Are we taking Nos. 7 and 8 together?
Developments in the European Communities—Tenth Report: Motion.
Yes.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Report: Developments in the European Communities—Tenth Report.
As Deputies are aware, these reports are required by section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972. This Act provides that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Community. The House will be aware that over the past few years almost two years elapsed before the House had an opportunity of debating these reports, which were published twice each year as required by the Act. As I mentioned during my time in Opposition, this was unsatisfactory and I feel that the spirit, if not the letter, of the European Communities Act, 1972 cannot be implemented unless the House has an opportunity as soon as possible after the publication of the report to debate the issues contained in it. It is for that reason that I am bringing this motion before the House within a matter of weeks after the publication of the latest report. I hope that we will be able to continue this process so that the debates in the House will be as contemporaneous as possible with publication of the reports.
The Tenth Report is the second report to be published in 1977. It summarises significant developments in the various areas of Community activity from 1st January, 1977 to 30th June, 1977 and includes a review of the European Councils held in Rome in March, 1977 and in London in June, 1977. Developments in relation to the common fisheries policy up to mid-July, 1977 are included in the report.
I intend to confine myself at this stage to a factual analysis of developments in the period covered by the report, namely to 30th June, 1977. As all Deputies will appreciate, that was prior to the change of Government and I will not be dealing with matters that have arisen since the change of Government. If Deputies wish to raise matters which can be related to the report and which refer to subsequent developments I will be happy to deal with those matters in my reply.
The report deals with the development of the European Communities including European political co-operation, the main policy decisions taken by the Community, important legislation enacted by the Community and significant proposals for Community action.
For ease of reference Deputies will find as annexes to the report a list of ministerial regulations made under the European Communities Act, a table showing subsidies, grants and loans received or awaiting decision during the period under review, lists of meetings of the Council, plenary sittings of the European Parliament, plenary sessions of the Economic and Social Committee, Irish members of Community bodies and visits concerning Community affairs.
During the period under review, Portugal submitted an application for membership of the European Communities. Since then, as the House knows, a further application has been received from Spain. There are, there-fore, three applications for membership before the Community and the effects of accession of these three countries could have a far-reaching impact upon the future development of the Community. So far accession negotiations have begun with only one of these countries, namely Greece, and although the other two applications are still under examination by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties it would be a mistake if we were to deal in isolation with each of these applications on its merits without bearing in mind the overall consequences for the Community and for its common policies of an enlargement involving all three countries.
There are clearly good political reasons for having all three countries as members of the Community and in this sense Ireland in common with our partners has welcomed the applications for membership. Clearly, the strengthening of democracy throughout Europe is a highly desirable objective. But we must also be mindful of the overall consequences of enlargement and ensure that not only will we create a larger Community but a better one. We are particularly concerned that enlargement should strengthen the cohesion of the Community so that it may all the better be able to achieve the ultimate goal of political and economic integration. In Ireland's view, enlargement must be a means for moving the Community onto a higher plateau and this presupposes an efficiently working Community with the additional resources required to maintain and expand the benefits of common policies to new entrants and existing member states alike. These are the criteria which govern Ireland's attitude to enlargement and which will guide our approach to any accession negotiations. This view is, I believe, shared by a majority of the other member states who, like ourselves, are concerned that enlargement must lead to an improvement of the Community as a further step along the road to ultimate European union.
In the area of European political co-operation the Nine, in accordance with the inter-governmental procedures established for this co-operation, continued to meet regularly at ministerial and official level to consult on and as far as possible to co-ordinate their foreign policy positions.
Particular attention has continued to be paid to the situation in Africa. In a general declaration on Africa on 18th April, 1977 the Foreign Ministers of the Nine expressed concern at the situation in Namibia, Rhodesia and Zaire, reaffirmed their willingness to co-operate with any African state in the rejection of attempts by any state to set up a sphere of influence in Africa, reiterated their support for the Organisation of African Unity and reaffirmed that they would do everything possible to promote democratic majority rule and non-racial government for the peoples of Southern Africa.
Earlier, on 31st January, 1977 the Foreign Ministers expressed their deep concern at the attitude of the illegal Rhodesian authorities which had endangered efforts to find a solution to the situation in that country. They appealed to all the parties concerned to continue to seek a negotiated settlement which would result in an orderly and rapid transfer of power to the majority in Zimbabwe and confirmed their intention to comply strictly with their obligations in relation to sanctions.
