Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 10

EEC Supplementary Protocol: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kelly)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Supplementary Protocol to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey consequent on the accession of new member States to the Community, signed on 30 June, 1973, and the terms of the related Supplementary Internal Financial Agreement concerning the aforesaid Supplementary Protocol signed on 30 June, 1973, which have been laid before the Dáil.

Ireland, Britain, and Denmark undertook under article 108 of the Accession Treaty to apply the provisions of agreements of the Communities with certain third countries including Turkey, and this motion is before the Dáil today in order to enable Ireland to comply with her legal obligations under the article. The evolution of the association between the Community and Turkey is basically one of three phases: an original agreement, an additional protocol and further financial protocol and, finally, the supplementary protocols consequent on the accession of new member states to the Community.

The purpose of the original agreement of association with Turkey, which was signed in 1963, was "to ensure a continuous improvement in living conditions in Turkey and in the European Economic Community through accelerated economic progress and the harmonious expansion of trade, and to reduce the disparity between the Turkish economy and the economies of the member states of the Community". The eventual accession of Turkey to the Communities was envisaged in article 28: but in fact, Turkey has not applied for membership.

The agreement provided that the association would be implemented in three stages: a preparatory stage of at least four years' duration to enable Turkey to strengthen its economy; a transitional stage during which a customs union would be established; and a final stage entailing the intensification of the co-ordination of the economic policies of the parties of the agreement. In November, 1970, the Community and Turkey signed an additional protocol to the association agreement, a further financial protocol and an agreement on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community. The additional protocol acknowledged the completion of the first "preparatory stage" and instituted the second "transitional stage" of the association agreement.

The additional protocol, which like the further financial protocol was ratified in December, 1972, and came into force on 1st January, 1973, provides for:

(i) total customs exemption for all Turkish industrial goods exported to the Community with partial exemptions only for certain textile and petroleum products,

(ii) considerable and increasing preferences for Turkish agricultural products exported to the Community, with full free movement planned at the end of a 22-year period, during which the Turkish agricultural policy would be aligned to that of the Community, and

(iii) the dismantling by Turkey of its tariffs against Community exports over a period of 12 years or 22 years in the case of certain sensitive products. Within that period Turkey will gradually apply the Community customs tariff.

Certain provisions are also included in favour of Turkish migrants to the Community and it is envisaged therein that free movement of labour will be achieved between 1985 and 1995.

The financial protocol provided for financial assistance from the Community in the form of special loans for Turkey distributed by the European Investment Bank acting on the authority of the member states. The European Coal and Steel Community Agreement applies the trade provisions to products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community.

Negotiations took place between the nine member states of the European Community and Turkey during the period January, 1972, to May, 1973. Agreement was reached in these negotiations on the texts of two supplementary protocols, one adapting the provisions of the association agreement and the other adapting the provisions of the agreement on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community to take account of the enlargement of the Community. At the same time the member states concluded among themselves a supplementary internal financial agreement which sets out the conditions governing the provision of financial aid to Turkey by the Community. These supplementary protocols and the supplementary internal financial agreement were signed on 30th June, 1973. In order that the implementation of the main commercial provisions might not be delayed pending ratification of the protocols, an "interim agreement" was also signed on that date bringing the trade provisions into force with effect from 1st January, 1974.

The full texts of the supplementary protocols and the supplementary internal financial agreement are available to Deputies, but I will briefly describe the main provisions:

Title I of the supplementary protocol adapting the provisions of the association agreement provides for certain "adaptation measures". These involve alteration of the basis of certain calculations to take account of the enlargement of the Community. It also provides for increases in the annual level of tariff quotas in favour of Turkey in the case of certain sensitive products. In addition, under article 8, the amount of 195 million units of account to be provided in the form of loans from the European Investment Bank is increased to 242 million units of account.

Title II is entitled "Transitional Measures" and sets out a timetable for the alignment of Customs duties by the new member states on the duties provided for in the association agreement.

Title III concerns the final provisions and sets out the procedures for ratification and entry into force of the supplementary protocol.

There is also included a final act in which the contracting parties adopt a number of joint declarations, the most important being on the industrialisation of Turkey.

The supplementary protocol on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community, which is not included in the motion before the Dáil but which it is hoped to ratify at the same time, provides for the extension of the provisions of the agreement on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community to the three new member states. This protocol does not involve a charge on public funds.

The supplementary internal financial agreement defines the internal conditions for the application of the financial provisions of the supplementary protocol. Article 2 of the supplementary internal financial agreement apportions the 242 million units of account among the nine member states. Ireland's share amounts to 1 million units of account. It is envisaged that this sum will be disbursed over a period extending to 1979.

Assuming ratification of the necessary instruments by all parties by July, the European Investment Bank estimates the rate of call-up of Ireland's one million units of account in the following manner:

In 1976 we would pay either .15 or 21—the fraction has yet to be worked out. In 1977 and 1978 we would pay .32 of the total sum. In 1979 we would pay either .21 or .15. depending on whatever fraction of our contribution was called up in 1976.

I commend this motion to the Dáil.

Mr. Lalor

I am standing in for our spokesman on Foreign Affairs who has been delayed.

In view of the importance of this motion, the amount of paper work that has to be undertaken by the average Deputy dealing with it in so far as it talks about the original agreement, the additional protocol the further financial protocol and the supplementary protocol dealing with the European Coal and Steel Community aspect of it, which the Parliamentary Secretary says is not under discussion on this motion because it does not constitute a charge on the Exchequer, the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks are rather scant in their explanation of what this is all about and what will be its overall effect on our economy. As far as I can ascertain, the whole object of the exercise is basically to arrange for a situation in which this Parliament, in conjunction with other Parliaments, can clear this agreement so that the financial arrangements may be finalised.

