European Council Meeting: Statement by Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement on the European Council which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I attended in Paris on 12 and 13 March 1979.

The meeting was concerned with:

—the economic and social situation in the Community and relations with Japan;

—employment and social policy;

—energy;

—Euro-Arab-African relations;

—Convergence of the economies of the Nine; and the Common Agricultural Policy.

I have arranged to lay the Presidency conclusions before the House, for the information of Deputies, in accordance with normal practice.

The agenda items on the economic and social situation, and employment and social policy were taken together. With 6 million people out of work in the Community, unemployment is obviously one of the most serious and difficult problems facing Europe. In 1978, unemployment increased in Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom the level remained more or less the same. It decreased only in Germany, Ireland and Italy; and on our estimates of economic growth for this year, it is likely to decrease further here, if we observe the proper disciplines. There is little likelihood of a reduction in the numbers out of work in the Community as a whole if the Commission estimate for economic growth in 1979 is realised: and oil shortages could aggravate the problems.

I emphasised the need to get economic growth in the Community moving again, as an essential prerequisite to the elimination of unemployment.

There was considerable emphasis on the need to reduce inflation, which the Council stressed must be the first objective of economic policy. The Council noted that growth is currently strongest in those countries with the lowest rates of inflation.

Apart from general measures to sustain or stimulate growth, without increasing inflation, the Council stressed the need to improve relations with the social partners. A full understanding of the problems and opportunities is essential to economic progress. The Council also asked the Council of Ministers to study a number of specific measures, including:

training better adapted to employment, particularly for young people;

limiting the systematic use of overtime; and improving employment conditions for women.

I emphasised the need for measures to develop youth employment. As is well known, the rate of increase in Ireland in the labour force due to the inflow of young people is at a much higher rate than obtains in the Community generally. The rate of inflow of young people to the labour force here is three times the Community average. The Council accepted my proposal and confirmed the importance it attached to youth employment.

We can sustain economic growth and reduce unemployment only if energy policy is right. Our dependency on external sources—more than 80 per cent— for coal, oil and other materials makes us dangerously vulnerable to any interruption of supplies. And it is essential for our own security that we, like the rest of the Community, reduce this dependency. The Council discussed the difficulties created by the Iranian situation in relation both to supplies and to economic growth generally. A number of specific measures were adopted—including emphasis on conservation, New sources of energy, including in particular nuclear energy, and measures to ensure directly a reduction in the consumption of oil by the Community.

I indicated the need for Community assistance for exploration, in particular for hydrocarbons in areas off the west coast of Ireland which have promise but which, because of deep waters, are expensive and difficult to explore. Even a small find by world standards would enable us to meet our own needs and leave a surplus for Community use.

There was a great deal of discussion on the use of Community finances to advance convergence of the different economies, with particular emphasis on the Common Agricultural Policy. I said that only a small part of the Community resources, in total, are spent on agriculture. It is, in fact, of the order of 0.5 per cent, or half of 1 per cent of the combined GNP of the member countries or less than 3 per cent of total Community spending on food. And what is perhaps even more relevant, the Community spending is only half what national governments themselves spend on agriculture. I urged the need for an improvement in structures policy, particularly for the less favoured areas of the Community: and this point was accepted by the Council. On prices, there was considerable pressure for a complete standstill this year. I said that a complete standstill was a blunt instrument which should not be used. Farmers' costs, like those of everybody else, are rising and the Community must have regard to them—as well as to the need to moderate inflation. At the same time, the problem of surpluses is real and must be tackled. I supported the Commission's general approach in this area.

The Council recognised the importance of adhering to the principles of the CAP and decided that there would be continuing review of these principles with special regard to security of supply, a reasonable standard of income for farmers and to distortions in the market.

On the European Monetary System, technical difficulties were raised in Community institutions as to the method of transfer of resources to Ireland. The House will recall that the Brussels Council last December decided on a resolution providing for loans of up to 1,000 million EUA per year to less prosperous member countries on special conditions. These loans were to be concentrated on infrastructural projects and programmes. The resolution provided for interest rate subsidies of 3 per cent for the loans, to be capitalised in annual tranches of 200 million EUAs over a period of five years. These decisions were supplemented by a further decision that if Ireland and Italy both decided to join the system, the interest subsidies would be allocated as to one-third to Ireland and two-thirds to Italy.

Following discussion at the Council, the difficulties to which I have referred were resolved. What is involved is the transfer to Ireland of the capitalised value of the subsidies on loans to be advanced to us from the European Investment Bank.