As an expression of their continuing concern over the situation in Namibia, the Nine made a démarche to the South African authorities in February which set out once again the essentials of a settlement which would gain international acceptance.
To mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 21st March, 1977 the Nine sent a message of support to the chairman of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid.
In May, 1977 a statement on behalf of the Nine was delivered at the United Nations Conference in Maputo, Mozambique on Namibia.
The Nine continued their consultations on matters arising from the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and the co-ordination of their positions in preparation for the CSCE review meeting which commenced in Belgrade on 4th October. The purpose of this meeting is to review the extent to which the 35 participating states have implemented the provisions of the CSCE Final Act, which contains a declaration of principles guiding relations between the participating states and detailed provisions aimed at encouraging contacts and co-operation in the security, economic, humanitarian, educational and cultural fields, and also to discuss means of facilitating and improving implementation.
The Nine continue to meet frequently to discuss Middle East topics. Following the European Council meeting of 29th and 30th June last, the Nine released a statement outlining their common approach to the question of a resolution of the Middle East conflict. The statement represents a milestone in the evolution of the Community's Middle East policy and reflects the development which has taken place in Nine thinking since the last such declaration in November, 1973.
In the period which is covered by the Tenth Report a development of major significance took place when, on 1st June, 1977, a new treaty, commonly known as the Budgetary Powers Treaty, came into effect following its ratification by the member states. This new treaty amends certain financial provisions of the treaties establishing the European Communities and of the treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities.
The major significance of the new treaty is that it accords to the European Parliament the explicit right to reject the draft Community budget as a whole and to request that a new draft be submitted to it. Another power which the new treaty grants to the Parliament is the sole right, acting on a recommendation from the Council, of giving a discharge to the Council in respect of the implementation of the budget. This power of discharge, which in effect amounts to a power to declare the accounts for each year finally and duly closed, was previously exercised jointly by the Council and the Parliament. In addition the new treaty makes it obligatory for the Council to consult the Parliament and to obtain the opinion of the new Court of Auditors before it makes financial regulations relating to the management of the budget of the Communities. Hereto-fore the Council could make financial regulations without consulting either the Parliament or the Audit Board. Another significant provision of the new treaty is that it is now more difficult than previously for the Council to reject a proposed modification by the Parliament to the Community budget where such a modification would not increase the total expenditure of a Community institution, that is in cases where a proposed increase in expenditure would be offset by a reduction elsewhere. This is because the new treaty provides that in such cases in future modifications will stand accepted unless the Council votes by a qualified majority, namely 41 votes out of 58, to reject them.
The treaty also provides for the creation of a Communities' Court of Auditors to replace the existing Audit Board. The new Court of Auditors which is expected to commence operating shortly will consist of nine full-time members appointed for a six-year term of office by the Council after it has consulted the European Parliament. The court is intended to have a greater authority and independence than the outgoing Audit Board and its powers are incorporated directly into the treaties rather than, as in the case of the Audit Board, mainly in financial regulations.
The powers that the Court of Auditors will have at their command will be extensive. For instance, in exercising its powers of investigation the Court of Auditors will be able to examine all revenue and expenditure of all bodies set up by the Communities in so far as the relevant constituent instrument does not preclude such examination. It is empowered to carry out on-the-spot audits if necessary in both the institutions and in the member states. In the latter case the audit will be made in liaison with national audit offices or competent national departments. The Court will have the authority to ask for any document or information, necessary to its task, from Community institutions, national audit offices or competent national departments. It may also, on the request of an institution, submit observations or deliver opinions on specific questions. The Court will assist Parliament and the Council in their exercise of powers of control over the budget.
The purpose behind the creation of a Court of Auditors is to meet the difficulties created by the increasing size of the Community budget and the need to ensure more effective control over the financial management of the Community.
While the effects of the new treaty will be immediately to strengthen the budgetary powers of the European Parliament it is expected that these powers will assume a much greater significance when placed in the context of a Parliament which will be elected directly by the people of the Community in May or June, 1978. I might say in that instance, hopefully in May or June, 1978.
As the House is aware, the various member states have for some time now been preparing the domestic legislation necessary to provide for the holding of direct elections. Here at home the European Assembly Constituency Commission have presented their report and this report has been adopted by the Government who will soon introduce a Bill on direct elections. Once that Bill has been passed into law the way will be clear for the holding of direct elections in Ireland.