In outlining the provisions the Parliamentary Secretary talks specifically about the overall financial agreement apportioning 242 million units of account to this work, spelling out that Ireland's share is one million units of account. Again, from the point of view of the average Member of this House, it is rather unfair of the Parliamentary Secretary to come in here and speak in this manner about the proportions involved, saying that in 1976 we will have to pay either .15 or .21—the fraction has yet to be worked out—without indicating how much that will cost us in itself. To come into the House and talk in terms of one million units of account, saying that we propose to pay it over a period extending to 1979, without telling us exactly what that will cost seems rather remarkable. We are given a sort of time table of the percentage of the one million units of account to be paid in 1976 and in respect of what is to be paid in the years 1977 and 1978. Then the Parliamentary Secretary says that in 1979 we will pay either the .21 or the .15 depending on whichever fraction of our contribution was called up this year.

We are now approaching the end of June and Estimates must be cleared before the recess. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us in introducing this motion what cost is involved. Perhaps when he is replying he will let us know whether it is more or less than £500,000. My reckoning is that the cost is slightly more than this figure, on which basis I reckon that the amount we must contribute this year is between £75,000 and £100,000 or, even, £115,000, taking the percentage at 0.15 or 0.21. It was a serious omission on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary not to inform us of the actual cost this year. He might have told us too whether in the Estimates we shall be dealing with before the recess the amount of money involved in respect of this protocol has been provided for in respect of this year.

In his introductory remarks the Parliamentary Secretary said he would describe briefly the main provisions, having pointed out that the full texts were available to Deputies. However, the full texts are exhaustive and, even if one had the capacity to read through them, it would be difficult to analyse and understand them. The Parliamentary Secretary describes the main provisions under titles 1, 2 and 3 and refers to what each sets out. I would have preferred him to adopt the sort of line taken by Ministers and civil servants in the various Departments so far as this House is concerned in that, in relation to the presentation of Bills we are supplied with explanatory memoranda.

When the Parliamentary Secretary reached the point at which he told us he would describe briefly the main provisions involved, I took it that it was his intention to give us a précis of what each title involved. Since he did not give this information one must ask the inevitable questions which arise from a glance through the protocol and papers. I wish to refer to Title II which deals with transitional measures.

Annex 1 includes those areas of industry in respect of which we have had difficulty, especially the textile industry. In this regard I note that Annex 1 includes such items as silk yarn, yarn of man-made fibres, yarn of fine animal hair, flax, cotton yarn, carpets and general textile fabrics. This is a side of the industry which has been the cause of considerable concern to the manufacturers involved and also to trade unionists.

Paragraph 1 of article 9 of Title II reads:

The reductions in customs duties and charges having equivalent effect which are provided for in the Association Agreement shall be applied in the new member states, in accordance with the percentages and time table laid down, upon entering into force of this Protocol. The rates resulting from application of these reductions as regards Annex 2 and Annex 6 of the Additional Protocol may, however, in no case, be lower than those applied by the new member states to the Community as originally constituted.

Paragraph 2 reads:

By way of derogation from paragraph 1, in respect of the products listed in Annex 1, customs duties equal to the duties applied to member states other than the United Kingdom may be applied with regard to Turkey by Ireland until 31 December, 1975.

Paragraph 4 of this Article reads:

By way of derogation from the preceeding paragraphs, should the application of these provisions temporarily result in tariff movements away from alignment on the final duty, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom may maintain their duties until the level of those duties has been reached on the occasion of a subsequent alignment, or they may apply the duty resulting from a subsequent alignment as soon as this alignment reaches or passes the said level.

These paragraphs are not easy to comprehend from the point of view of ordinary Deputies and that is why I had been looking forward to the receipt of some explanatory memorandum as to the effectiveness or otherwise of article 9 as it relates to ourselves and Turkey. It would be wrong of me to create the impression that we were opposing this measure in any way, the whole object of which is to aim at a united economic Europe. It was in persuit of this aim that we, both in Government and in Opposition, strove down through the years to achieve a successful European Economic Community. During the past couple of years though individual countries are becoming adept daily at protecting themselves.

It would be wrong to accuse the Government or speak in a derogatory way about the fact that they are honourably trying to carry out their responsibilities as a member of the European Economic Community, which is something that might not equally be said about some of our partners. Unfortunately, however, some members of the present Governments are adept at saying when in difficulty: "We told you so and it is not our fault that we are in this spot of bother". It makes us feel on this side of the House that we have a situation whereby members of the present Government are anxious and willing to see things slide and not work out. I do not want to make the accusation. I do not believe it, but there are times when I would tend to believe that certain members of the present Government, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce, smile within themselves, at least when they see things not going too well and say: "Well now I can create an alibi. I have a ready-made excuse when I come up to defend our failure, or my failure, in that regard."

This is why I am inclined to be critical of the Parliamentary Secretary. I know it is not exactly his brief, no more than this is my brief. But he is closer to it because he is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I take it he is fully au fait and will be able to deal adequately with the criticisms I am making in relation to this.

Apart altogether from leaving us short on explanatory data in relation to the protocols we have here and the agreement under the various titles of transitional measures, final provisions and so on, I feel that this motion should not be introduced into the House on the assumption that the spokesman on the Opposition side will know what this is all about so that we can have an intelligent discussion about it. We may find that the ordinary Deputy arrives into the House to deal with this and finds the Minister's outlining of the situation is not as elaborate as it might be from the point of view of getting the message across to Parliament and justifying the passing of this motion in the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary in his statement said, and this appears to be further evidence of what I am tempted to term the glossing over of this subject:

The supplementary protocol on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community, which is not included in the motion before the Dáil but which it is hoped to ratify at the same time, provides for the extension of the provisions of the agreement on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community to the three new member states. This protocol does not involve a charge on public funds.

I assume that, because this protocol does not involve a charge on public funds, that is the reason the Minister responsible does not include it in the motion. This is again unfortunate. It should not be so. It is part and parcel of the collection of agreements and protocols that have been drawn up in relation to this, and there is no reason at all why it should not be included and there could be discussion on it. I presume by reason of the fact that it has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the motion that it puts the House in a position that they are entitled to talk about it. I would like to know, it not being covered by the motion, whether I am in a position to discuss the implications of the supplementary protocol on products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community or whether I am out of order in trying to go on to that subject, because it is one on which I might have something to say. It is not covered in the motion and this is my difficulty.

