never really had any great expectations from these long protracted negotiations. I do not believe that. I believe that he, in common with the rest of us, hoped there would be some significant and meaningful contribution forthcoming as a result of these long and protracted negotiations.
We are now faced with the situation where significant funds are needed to implement a meaningful regional policy here. We will only receive £8 million from the Community in 1975 and, therefore, it seems to me to be totally legitimate to take the revenue from the increased petrol taxation and put it into an internal, domestic regional fund. We could then set about implementing a regional policy for the western regions.
I should like to ask the Minister if we have made domestically any preparations to use the money which will come from the EEC Regional Fund. I want the Minister to give us an assurance that that £8 million will not simply be tossed into the Exchequer and swallowed up in the overall financial situation. I want the Minister to tell us whether or not there are specific plans or programmes prepared in the Departments, which can be put into effect now, to use up this £8 million coming in 1975, the £13½ million coming the following year and the £13½ million coming the year after. That is a very important matter and something of very great significance also to the many people, organisations and bodies throughout the western counties interested in regional development. What are the specific procedures? What will be the mechanisms for the implementation in this country of the regional policy laid down by the EEC?
I should like the Minister also to indicate to us what are the Community mechanisms involved here. We had the experience before where a former Paris Summit took great and splendid decisions but that, more or less, was the last we ever heard of them. How do these decisions of summits get transferred into the practical mechanics of the Community machinery? It seems to me that, at best, a very vague decision in principle has been taken by the Heads of Government at the summit to establish a regional fund. I think the House would like to know from the Minister what happens after that. Will this decision in principle follow the other high-sounding decisions in principle, taken at the first Paris Summit, into Limbo, or will there be concrete follow-up action? If so, in what way will this decision in principle be transferred into concrete action?
I think the Community has done itself a very great disservice in taking this decision in regard to regional policy. In effect, it has made an idle gesture, nothing more. There is much more involved in this question of regional policy than merely helping the peripheral regions of the Community—a full-blooded, comprehensive, adequate regional policy is essential for the ultimate achievement of many of the Community's objectives. If we are to progress towards monetary unity, to even full economic integration, we should certainly at this stage—and we should have even a year or two ago—embarked on a comprehensive regional policy, because it is quite meaningless to expect some of the member countries to participate in monetary union, or economic integration, in their present state of development relative to other members. Unless, there is an operation of a meaningful regional policy; unless the different areas of the Community are brought up to somewhat the same level, then one can forget about economic integration in the full sense of the word and monetary union.
Therefore, that was the main failure of this Paris Summit. The very fact that they established this inadequate and meaningless fund is quite harmful because it means that throughout the Community institutions it will be said now: "Oh, we have a regional policy; we have a regional fund and that question is settled." Therefore, in that respect, it is a very serious setback to the whole course of European integration.
I should like the Minister for Foreign Affairs also to talk to us about the Community energy policy. This is a particularly entangled affair at present. Many of us are very much at a loss to know what is the real situation. In this area of energy we have the American initiative and the American agreement, which is OECDbased. Side by side with that—and I think separate from it, as far as one can ascertain—there is the question of an EEC energy policy. One gathers that this issue was discussed in Paris. I should like the Minister to give us a clear-cut outline of what is the present position. Is there a separate EEC approach following the French line of thought and are we committed to that? Are we, at the same time, committed to the American approach? Is there a conflict between the two? Where exactly do we stand? What were the Minister's objectives in Paris and how far did he succeed in achieving his objectives? For many people at present the question of energy and the Community approach is the crucial question. It is the one facing us immediately, the one on the table at present. From the outside, my view is that the Paris Summit achieved nothing in this regard. But I would be prepared to listen to the Minister in that connection and, if he can assure us that something was achieved, then we should all be very relieved to hear that. But certainly there is room for clarification by the Minister and the Government in this whole area.
I suppose it is easy for us in Opposition to be critical of the Taoiseach and the Minister in regard to their performance on this occasion. But I should like the Minister to be very honest with us and admit that we might as well not have been present at Paris. That is important because there is another summit coming up. As far as one can gather, there is to be a summit in Dublin in the early part of the new year. If the outcome of the Paris Summit is negative from our point of view, as it would seem, then has the Minister or the Government any new approach to adopt at the Dublin Summit? It seems to me at any rate that the Minister was no Tallyrand returning from the Congress of Vienna on this occasion. He has not been reluctant at any time to indicate to us what a worthy representative he is of this country, how much he is achieving in different areas and on different fronts. But I am afraid—from our point of view, at any rate—on this occasion he has not represented us well or has not achieved anything for us either from the point of view of contributing to the overall development of the Community, which is ultimately in our best interests, or on the narrow questions in which we have a particular national interest.
On the internal economic front at the moment we are concerned gravely about the position of the cattle and beef trade and about the general industrial front, as highlighted by the plight of the boot and shoe industry. I do not know whether the Minister could have succeeded in having these matters put on the agenda in Paris or in having some positive direction given by the summit in regard to them to the Council of Ministers. So far as one can ascertain from the reports, nothing was achieved in these areas. It seems as if they were not even adverted to. I want the Minister to tell us whether they were adverted to, whether he made any attempt to have them put on the agenda and, if so, what were the results. It looks as if summits are to become part of the regular machinery of the Community. This is another matter the Minister should tell us about.
Some reports I have read indicate that there are to be continuing summits and it seems that to some extent these will supplant the Council of Ministers. If that is so, an entirely new approach by us to these summits is called for. If we are to look forward to a series of summits of operational significance in the Community context, the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and the other Ministers, too, should be thinking about the future agenda of these summits. If some of the Ministers are to become more involved in the running of the Community we would like to know what are their plans for the next summit. The energy situation, the situation in regard to unemployment in industry and the future of the beef and cattle trade are questions of vital and immediate interest for us. We should be told whether they are to be dealt with at the next summit, which is to take place in Dublin.
As I said at the outset, this motion was brought in by the Minister for some reason known best to himself. It asks us to express formally our support for the objectives of European integration in the economic, social and political spheres. We are prepared to give that formal expression of support. But we are bitterly disappointed not, I may assure the Minister, in the ideals of European integration, but at the outcome of the Paris Summit and also with the inadequacy of what he has been able to achieve in practical terms for this country in the context of the regional policy and, in the longer term, in promoting the development of the Community.