It should be noted that the target date fixed by the Rome Summit was May or June, 1978, and we have consistently expressed our support for that target. As I have indicated, despite the change of Government we will certainly be ready to fulfil our obligation.
The Fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which was held in Nairobi in May, 1976, adopted a resolution—Resolution 93—on an integrated commodity programme which called for negotiations with a view to commodity arrangements being drawn up in respect of 18 named commodities. The resolution also called for steps to be taken towards the negotiation of a common fund. In the period under review Ireland as well as the other Community member states participated in negotiations on the integrated commodity programme, specifically on a number of commodities in the programme. In relation to the common fund a United Nations negotiating conference took place in March, 1977, and was adjourned without reaching agreement on the question of a common fund. However, within the Community itself agreement was reached at the European Council on 25th/26th March, 1977 on the principle of the establishment of a common fund.
This agreement enabled the Community together with the other industrialised countries represented at the final stages of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in Paris to reach agreement on the principle of the establishment of a common fund. It is a source of satisfaction that the Community spoke with one voice and played a positive role at the conference which concluded on 2nd June, 1977. It is to be hoped that this agreement on the principle of the establishment of the common fund will give an impetus to the work of the United Nations Negotiating Conference on a Common Fund which is to resume in Geneva in November. It is indeed my hope that the agreements reached at the Paris conference will lay the foundations for further agreements in the North/South dialogue in the future.
In the context of the Community's overall Mediterranean policy, Co-operation Agreements were signed between the Community and the Machrek countries, Egypt, Syria and Jordan, on 18th January, 1977 and with Lebanon on 3rd May, 1977. An additional protocol and a financial protocol to the Community/Israel agreement were signed on 8th February. This extension of the benefits of the Community's Mediterranean policy, involving trade, financial assistance and economic and technical co-operation is a welcome development. The successful implementation of these agreements will contribute to a more balanced relationship between the Community and its Mediterranean partners.
An additional protocol and a financial protocol to the Community/ Cyprus Association Agreement was also concluded in June extending the agreement until the end of 1979.
The Community's imaginative policies in its relations with countries of different stages of development, exemplified by the Mediterranean co-operation and the Lomé Convention, have my support. The value and effectiveness of these policies are illustrated by the desire of so many countries to participate in such agreements. I know that I speak for all parties in the House on this question, as evidenced by the wholehearted approval given by this House yesterday to motions on the accession of three new states to the Lomé Convention.
The "Tokyo Round" of international trade negotiations, known also as the "MTN" under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was launched in September, 1973. Very little real progress has been made in the negotiations since 1975 mainly because of the unfavourable world economic climate and, more recently, the US election and change of administration there. The most difficult issues between the developed countries concern the EEC and US and they relate principally to agriculture and tariffs. The problem of differential treatment for developing countries is also very difficult. The main areas of the negotiations are agriculture, tariffs, non-tariff measures, safeguard system, developing countries and raw materials.
The deadline for completion of the negotiations has been successively extended. However, at the Downing Street Summit in May, the major participants committed themselves to seeking substantive progress in 1977 With a view to giving new impetus to the negotiations, President Carter's Special Trade Representative, Mr. Robert Strauss, at a meeting with the European Commission in Brussels on 11th July, proposed an accelerated timetable which envisages the conclusion of the negotiations in 1978. The attitude of the Community to the time-table is one of overall positiveness tempered by a concern to ensure that balance in the results is maintained.
The prospects for the negotiations, in the light of these developments, are better than has been the case for some time and if the current political will can be translated into positive action there should be considerable progress in the next six to nine months. Negotiations on the crucial area of tariff reductions are now entering a substantive stage.
The agriculture sector continues to benefit very substantially from EEC membership. Payments to Ireland under the FEOGA Guarantee Section amounted to over £104 million in the first half of this year. Community funds will also be made available for an accelerated programme to eradicate brucellosis, tuberculosis and leucosis in cattle.
The Community has a continuing large surplus of milk and milk products and on 16th September a co-responsibility levy of 0.9p per gallon on milk was introduced. This is to be paid by milk producers to Community funds and used to improve the market outlets for dairy products. It is understandable that dairy producers are reluctant to pay the levy but it should be noted that any increase in the market for dairy products must be of benefit to Irish dairy farmers in the medium and long term.