Mr. Kelly

I am sorry I mentioned it at all now.

Mr. Lalor

That was the trouble. I do not want to be out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position would seem to be that it is not coming up for ratification now. It will be coming up for ratification but it is not within the terms of the present motion.

Mr. Lalor

Therefore I should refrain.

Mr. Kelly

I introduced it as a helpful explanatory background matter.

Mr. Lalor

This is my problem. The Parliamentary Secretary said he introduced it as explanatory. Perhaps he should have said "exploratory". Introducing it as a helpful explanatory background I find difficult to accept, because the difficulty is that he could have kept off it and spent a bit more time in giving explanations. However, we will not go into that in detail.

If I might go back to what the Parliamentary Secretary said when he talked originally about the additional protocol. He said:

The additional protocol, which like the further financial protocol was ratified in December, 1972, and came into force on 1st January, 1973, provides for:

(i) total customs exemption for all Turkish industrial goods exported to the Community with partial exemptions only for certain textile and petroleum products.

I am not interested in the petroleum products aspect, but the total customs exemption is for all industrial goods and petroleum products. I may be interested in petroleum products from the point of view of whether it means there are petroleum products we get from Turkey at a cheaper rate because of this total customs exemption. I am taking it that (i) covers customs, that the EEC are to withdraw the customs barriers from Turkish exports of petroleum products and of certain textiles.

That has got me around to the subject matter of what I spoke about a few minutes ago. In his introductory remarks the Parliamentary Secretary might have told us whether we at present are in any way helped by article 9, section 2. It would appear that up to the 31st December of last year there was a protocol whereby we might be allowed to protect our textile industry against potential imports from Turkey but that that has been removed since 31st December. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will cover that in his reply. I would be interested to know what is the volume of such importation.

The additional protocol provides for considerable and increasing preferences for Turkish agricultural products exported to the Community, with full free movement planned at the end of a 22-year period, during which the Turkish agricultural policy would be aligned to that of the Community. That is a long exclusion period but I am fully in agreement with it as it was ratified in December, 1972. I take it that the main imports of Turkish agricultural products are sultanas, raisins, currants, and so on. I am all for getting those things as cheaply as we can if they do not compete with the currants, raisins and sultanas packaged at home.

This protocol, which was ratified in December, 1972, and came into force on 1st January, 1973, provides for the dismantling by Turkey of its tariffs against Community exports over a period of 12 years, and 22 years in the case of certain sensitive products. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate which of our products are affected by those tariffs. I have not done any background study on this and I do not know what the balance of trade is as between ourselves and Turkey. I clearly recall that our volume of exports to Turkey was not enormous and I am sure we hardly export sufficient products to Turkey to pay for the dried fruits we import from there. Therefore, there would be an adverse trade balance.

We fully support steps taken to encourage associate membership, and full membership in the long term, by Turkey of the Community. I wonder what the hopes are of Turkey applying for membership. The Parliamentary Secretary said the eventual accession of Turkey to the Communities was envisaged in article 28 but, in fact, Turkey have not applied for membership. Is it hoped that, by getting these agreements and protocols cleared by July of this year so that the money we are talking about can be made available, Turkey will become a member? What is the Government's view on this? Are we anxious to get Turkey in speedily, or are we happy enough to sit back and let the thing take its course?

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The financial protocol provided for financial assistance from the Community in the form of special loans for Turkey distributed by the European Investment Bank acting on the authority of the member states.

Has any assistance been given to Turkey by the European Investment Bank and, if so, how does it compare with the assistance we have received from the European Investment Bank?

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The agreement provided that the association would be implemented in three stages: a preparatory stage, of at least four years' duration to enable Turkey to strengthen its economy; a transitional stage during which a customs union would be established; and a final stage entailing the intensification of the co-ordination of the economic policies of the parties of the Agreement.

He went on to say:

The additional protocol acknowledged the completion of the first preparatory stage and instituted the second transitional stage of the association agreement.

I should like to have it spelled out that the EEC were satisfied the preparatory stage had been completed, that is, that the four-year period had been completed during which time Turkey had strengthened its economy.

From my point of view the most serious aspect of the Parliamentary Secretary's "non-forthcomingness" with information was that he did not tell us what it would cost. I hope we are not so far removed from reality that we cannot ask a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary introducing something with a State cash involvement how much did it cost. If I go into a store down town to buy a hat, the salesman will tell me how well the hat looks on me, what it would do for me, and how much better I look when I have it on.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy can take the hat or leave it as he pleases.

Mr. Lalor

Before I take it or leave it, the obvious question to ask is: how much does it cost? I do not think even the Parliamentary Secretary would say I should take it or leave it without asking the obvious question.

Mr. Kelly

If your boss told you to go down and buy it, if he gave you the money and told you not to come back without it, you would not spend too much time asking about it.

Mr. Lalor

That is a very interesting observation. I should hate to think the only reason he is here today looking for the approval of the House for this money was that the boss said: "Go down and get approval. I cannot be there. Do not bother to tell them how much it costs. Those fellows on the far side know nothing anyway. We are the brains. Tell them you want this motion and tell them to blow up if they ask any questions. My instructions to you are to go down and get it." That is what the Parliamentary Secretary has told me.

Mr. Kelly

No. I should not have interrupted the Deputy. What I meant was that this country in applying Community agreements domestically does not have the same range of discretion as the Deputy would have if he went down to buy himself a hat.

Mr. Lalor

In that context the danger is that the salesman might charge me three prices. If he knew it was like the Parliamentary Secretary going to the Shelbourne to have his lunch on an expense account——

Mr. Kelly

I cannot afford to go to the Shelbourne for my lunch. I cannot afford even Leinster House.