Earlier this year due to a wide divergence between the Irish and UK green £s and the fact that certain processed agricultural products were not covered by the Community MCA system Irish biscuit and confectionery manufacturers were placed at a severe disadvantage compared to UK manufacturers of the same products. To safeguard the interests of the Irish manufacturers it was necessary to take national measures imposing duties on the goods in question until the Commission eventually introduced an MCA system for these products on 4th July, 1977.
Due to the relative strength of the £ at present Irish MCA payments are at a relatively insignificant level and we are still expecting Commission proposals on the future of the MCA system.
The Commission are expected within the very near future to produce revised proposals amending and improving the directives on structures. We are, of course, anxious to see these proposals and intend to press for the reform of the directive on structures. Ireland's case against France regarding restrictions on the admission of sheepmeat to the French market is at present proceeding before the European Court. There have, of course, been more contacts with France in recent months regarding the overall situation.
As regards Fisheries the report covers a period when, following on the failure of the Council of Ministers to reach agreement on a revised common fisheries policy in the new situation resulting from the extension of exclusive fishing limits, by concerted action of the member states, to 200 miles as from 1st January, 1977, efforts were made to implement interim measures to conserve fish stocks. In addition, interim arrangements were agreed for Third Countries who had traditionally fished in the extended waters of Community states such as Ireland, for example the USSR and Spain for whom temporary autonomous quotas were fixed; these have since been renewed at intervals.
Because of the relatively very large area of water which now falls within Ireland's jurisdiction the question of interim conservation measures was of particular interest to this country and the period under review was characterised by very intense activity in this respect. The view was taken that a system of conservation based on quotas alone was not sufficient to protect stocks around our coast or allow the Irish fishing industry to develop. This continues to be our position, as evidenced by the specific conservation measures such as the closure, temporarily, of certain herring fisheries which have been taken recently.
The report describes fully the unilateral measures in regard to size of boats taken earlier in the year, the reaction of the Commission to those measures and the court action which ensued and resulted in the measures being suspended. I do not wish on this occasion to enter into a discussion on the merits of that episode.
I would, however, like to say a word about the alternative "fishing plans" scheme mentioned in the report. This alternative was not found to be workable as an interim measure. This does not necessarily mean that such a concept is to be rejected for all time. Something of the sort with an effective licensing system might well form part of the permanent regime to control fishing effort outside the exclusive coastal band which we are seeking. It was not, however, satisfactory as a hasty expedient.
Before I conclude, I should like to say that the Minister for Fisheries and I shall be having what I am sure will be very useful discussions with Commissioner Gundelach here in Dublin tomorrow in preparation for the special meeting of the Council of Ministers on Fisheries to be held in Luxembourg on 24th and 25th October. It is the earnest desire of the Government that a satisfactory agreement, taking a full account of our unique circumstances, on a revised common fisheries policy be reached as soon as possible.
In the period under review, the recovery from the economic recession continued but at a moderate pace. The weakness of investment has been an important cause of the slow recovery. Unemployment throughout the Community is still at historically high levels, and there is continued concern at the number of young people among the total. Industry is still running well below capacity, and while inflation has slowed marginally in the first half of this year, it remains unsatisfactory. Prospects for 1977 suggest a growth rate of about 3 per cent. By comparison projections for the Irish economy indicate a growth rate of almost 5 per cent this year.
In March of this year the Council adopted the Fourth Medium-term Economic Policy Programme, which provides the framework for Community action in the economic field from 1976-1980. The programme states that the restoration of full employment must be the prime economic policy objective at Community and national level during the coming four years. The programme also contains guidelines for a minimum annual average growth in GNP of 4.5 to 5 per cent during the period, with a reduction of inflation to a maximum of 4 to 5 per cent by 1980 in all member states. However, it is fair to say that there is considerable concern that the targets adopted for the medium-term will not now be attained.
In order to promote greater economic growth and employment the board of governors of the European Investment Bank have approved an increase in the bank's activities. In June this year a loan from the EIB to Ireland of £10 million was approved. This will be used towards financing the Cork Harbour and City Water Supply Scheme.
On regional policy, one of our main criticisms against the Community has been the lack to date of a comprehensive regional policy backed by an adequate regional fund to meet the problems of the increasing disparities between the richest and poorest regions of the Community. The elimination of such disparities we have always seen as an essential step on the road to economic and monetary union. Since our accession the gap between the richer and poorer areas of the Community, far from narrowing, has widened. Obviously, this will be a matter of major pre-occupation for the Government in our involvement in the Community in the years ahead.
As Deputies are aware the European Regional Development Fund was set up three years ago with a ceiling of 1,300 million units of account of which we were to get an effective 6.5 per cent of £35 million. This was completely inadequate for our needs and we thought and said so at the time. The Commission now propose to endow the fund on an annual basis but the figure mentioned for 1978—750 million European units of account—does not meet one of our basic criticisms—the lack of a real fund. Even if this figure were accepted it would limit the maximum amount that would be committed to Ireland at about the £25 million mark next year. This should be compared to our total capital budget for 1977 which exceeds £600 million. I can assure the House that we will continue to strive for a real fund to be adopted.
At the moment negotiations are going on in Brussels on revised regulations under which the fund would continue after the 1st of January next. These include a radical departure on the existing regulations in that they propose that the fund should include a section under which the fund would aid member states on a non-quota basis. We welcome this idea in principle as we consider it introduces an element of flexibility into the present system. However, we are insisting that its use should be confined to the already designated regions and to problems of a regional nature.
As Deputies can see from the Tenth Report the Commission have also tackled the question of regional policy by setting down the guidelines a Community Policy in this area should follow and endeavouring to build up a system whereby the regional policies of the member states would be better co-ordinated. A draft resolution formalising such a scheme is at present under discussion.
The regional fund also has a part to play in cross-Border economic co-operation. Already funds from it have been used to finance a study on communication in the Derry-Donegal area which should be released fairly soon. The Government will then examine its recommendations to see how feasible they are and what role they can play in future cross-Border co-operation schemes. In addition, we have a number of other projected studies in the pipeline.
So far as social policy is concerned, I need hardly remind Deputies that the major social problem facing the Community at the moment is unemployment. At the moment there are 5.4 million or just more than 5 per cent of the Community's labour force out of work. Ireland has the most serious figure with 9.4 per cent of our labour force unemployed.
During the period under review there were two major conferences on the problem. The Standing Committee on Employment consisting of the Ministers for Social Affairs of the Nine plus the Social Partners and the Commission met in early May and discussed the question. The Tripartite Conference which has the same membership as the SCE with the additional attendance of the Ministers of Finance of the Nine met at the end of June. Finally, the two European Councils that took place—at the end of March and June respectively—discussed also the problem with particular reference to what the Community as a whole could do about it. The points covered included borrowing at the national and international level, reduction in working hours, longer schooling periods and earlier retirement. It was agreed by the Tripartite Conference that the Commission would undertake a programme of studies on the following four points:
1. What are the cost effectiveness and implications for industrial output of work-sharing schemes?
2. What is the role of employment creation in the tertiary sector in the present context?
3. What changes are necessary in the pattern of investment in the EEC in the light of increasing competition and the Third World?
4. What could be done to promote both public and private investment which would create rather than do away with jobs?
In addition the Commission is to keep the overall situation regarding employment, investment and growth in the Community under review. It was envisaged that a further tripartite conference would be held to consider these reports when they were ready perhaps in the new year.
The first six months of the year also saw the review of the Social Fund regulations getting under way. This fund was originally set up in 1961 and revised in 1971. It is primarily concerned with training/retraining schemes. We have benefited from it since accession. In the past four-and-a-half years over £50 million has been committed by the fund to projects in Ireland of which nearly £20 million has actually been received. Somewhat in the region of 12,000 received training from AnCO last year as a result of its aid. While this situation is reasonably satisfactory from our point of view I would like to say that I am concerned that people are not just being trained for the sake of being trained and this is a point we are keeping under constant review. Ideally the training should be linked to existing demand for skilled labour.
The fund is at present under review but no final decision has yet been reached on the final form of the new regulations. They should however include a number of improvements from our point of view.
I hope that this analysis will enable the House to have a reasonably up-to-date discussion on events within the European Community during the period covered by the report, namely up to the end of June. Of course it does not cover the period in respect of which we have had responsibility to represent the country within the Council of Ministers. Much of what I have said obviously happened before we were in Government and does not represent the input of our policies to the Community. However, as I have indicated, if Members wish to raise in a general way matters which have arisen since I will be glad to report to them and to indicate what I see as being the new direction which the Community have taken even since the end of June, directions which I might say at this stage are regarded as being very encouraging and reasonably optimistic.