Mr. Lalor

If I were really on the ball I would know exactly the pounds and pence value of a 1 million unit of account, but I am not. I have not the same access to that information as the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I am, as has been said before, the bogman; I am anxious to know how much this will cost us, and it is logical that I should ask this question on behalf of the taxpayer. I should not be told that the equivalent has not been worked out. We have been taking a certain amount of coaching and training recently in changing over to the metric system. As far as I know, the units of account keep changing. Therefore I would hope the Parliamentary Secretary would clearly tell us how much, in all, we would be liable for over the period extending to 1979. It is remarkable that we are almost at 1st July when the first instalment of this is due, and so far we do not quite know whether it is .15 or .21, and I reckon that this makes a difference of roughly £50,000. In a case such as this the Parliamentary Secretary should be able to tell us whether we are going to pay the .21 now and the .15 in 1979 or vice versa.

While I am criticising the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced the motion, I do not see any justification for opposing it, because I would be opposing something that we ourselves as a Government in our time were instrumental in inaugurating and getting off the line.

Ruairí Brugha

What I, as a business man, find lacking in the Parliamentary Secretary's introduction to this motion is that there is no reference to the sort of goods produced industrially by Turkey and exportable to here.

Mr. Kelly

I will give the Deputy the details when I am replying.

Ruairí Brugha

It is not criticism. It is just that, scanning through this, I find myself asking questions. Never having been in Turkey and not knowing much about the Turkish economy, I am at a loss to answer the question I put to myself: how does this affect us? It says here:

The additional protocol, which like the further financial protocol was ratified in December, 1972 and came into force on 1st January, 1973, provides for:

(i) total customs exemption for all Turkish industrial goods exported to the Community with partial exemptions only for certain textile and petroleum products.

It may be that I have not read back on this, because it is not an area I deal with normally, but I would like to have this information; it must be available some place. Other information which it would be interesting to have is: what do they buy from us? Again perhaps I should go back to the trade statistics and see what our exports consist of.

I am also puzzled by the reference to the cost here. Ireland's share will amount to one million units of account which will be payable over a period of years by way of .15 in 1976 or .21, and in 1977 and 1978 .32 of the total cost and so on. The total cost of the financial provisions of the supplementary protocol would be 242 million units of account. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate how this money will be paid? Is it in addition to the ordinary cost, which I think is around £11 million and for which we are liable as a member of the EEC? Is it a payment that will come under what I would describe as ordinary tax revenue?

I would also like to know a little more about Turkey itself. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was thought that Turkey would become a full member. Again I confess to a little ignorance on this. Is Turkey qualified in political terms to be a member? Are there any particular reasons why she has not applied for membership? Again it is curiosity on my part. When such matters are referred to, these are the question that come to one's mind.

There is also reference to the free movement of labour. As I understand it, there has been quite a lot of movement of labour between Turkey, in particular, and the West German Republic, which is a member of the EEC. I am told that the labour movement between West Germany and other countries is with southern Italy, Yugoslavia and Turkey. If the Parliamentary Secretary has the information, it would be interesting to know the extent of the labour movement to date between Turkey and the EEC, and also, from the point of view of the possible development of Turkey as a full member of the EEC, how this would affect us.

It is this kind of question that the man in the street would put, because when the Parliamentary Secretary refers to free movement of labour, that raises a different picture for people in this country. As far as I understand it, there is the right to work in the Twenty-six Counties on the part of citizens of any of the other eight member states, but only where work is available. In other words, one cannot have crowds of Italians, French or Dutch arriving here and taking up the jobs of Irish citizens. It is in that context that I would be interested in hearing the views of the Parliamentary Secretary on the reference in his speech to the eventual free movement of labour between Turkey and the EEC.

There is another interesting reference in one of the documents relating to agriculture. I am referring to the agreement establishing an association between the EEC and Turkey, dated, Brussels, 1973, and signed in 1963. It states that the association shall likewise extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products in accordance with the special rules which will take into account the Common Agriculture Policy of the Community. It states that agricultural products mean the products listed in the annex to the Treaty establishing the Community as at present supplemented in accordance with article 38 (3) of that Treaty. Has there been any substantial trade in agriculture between Turkey and the Nine? I would appreciate hearing about that. Mainly, what interests those of us who look at the whole question of competition which arises out of our membership of the EEC is how it may affect our own situation. In dealing with the EEC, and, indirectly, with Turkey, we are dealing with countries that are larger and more powerful than us. As a citizen and a Deputy I must be concerned about what the effect may be on our industry and trade.

Mr. O'Kennedy

In considering the terms of the motion one has to place it in the overall context of the Community and its association agreements and also in the context of application for membership from other countries, notably Greece, within the Mediterranean area. Undoubtedly, we all recognise that the whole motivation of the Community is not just limited to the betterment of those countries that are members at present. By its terms, nature and priorities, the Community has undertaken from the start a range of association agreements recognising the obligations the Community has, as a highly developed and prosperous economic area, to other countries on the European Continent and, as is clearly evident from the Lomé Convention, to countries outside the European mainland. To that extent when one considers agreements of this nature we are not in a position to ask: "Is this the right of the individual existing members to reject according to their own immediate national or supernational community interest?" Those of us at present within the Community have no more right to limit the advantages or benefits that accrue from the operations of the Community to the existing Nine, than had the Six before we became members.

The whole basic attitude behind the Treaty of Rome, and the father figures of Europe, was to extend to all those countries who could take on the obligations and conditions of membership —significantly, one of these is the proper and appropriate obligation and condition of working democracy—as quickly and as effectively as possible either the benefits of membership or, as in this case, of association agreement. The Parliamentary Secretary is correct in stating that article 28 of the agreement with Turkey envisaged that in the final analysis Turkey would apply for membership. He is correct in stating also that Turkey has not as yet applied for membership. One cannot look at this agreement without casting it against the background of a country which will, if the Community is to develop, and if we are to have the type of Europe we all hope for, inevitably be applying for membership of the EEC.

To an extent this is a preparatory stage to that membership. Obviously there are political problems at present in the Eastern Mediterranean that may make it seem undesirable for Turkey to apply for full membership and difficult for Greece to obtain membership. However, whether that may be so or not and whether we, looking at it from our own narrow confines, would wish to have them as members we will have to recognise that this is, hopefully, a step towards membership of the EEC. It is also important to recognise that in the whole development of the European Community inspiration the central issue was the maintenance and development of peace within the confines of the original members of the Community, not just to ensure their economic betterment or development. Above all else the intention was to ensure that only through a common membership of a common Community could one guarantee that the conflicts of Europe in the first and second World Wars could not be repeated.