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, which is very helpful. While he is right in saying that the report does not cover any period of this year during which he had ministerial responsibility, he has been generous enough in his comments to refer to a number of current activities including the meetings tomorrow with Commissioner Gundelach.
This is my first time to make any contribution at all on this subject. I had other responsibilities during the last four-and-a-half years. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that certainly it is desirable to have a debate as soon as possible after publication of the report so that the debate has relevance to present developments and future activities. I would also like to see some debates in this House on the reports of the Joint Committee of the Oireachtas dealing with EEC legislation. I understand that no such debate has ever taken place. That Committee are looking at the drafts of future legislation and certainly looking very much into the future where in the nature of the 1972 legislation the reports which are issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs are historical reports. It is always difficult to find time, and the Opposition as much as the Government will indicate from time to time what they consider to be their priorities. Those priorities are, quite frankly, often times related to what is considered to be politically advantageous at any particular time.
It would be highly desirable that at this early stage of this Dáil we would make a resolution, and throughout the Dáil respect the resolution we now make, to have debates on European affairs more frequently. I believe that if we make that resolution we can probably also make and respect a resolution to make our contributions short. That would be very helpful. It is important that we should do it now, more important than ever before because of the imminence of direct elections to the European Parliament. There is a danger, unless our people see the European Parliament as being related to their welfare and as having an impact upon their present position and future prospects, that they may not vote as heavily as they ought to vote in that election. Therefore I would hope that between now and whenever the elections will take place there will be a number of useful and constructive debates on European affairs in this assembly of ours. If we would agree and if it could be done procedurally—I would imagine it can— we could whenever we are debating the reports of the Minister for Foreign Affairs also take such reports of the Joint Committee as Members may wish to raise here. It would be a useful opportunity for us to get the thinking of the Minister and of the Government on a number of issues which may arise in the course of the workings of that Committee.
There are two very significant developments facing us in the European Community. One is the application of the three prospective members, Greece, Portugal and Spain, and the other is the European elections. Taking the application of Portugal, Spain and Greece first, we in Ireland have a general agreement that the presence of those countries in the European Community is very much to be desired. It will help to strengthen the European Community and make the Community what they are not yet; although they claim by their title to be European they are not yet European. They are only part of Europe, though admittedly perhaps the most significant part, including, we may say with all due modesty, ourselves. However, just as the Council of Europe now is about to extend to 21 countries, it is highly desirable that ultimately we would see a community of Europe which will be as all-embracing as the Council of Europe is at present. In fairness to the prospective members and to existing membership it is essential, however, that the institutions of the Community would be strengthened either before the advent of the new members or concurrent with their membership. If the Community are to receive three new members in their present state there is a real danger that the Community will be considerably weakened. Indeed, at least one member state—to wit, Britain— appears to anticipate with some joy the possibility that the extension of the Community from The Nine to the 12-member entity would in some respects weaken the Community.
In some circles the view appears to be gaining strength that it would be desirable for the Community to be little more than a free trade area A free trade area in which a country like ours is not given an effective voice in determining policy would not be to the advantage of this country. We must therefore insist that at all levels of the Community, in the Council and in the Parliament and in all our contacts with the Community. any extension of membership of the Community will not be allowed to weaken the Community. Indeed we should use the arrival of the new members as an occasion to strengthen the institutions of the Community at all levels. If we do that we have very little to fear from the new membership. As far as Ireland is concerned we would have a great deal to gain. We have not been blessed with as much sun or the same climate as the Mediterranean countries who are now applying, so we have little to fear from the point of view of competition with their agricultural products. However, if the common agricultural policy, which is a cornerstone of the Community, is to be weakened in some way or other because of the problems which may arise in competition between the prospective members and France and Italy, that could operate to the disadvantage of this country. That is something we must not allow.
We have a very good reason for not allowing it apart from our own problems. We can point to the failure of the Community to produce a worth-while regional policy. The Regional Fund is a mere pittance. It was barely sufficient to justify the expectations which existed in this country and in other countries at the time of our accession to the Community. Admittedly, when the Regional Fund was constructed, all countries, including those who are now in surplus, were in a state of economic trauma following the oil crisis of 1973-74. In that situation there was a natural reluctance to commit to the Regional Fund significant sums of money which, of course, are a drain upon taxpayers and the Exchequer in other countries. But these countries that are called upon to make a net contribution to the Community are gaining immensely from the free trade market for their products, and they would not be in the healthy position they are in to-day if the Community did not exist. This ought to be put in the balance against the understandable reluctance they may have about making a net contribution to the Community. The amount of finances they are asked to contribute is only a small part of the profits which have accrued to the surplus countries by reason of the existence of the Community and the privileges which they have enjoyed in that market as a consequence.