If there is a problem in the Community at present it is that the essential inspiration and motivation which launched the Communities of Europe are not there now to the same extent. This may be because the generation since have taken peace and normal order for granted. If they have they will have overlooked the fundamental purpose behind the Community. Just as that was the fundamental purpose behind the Treaty of Rome so also must it be the fundamental purpose behind any association agreements which the Community make with other countries and any extension of membership which the Community undertake with other countries. For that reason the whole Mediterranean, particularly the Eastern Mediterranean, comes very much into focus.

In the first instance, we must always recognise that it is not possible to make meaningful political progress even in a narrow economic area, where political turbulence, unrest and violence exist, as we have on this island. The first thing is to try to cure these basic causes before one can get the normal programme of economic development which has applied in Germany, Holland, Belgium, France and Italy since the war. For Turkey there is a flashpoint at present, the island of Cyprus. We all welcome any moves the Community can make towards healing this sore point between a country which has signified her intention of becoming a member, Greece, and the other, Turkey, which has full membership as a long term aim. Through the agency of the Community both of them can try to solve this long standing problem between them which some of us may be happy enough to tolerate as long as it is reasonably remote from us but which, from time to time, has caused considerable international tension and considerable physical suffering. Obviously, the first priority of all concerned must be to help ease those tensions and abolish suffering. For that reason it is appropriate that this motion is before the House. Obviously it is not timed because of the Greek application, but it allows us to consider the matter at this stage.

On a recent visit to Greece I was glad to note that that country wants to take on the rights and obligations of the Community. Some people may say that neither Greece nor Turkey is ready and that they would be a very great burden on present members. It must be remembered that that might have been said of us when we were outside the Six. Now that we are within the Nine we cannot say to others who want to develop extension agreements or association membership with us, that they are not ready and that it will cost us too much to bring them to the point where they can become full members of the Community. If we did this we would be narrow and selfish and we would not be true to the tradition and spirit of the Community.

Greece has set her face in this direction. From my discussions with representatives of the Government there, they see the eventual membership of Turkey as an inevitable and desirable step, not just towards the fulfilment of the European dream but also towards the lessening of tensions, if not hopefully towards the abolition of the divisions which have existed between them on the island of Cyprus.

We all engaged in eliminating regional imbalances when we were very preoccupied with the regional fund of the European Community. The fundamental problems of regional imbalances is that you do not have normal political activity. There is a very significant regional imbalance by European Community standards along the border areas of the North of Ireland and a very serious political problem. In the sense that the Community have set themselves the target to get at the causes of these problems and to eliminate the regional imbalances economically, the Community must recognise that they have a role to play in solving political problems also. They can do this not by way of direct intervention or interference, because that is not called for, but simply by way of programmes of economic development which will work to the betterment of all concerned.

For that reason we would have to support the position in Turkey, even if the association agreement were to cost us considerably more than it is. In the same way, I take it, we will support whatever application Greece submits for membership of the Community in the knowledge that by doing this we are working towards peace in Europe and economic betterment and we are showing the commitment which the founders of the European Community showed to those areas of Europe and of the world that are less privileged than some of the more highly developed countries, many of whom are now within the existing European Community.

There is, of course, a consequence for all members in any new association agreements, and even more so in any new accessions by way of full membership, by way of direct contribution towards the operation of these agreements. As the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his opening address, article 2 of this supplementary internal financial agreement apportions the 240 million units of account among the nine member states. Ireland's share will amount to 1 million units of account, something of the order of £400,000. This is not the type of contribution over a four-year period at which we could baulk with regard to extending the benefits of the European Community, if not by way of full membership, then by way of association agreement to Turkey. We should readily and enthusiastically make that contribution and I am sure the House will do that.

During the last year we have been very significant beneficiaries of the European Community through the operation of the fundamental policies, notably the agricultural policy. Our net benefit from CAP last year was of the order of £98 million, a very sizeable sum.

Mr. Kelly

One would never think so to hear all the complaints.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not take too much issue with me on the next point because obviously we cannot always interpret things in the same way. The Government should recognise this point because on a number of occasions they have pointed to the damaging external factors affecting our economy. If we were operating without that £98 million which we get from FEOGA alone—leaving out the grants from the Social Fund, the Coal and Steel Community and so on—we would be in a very bad way. We have done very well from our membership of the European Community.

It is only fair to say that 1975, 1976 and maybe 1977 would be years of much more critical economic recession here if we were not members of the Community, and if we were still, as in the days of the last Administration, subsidising our agricultural exports to the United Kingdom market. I wonder how we would manage at the moment if we were not members of the Community. It is important that the Government recognise that our membership of the Community has made a major contribution to the economy. The public should know this and judge us on this basis. It is also important that, when we come to considering applications or association agreements from other countries, we should not judge them in the narrow confines of what it will cost us. For instance, in this case it will cost us approximately £400,000 over a three- to four-year period. We must say in a loud voice that we support the purpose of this association agreement, we support its extension in any way necessary and we support the principle behind it, particularly the principle which envisages that Turkey as well as Greece in time could become full members of the Community. For as long as they are not, it will be, if you like, one of the soft underbellies of the Community——

Mr. Kelly

A few other people have used that phrase before.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was not here for the debate earlier; I have just come in as the Parliamentary Secretary will have noted.

Mr. Kelly

I only commented because the Deputy might think he has invented an imperishable phrase.

Mr. O'Kennedy

One of them is here on our doorstep. We must all face the political problems which exist in Europe. Those who do not like the Community—and I am referring particularly to the socialist states of Eastern Europe—always refer to it as the Common Market, never the European Community, thereby implying that the only motivation is one of national gain for each member state, that there is no community or political motivation behind it, which of course there is. The Community itself has been inclined to drop the tag of European Economic Community and now speaks in terms of the European Community.

To a certain extent something is missing if they are taking the interpretation of the Community as being a community in the real sense, subject to whatever developments that may occur—and there has not been a speedy development within the political institutions in Europe, although it is nonetheless a community. The Parliament may not be a very effective one, but it is an indication of a community.

For that reason we have to look at every proposal from inside or outside the Community, not just in terms of economic benefit but in terms of the political implications for the development of this Community. I sincerely believe that the Lomé Convention enabled the Community to spread its obligations to the African sub-continent and that it was a major step in the development of the European ideal, even in Europe. I believe that this step here is an equally consistent step within the development of the European Community ideal. For that reason, we have to recognise it as such and support it.

There will, of course, be questions in connection with the agreement we are now discussing. One of them will be the question of migrant labour within the Community. Most of the Turkish migrant labour in the Community is based in Germany, possibly to a lesser extent in Holland and Belgium.

Mr. Kelly

A good deal in France also.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There is a high proportion of migrant labour from Turkey within the Community. The Commissioner for Social Affairs, Dr. Hillery, has made this issue the central plank of his programme. A community cannot be true to itself when there are workers within its political boundaries who are not enjoying the same rights, social or otherwise, as its citizens. If we are to consider for a moment the possibility that within the Community a significant section of the working population come from outside and work under conditions which are not nearly as good as those which apply to the more fortunate citizens of the member states, then we have not to look too far to see what the consequences for Europe will be.

For instance, we can see the problems that occurred in the United States and in the island next door to us, problems that are still occurring there because the country was not geared to integrating these people into full and active participation in the normal life of that country. You have constant flashpoints within the United Kingdom and, indeed, problems that ruthless politicians are sometimes willing to exploit to the detriment of those underprivileged people, politicians who raise the flag of nationalism by saying "This land is our land. We are going to close our doors on all outside undesirable elements". That attitude is not consistent with the obligations of any country to migrant workers. If migrant workers are to be allowed and welcomed, allowing for the educational or social deprivations they may have experienced, one must try to compensate for all these things to ensure that there can be no danger and that there can be no continuing or festering sore of confrontation between the settled and migrant communities.

The European Community is in a better position. I have sympathy for the position of the United Kingdom because their problem has come at a time when they are not able to cope economically or socially. Maybe they should have been able to cope. Maybe it is true to say that their political history has been the cause of their trouble. They made no preparation for it. Now is the time for the European Community to make that preparation. The Community is in a period of considerable unemployment, but our unemployment level is obviously more critical than the level within the Community as a whole. Nevertheless, there is still a great demand for migrant labour. This may be because of the nature of the work which many of these migrant labourers undertake.

I am pleased to acknowledge the very considerable efforts made by the Commissioner for Social Affairs and the whole Commission in general to make the rights of migrant workers a fundamental preoccupation of that section of the Commission. This is not because the Commissioner previously sat on our benches. I hope it can be taken as being serious praise of his efforts. If Europe did not recognise those rights it would not be true to its ideals. This is a time when Europe needs to re-examine the purpose of the Community and the ideals which inspired it, and to that extent the adoption of this agreement is consistent with the originating ideals of the Community. At the same time the benefits which the Community will apply to Turkey raises the question of the attitude which the Community is taking to the underdeveloped parts of the member states within the existing Community. Every member of the Community can expect an opportunity to realise the aims of the Community, given the entitlement and assistance which they can expect as members of the Community. The Community cannot be cast constantly in the role of the fairy godmother giving everything and asking nothing. It must recognise, that a fundamental programme must be the development on an equal and fair basis of every geographical area in every country within the Community.

There has been less than urgent direction from the existing Community members in that area. If for instance the Community had been consistent in its stated aims in connection with the regional fund and regional policy of the community, they would have tackled within the existing confines of the Community the regional imbalances which we have heard about so much. They would have recognised for instance that there is great potential in this country in the agricultural sector, the industrial sector and the fishery sector. This potential should be developed fully, not as an independent entity, but as a cog and unit within the Community. If we get assistance and encouragement from the Community in accordance with its principles, we should in turn fulfil our responsibilities as members of the Community.

We do that by extending the benefits of that membership to other countries who need to be assisted— Turkey in this case—to a higher level of economic activity, and to countries who need to be rescued from an unbearably low level of economic activity. That is our obligation. That is the only reason we have looked to the Community in terms of our entitlements, not on a narrow limited short-term basis but in the knowledge that, given proper direction at home, given proper application of the benefits of our membership when our economy expands, we can as a full and active member of the Community confer benefits on those countries who are as yet not in that position. That is a matter which we have to define as a fundamental concept in this country. I find that concept lacking at the moment. Most of us when we became members of the Community talked in terms of the immediate benefits. We have got them in great measure.

Mr. Kelly

I agree with everything the Deputy is saying, but what has it got to do with Turkey?

Mr. O'Kennedy

It has a lot to do with Turkey.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy is making a completely general speech about EEC membership and he is justifying it by a perfunctory reference to Turkey every ten minutes.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Why are we dealing with this association agreement? Why have the Community taken on the responsibility of entering into this agreement with Turkey? Is it not simply because they recognise that these are fundamental obligations which the members have to the peripheral states of Europe? I am not prepared to consider the question of Turkey and the Community in isolation without looking at the role of the Community. This may be a touchy point with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Kelly

I do not disagree with a word the Deputy has said.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Kelly

All I am saying is that if a debate on a very limited motion like this is going to be used as a tee on which to put this enormous debating golf ball about the EEC and our role in the EEC we will never get to the business of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I trust the debate will not be widened to that extent.

Mr. O'Kennedy

You cannot debate this motion without looking at the purpose behind it.

Mr. Kelly

We debated all these matters only a week ago. This day last week the Deputy and myself debated for two hours the question of helping countries who were not able to help themselves.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Not vis-à-vis Turkey or Greece. The same principles apply, they must apply consistently. While I can appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's impatience at the fact that I am ranging fairly broadly I must say that I feel these questions have not been asked often enough. I think the Community is just floating gaily on, without asking what they are doing, why they are doing it and what the purpose is. I hope I will not test the Parliamentary Secretary's patience any longer, but if we cannot spare ten or 15 minutes to do some reappraisal of what the Community's function is, we are very pressed for time indeed.