The Commission has proposed an increase in the Regional Fund for next year, and it is to be assumed that Parliament will not diminish that sum; in fact Parliament is likely to demand an even greater amount of money for the Regional Fund next year. It will ultimately go back to the Council of Ministers and I hope we will not once again at the Council of Ministers have a number of countries strongly opposing a realistic Regional Fund. If they continue in the future with the policies they have advanced and enforced in the past, then the gap between the better-off areas in the Community and the poorer ones, as the Minister said, will increase considerably and the corrective action which will be necessary in the years ahead will be much more costly and much more painful than anything which may now be required to gradually assist the poorer regions to move towards a level of economic well-being comparable to that which is obtainable in the centre.
To return to the question of the application of Portugal, Greece and Spain, I would like to remark that the countries in question have just emerged from periods of dictatorship. There is an understandable anxiety in many parts of Europe that there should not be in the Community any member which failed to respect the democratic way of life. However, the Rome Treaty does not visualise any breaking away from the Community. It will be recalled that, during our own debate here before entry, one of the arguments advanced by the opponents of the Community was that once Ireland went in it would always be within the Community and unable to come out. That is because the Rome Treaty visualises the European Community as a permanent institution and also imposes upon anyone who accepts membership the obligation to remain. If that obligation to remain exists, parallel to it is the non-existence of any exit in any such circumstance at all. Therefore we want to ensure that any country that enters the Community undertakes on a permanent basis to maintain a democratic system of government. If it should fail to observe a democratic system of government we will have to provide some means whereby the membership of that country should be terminated, or —maybe that is too strong a suggestion to make—we should certainly provide that the rights and privileges of membership of such a country which engaged in dictatorship would be suspended while the democratic processes were not observed.
This will mean that we ourselves, in common with other countries, must make a pledge to maintain our democrtic systems. I am sure that is not something that any party in this House or any responsible section of the Irish people would hesitate to give. We will have to give it; others will too and, as a consequence, the Community will be politically strengthened and be better off. The Minister, I think, said that we should ensure that the accession of new members would make the Community better off. I agree with him in that, but we must certainly see that if it does not make it any better than it is at the moment, it is not in any way worse either economically, socially or politically.
The Minister referred to the Court of Auditors. That is a baby that has had a long period of gestation. I am not sure whether it will be necessary to induce its birth. The Minister may perhaps know whether Parliament has this week approved the nominees to the Court of Auditors. I understand that Parliament was to consider the matter this week, but I certainly hope there will be no further delay. I recall that as far back as last February or March we were under considerable pressure to nominate an Irish member for that court, and it was being said at that time that unless we nominated an Irish member there was a possibility that Ireland would not have a member on the Court of Auditors which is composed of nine auditors.
The particular agreement which establishes the Court says that it would not be necessary to give each national state a member of the Court, but in practice I am glad to say each nation state has been given a member on the Court. However, a number of countries delayed long after February or March last in making their nominations. I think it was only two months ago that the last nomination from Britain was made. It is very disappointing that an institution which should have been in being many months ago has not yet been brought into operation. Ireland— Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald in particular—was most insistent that a Court of Auditors be established, because we were appalled at the ways in which some of the European money had been handled. I am glad to say that our public finances in Ireland are managed on a much better basis than a great deal of Community funds have been handled in the past. It was because of our anxiety and anxiety also in Britain that Community funds should be handled properly that we were so insistent that the Court of Auditors be established. It is now over six months behind the time scheduled for its coming into being, and I hope this week will see the end of that delay.
I understand that Parliament have approved a nominee and the matter will be coming before the Council of Ministers on Tuesday next; I hope the period of gestation will then have ended.
I am sure the Minister will be only too happy to give a hand in bringing the child into the world. I think we may at this stage extend our congratulations to the Court of Auditors and wish them well in their work.
In regard to the direct elections in May or June—the Minister said May and June quite emphatically and with out any quibble.
He did not.
There was a qualification in the second reference.
I am relying on the script. Perhaps I was reading something else at the time. I do not think he used the word "possibly" in the script. I he used it I think he was quite right to do so. Of course it is highly desirable that the European elections should be held, and it is not at all satisfactory that one member country, in this case Britain, should be the cause of delaying them. If I understand the position in the French legislation, which has already been adopted, France is quite willing to participate in direct elections to the European Parliament provided all other countries accept the obligation as well. That is a fair enough principle. I would hope that our legislation would be in the form which we introduced when we were in Government, that is, that we would not make it conditional upon participation by other countries. It is highly desirable that we would give our people the opportunity to select their representatives in the European Parliament.
We are possibly one of the most conscientious of European countries. On a recent occasion in Brussels and during discussions here last week with European journalists it was remarked that the Irish newspapers, television and radio give more publicity to the activities of the Commission than those of other countries. This is a healthy sign which shows that we are anticipating the Europe of the future and that we realise the great significance of membership to us. If this healthy atmosphere is to be maintained it is highly desirable that we should have a very heavy poll in the elections, whenever they take place, but if Britain continues to delay European elections I fear a certain amount of cynicism and disappointment may pervade here and in other countries.
It is high time that Britain stopped trying to have the best of both worlds. For the first time in their history, the British people had a referendum to decide whether they should embark on an important line of political and economic policy and there was a very substantial majority in favour of British membership. Now that Britain is a member it is high time that she would play a full part, not a reluctant or a protesting one. That involves that she would accelerate the legislation necessary to permit her to have direct elections next May or June. Understandably, it may be that the anxieties of a domestic election in Britain next year may upset the programme of legislation but it is greatly to be desired that if the direct elections do not take place in May or June they will certainly take place in 1978, and I would urge the Minister and anyone else who is a member of any institution in the Community to maintain pressure on Britain to ensure that the rest of Europe, which wants direct elections, can have them so that the European Parliament will have more significant powers in the future.
Perhaps Britain wants to be ruled by Westminster and by Westminster only. So be it. We have our attachment to our Dáil and Seanad. Each member country has a pride in its national institutions, but we must think as Europeans as well as nation states just as people in counties and parishes have to think on a national basis. Our scale of thinking must be broader than in the past and that involves, logically, direct elections to the European Parliament and greater powers for that Parliament.
It may be thought by some people that the direct elections will not be of great significance because of the limited powers which so far have been given to the European Parliament. I can understand that point of view. That Parliament has quite considerable power to influence the Commission and the Council just, indeed, as members of the Opposition in our Parliament have powers to influence legislation and public opinion. Both public opinion and the utterances of the Opposition, if not always with acknowledgement, help nevertheless to mould Government policy and in specific cases to amend legislation. Similarly with the European Parliament; although its powers in the past have not been as great as those now being conferred on it, it has been influencial in pressing the Council of Ministers to adopt particular lines of policy. I had that experience during my four years as a member of the Council of Ministers. Although the utterances of Parliament have not been always reflected in decisions of the Council or of individual councils, there have been occasions when Ministers under the pressure of criticism in Parliament have changed the courses they had intended to take.
If Parliament were directly elected it would have to be respected even to a greater extent in the future, and in the course of time a directly elected Parliament will be very likely to get additional powers. The significant power which has been given to it is to reject the budget put before it by the Commission. Up to now it has only had limited power in relation to the budget. Of course it is right that in any area of political jurisdiction the control over the budget should lie with the people who are directly elected and directly responsible to the electorate. The Members of the European Parliament will have a five-year period of office and will then have to answer to their constituents in their individual countries for the way they have discharged their duties. I am convinced that parliamentarians elected with a mandate to go to the European Parliament will insist on getting greater powers than those which have been given to them so that at the end of their period in office they can justify the confidence placed in them by their people.
The Minister spoke about the MCA system proposal. This is very urgent although perhaps not so urgent as it was last year when the pound sterling and the Irish pound were less healthy than they are. Nevertheless, the complications which arose in the last few years from fluctuations in currencies were enormous and operated in different ways to the disadvantage of Ireland and particularly those engaged in the export of agricultural goods. The problems thrown up by this fluctuation could not be answered by adjustments of the green £ or the green kroner or mechanisms of that kind. They simply helped to alleviate the problems. It should be realised that when the MCA system was first established nobody visualised that currencies would fluctuate in the crazy way they did. That experience can occur again and on that account we should press the Commission to bring forward proposals. The likelihood is that if and when they come forward it will take up to two years before the Council of Ministers can resolve all the technical difficulties.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18th October, 1977.