Mr. Kelly

I have the business of the House in mind, and this debate has now taken over an hour and a half and it has somewhat torpedoed the plan for the day, I am afraid.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It would have been casier for us to say "Yes, we agree with this" without trying to analyse all that is involved. I do not want to interrupt the business of the House, so I will not delay longer on the fundamental analysis of the role of the Community vis-à-vis applicant members or other countries in the association, but I will say that when we see that there will be free movement of labour between Turkish migrants to the Community between 1985 and 1995 the Parliamentary Secretary will have to recognise that that will have a very significant impact on the employment position in the Community.

This is a matter which the existing members must not look to as protecting our own interests; we must also look to the contributions which we must make to ensure that those migrant labourers who come to Europe will have the rights and entitlements, housing and education, social rights and so on that the Commissioner has set his face in favour of. Because we are beneficiaries to a very considerable extent we will have to see ourselves turning that corner to ensure that we too, can become contributors as much as beneficiaries, because the long term problems of the Community are great and one of the most crucial and critical problems is that of migrant labour.

I hope I have not tried the Parliamentary Secretary's patience too much. He has agreed with me much of the way and I am glad he has acknowledged that publicly here. We have, and the Government have done very well and if I may say it, let us get up off our bottoms and do something for ourselves so that we can do more for the Community. If we do not, I fear the Turkish, Greek, Spanish and Portuguese problems, all of which will arise one after the other, will be something we can do very little about. By comparison with any of those countries in southern Europe we are— and it should never be forgotten—very prosperous indeed. We have a great potential—and shame on us if we do not realise it—in comparison with Turkey or Portugal or Greece. Anybody who has visited any of these countries and compares our agricultural, industrial or any other sectors with theirs will see that our problems are essentially problems of management and policy—there are marginal differences—while their problems are very much deeper. That is why we among other members of the Community welcome this association.

The obligations are really minimal and we on this side gladly welcome them, but we would like to think that the Community will be consistent with itself and also look to its obligations within its existing confines in the areas of the regional fund and fisheries, among many others, so as to enable us, by enjoying our rights and benefits under the Community, as one member to reach our potential—this has not been done—and thus enable us to play a fuller role in the Community so that its extension and the further association agreements it will enter into can be more enthusiastically adopted here and, if I may say it, more effectively supported. I hope that when our time comes, our contribution will be considerably more—this is related to GNP—to any further extension, and that maybe in two or three years time, than the 100 million units of account which we are being asked to contribute between now and 1979. It will be a test of our success or failure whether in two or three years time that will have been achieved.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kelly)

Needless to say I intended nothing personal to Deputy O'Kennedy. I am always interested in his remarks in this field and I agree with nearly everything he ever says along these lines. I hope he appreciates that when I showed impatience it was because I am getting uneasy about the general programme of the House for which I am responsible. This debate has far exceeded my estimate of how long it would take.

This motion is before the House because the material it covers involves a charge on public funds. The other agreements I mentioned in my opening remarks did not have to come to the Dáil for ratification; it would be a wanton waste of Dáil time if we were deliberately to seek Dáil approval for them. I agree with Deputy O'Kennedy in regard to our obligations towards countries outside the Community whether they are associates or non-associates of the Community. I am glad that the Community has recognised responsibilities to the wider world and that association with countries such as Greece and Turkey has been such a useful one from their point of view.

Our share in this effort is at present limited to supplying a very small fraction of the money which is being lent to Turkey in order to help them to improve their economy. It would not be inappropriate to say here that this may be the first chance we have had since the Famine, 130 years ago, to repay the Turks in some concrete way for the contribution which the Sultan then made, a very large and handsome one by the standards of those days. We learned about it at school but we do not have very many contacts with Turkey and perhaps the House would not think it frivolous or inappropriate if I say that we were all touched to read about this event 130 years ago when a potentate so distant and, according to legend and the popular image, so wrapped up in his own affairs and in those of the people he ruled, some of them not with their own consent, that he still found time to post a donation to relieve Irish suffering. Now that the world has moved on, if, in a small way we can repay that by our membership of the EEC and by going along with the EEC obligation towards Turkey in the framework of the association agreement, we should be glad to do it.

The situation regarding the question I was asked by Deputy Brugha or Deputy Lalor—I am not sure which—is that this contribution will be made from the amount which we are obliged to pay in connection with our EEC commitments. We shall probably be paying about £16 million this year. That is only an estimate because the Community budget is not finalised. The maximum amount which we will be obliged to provide under this protocol, this year, will be .21 per cent of our one million units of account which will probably be about £120,000. It might be as low as £90,000 if the lower figure is called up. In the succeeding two years, 1977 and 1978—I give this information because Deputy Lalor asked me to do so—we think the sum will be about £192,000 in each year and in 1979, depending on how much is called up, it could be as low as £90,000 or as high as £126,000. To put this into context, apart from Deputy O'Kennedy's welcome reminder that we have been a very substantial net beneficiary from EEC membership, I can add that, up to the end of 1975, we have had from the European Investment Bank, the same organ that is administering this loan, a total of £58 million in loans. The Turks, in the context of their association, have not done very much better, given the enormous disparity in the sizes of the populations. They have been lent by the European Investment Bank from 1973 to 1976 about £90 million.

I do not think I should spend too much time on the question of Turkish membership. I understand the Turks intend to apply and probably the reason they have not yet applied is that their own economy would not stand the draught at present. No doubt when they become stronger— and this loan may be of some assistance to them—they will be applying.

The political difficulties which we associate with Turkey are of an international kind, their invasion of Cyprus, their hostility to the Greeks. These are very disturbing factors in southern Europe and in Europe generally. I know the Community are very concerned about this and would not be happy about absorbing two new members who were in postures of mutual hostility in this way. Quite by accident—it has no connection with the fact that I am moving this motion today—I attended the Association with Turkey council meeting on behalf of Ireland in Copenhagen last year. Almost the entire day was taken up with questions, not in regard to sultanas or raisins, but in regard to the political situation which the Turks had provoked or at least for the acuteness of which they must certainly be held responsible and which threatened to be a very disturbing element in the Community if they and the Greeks were admitted simultaneously. All we can hope for is that this question will be solved to the ultimate benefit of the people who live on the island of Cyprus, of both traditions, and so far as our goodwill will go any distance towards that result, of course it is freely available.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that what he has now said to a certain extent justifies the political analysis I was making and will probably go a little further.

Mr. Kelly

Sure, yes, but that was during the part of the Deputy's speech in which he spoke about Turkey.

Deputy Brugha—and I think Deputy Lalor also posed some questions. They asked me to say something about the trade relationships between this country and Turkey. Actually, they are quite interesting and I shall give them to the House. In 1975-76 we imported approximately £2,394,000 worth of goods from Turkey and we exported £381,708, an adverse trade balance of almost exactly £2 million. The main products which we got from the Turks —naturally, the House will not expect a full list—are not things which represent any competition for Irish industry at all and could not, as far as I know, represent any competition at present. Deputy Lalor was dead on the mark: raisins were the biggest single item by far—£1,101,000 worth; chrome ore £339,000 worth; magnesite—whatever that is—£110,000 worth; citrus and other fruits, £87,000 worth and timber, £93,000 worth. That accounts for the vast bulk of the £2 million odd, leaving approximately £500,000 left distributed between various things. There does not seem to be any substantial item on that list which offers a threat to Irish industry. In case the House is interested, we exported, in the main, anti-biotics—a very welcome new industry of ours— to the value of almost £100,000, horses to the value of £62,000 and hormones to the value of £100,500. I understand also that the exemption, or whatever it is called, in this protocol which allowed us to keep textiles walled out until the end of 1975 was availed of.

Deputy Lalor's question, mainly whether this whole matter ought not to be gone into with a fine comb—in other words, the nuts and bolts of this protocol—seeing that it was potentially so important, was raised by him in the context of a criticism of me for not having given an encyclopaedic introduction to this motion. I cut down the draft shown me because I think the House tends to be too verbose, particularly on matters where there is not really a discretion left in the House. Deputies opposite will appreciate that this is really not a motion in which the House saying "yes" or "no" is something which can be forgotten about the following day. It is something which we are obliged by external ties to pass, as Deputy O'Kennedy appreciates. The nuts and bolts side of the protocol should have been questioned, not now but on previous occasions; in other words, Deputies opposite who were not happy with the Turkey association, had they been following it up, could have questioned it. I do not intend to impute blame about this, but they could have questioned it in various ways—by parliamentary question, by a Private Members' Motion or by making use of the Government motion still before the House, which has been debated on two or three occasions, about developments within the EEC, or they could do it on a Foreign Affairs Estimate or, no doubt, in other ways. It is not reasonable to wait until this very last moment arrives, when the thing is being finally seen off, to raise these questions about whether it was wise to take this or that line in the construction of the protocol itself.

All three Deputies mentioned in one way or another the question of what full Turkish membership would imply for us, what Turkish products would be likely to impinge on our economy. The general picture in regard to Turkey is that the Community as a whole does not envisage any difficulty from the advent of Turkish products except in so far as Turkish production of citrus fruits represents competition for the areas of the Community which grow such fruits— in other words, the southern parts of Italy and, I suppose to a lesser extent, the very far south of France. The essentially temperate production of Irish agriculture will not be threatened in the slightest degree by Turkish association or even by Turkish full membership. There will be no competition for the kinds of things which our agriculture produces.

Deputy O'Kennedy, and I think also Deputy Brugha, mentioned the question of the Turkish economy generally. Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned the factor of the migrant population in the EEC which comes from Turkey. Of course, that is a very important feature not only of the EEC's economy but of the Turks' own because the contribution made by these migrants to their own economy is a very substantial one. Since the matter has been raised, I can remind the House that Turks working in Germany, France or Switzerland, making what are, by Turkish standards, enormous incomes, are frequently loosely organised in such a way that they send back a very substantial proportion of their earnings, not as individuals to their families, but as a contribution to their home community—many of these communities in Asiatic Turkey are poverty-stricken—to enable it to carry out works of development, irrigation and God knows what which will make their home district a more prosperous one. The amount of patriotism, practical love of country and self-sacrifice shown by these Turkish migrants, and by other migrants as well, of course, should be an example to us and should perhaps give us ideas of our own.

Ruairí Brugha

It is very much to be commended.

Mr. Kelly

Very much to be commended. Of course I agree that preparation ought to be made well in advance for the reception of migrant labour. While I do not necessarily go along with Deputy O'Kennedy's view about it being the fault of the British themselves that they are in this situation, it is scarcely the fault of individual British communities——

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was not overly critical.

Mr. Kelly

Ah, no; we need not debate that. What he said in that respect may or may not be true. Of course, it is true that if one foresees a migrant wave one should make ready to meet it. To be talking like this is somewhat unreal. We are not able to provide fully yet for our own people in terms of housing. While I do not regard that as an excuse for not doing our best for others, to be talking in terms of migrant suburbs or absorbing migrants when we have still got—certainly in my constituency and I suppose the same must happen in north Tipperary—people living 14, 15 or sometimes more to a three-bedroomed house, with perhaps one or two young couples waiting for the corporation or the council to house them——

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is why I said it is up to us.

Mr. Kelly

It is a little lacking in reality for the Deputy to be wagging his finger at us for not preparing ourselves for the day when we will have a lot of Turkish migrant labourers in Donnycarney and Coolock——

Mr. O'Kennedy

No. I think I mentioned that this was hardly likely to be a problem in Ireland. I was thinking of the European Economic Community as a whole. I do not think they will be flocking to Ireland.

Mr. Kelly

No, I do not see it for a moment.

That is all I wanted to say. I should like to thank Deputies opposite for their contributions and for the spirit with which they received this motion.

Question put and agreed to.