There are still uncertainties in the way of the subsidy payments. These uncertainties are not due to any act or omission on our part. They concern differences between Community institutions. They are:

(1) the difference between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament as to the budget for 1979. Until these difficulties are resolved, it will not be possible to enter the amount of the subsidies in the Community Budget; and

(2) differences between Parliament and the Commission on the formalities for the making of the subsidy regulations, and as to the nature of the subsidies in Community terms, that is, whether they are obligatory or nonobligatory expenditure.

I have no reason to believe that these questions will not be resolved, in time, but it is well that the House should be aware of them. When the questions are resolved the subsidies will, on present Commission proposals, be paid on loans made available from 1 January 1979. While the difficulties to which I have referred may delay payments, they are not insurmountable. The subsidies can be paid in 1979 and subsequent years according as we raise the necessary loans.

We also had a general exchange of views on some world current political problems, including the situation in the Middle East, the Euratom Treaty, nuclear proliferation, and Turkey.

There is considerable concern among the Nine about the growing tendency towards the use of force and the lack of respect for the principle of territorial integrity—as set out in the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. This is evident in various world trouble spots—in Asia, in Central Africa, as between the two Yemens and so on. President Giscard expressed the general concern of the Nine on this question at the Press Conference when he presented the Presidency conclusions. We also discussed East-West relations and proposals by the President for a Euro-Arab-African Conference.

Foreign Ministers met separately on Monday night and discussed a number of current issues. I understand that in their discussions they covered the situation in Southern Africa (including the prospects for a settlement in Rhodesia and in Namibia). They also exchanged views on the situation in South East Asia. However, they decided not to issue a formal statement on any of these questions.

When the idea of the European Council was first developed in Paris in 1974, the French emphasised that their purpose was to bring together the Heads of Government of the Nine for informal contacts. Councils are important for this purpose and can do much valuable work. At the Paris Council the utmost goodwill was shown by all Community countries towards Ireland. There was complete understanding of our unique problems and of the measures we are taking to tackle them. I would like to record here my appreciation of that support. We are members of the European Community and believe in co-operating fully in working to advance its objectives.

Dr. FitzGerald

There are a number of points in the Taoiseach's statement and several which are not, on which I would like to comment or raise questions. I will follow the sequence of his remarks in dealing with them.

At the outset I note from the statement that the Council have noted that growth is currently strongest in those countries with the lowest rates of inflation. I am glad that the Council, which includes the Taoiseach, have noted this fact. But it is very disturbing from our point of view as a country in which inflation has now risen from 6.1 per cent at the end of last May to what in any event will be double figures when the February figures are published in a couple of days time; exactly how high into double figures remains to be seen. To that the Government themselves contributed notably by the removal of the food subsidies and by their taxation measures. What may amount to virtually a doubling of our rate of inflation in a period of nine months is certainly disturbing and is not going to assist growth as the Taoiseach's own statement makes clear.

In regard to his statement about the Council studying a number of specific measures including training better adapted to employment, particularly for young people, I hope that in addition to the Council studying these measures the Government will also do this. It is really a matter that should concern us all deeply that after so many years during which successive Governments have succeeded in expanding our training facilities and have tried to adapt them better to employment that there is still a severe shortage of necessary skills inhibiting the growth of industry. This is one of the major complaints of industry here and yet we have this massive unemployment. There is a failure here to which we should direct ourselves and it will not be solved for us by the Council of Ministers in the Community although any measures they may take could be helpful. We have a domestic problem here that we have not tackled effectively and I would direct the Taoiseach's attention to that because it is an absurd anomaly, an unacceptable anomaly, that there should be this shortage of trained people inhibiting the growth of industry when in fact we have this massive unemployment. In relation to the systematic use of overtime the Taoiseach seems to have been less forthcoming to the House than I understand he was to the press because nothing is said here about any action we are to take on the matter, whereas I had understood it from press reports that it was the Taoiseach's intention to proceed to some legislation in the matter. I had expected at least that the question of initial legislation would be mentioned and perhaps clarified here and I hoped that some indication would be given to the way this matter is being approached. I personally would support, in principle, legislation of this kind. I believe that at present the abuse of overtime is a factor leading to high unemployment. I feel the Taoiseach should have clarified to the House what he has in mind in this respect. Not even to have referred to his promise of legislation was less than fair to the House.

On energy conservation I note that a number of specific measures were adopted including measures to ensure directly a reduction in the consumption of oil by the Community. Those words imply to me a reduction on actual consumption, not just on projected consumption. Given the growth of demand all the time and given the fact that our economy is still growing, even if more slowly than it was a year ago, the demand for oil here would be higher this year than last year in the ordinary way. If it is agreed to reduce consumption in terms of what was actually consumed last year the cut, vis-à-vis our actual need this year, could be quite severe. I would ask the Taoiseach when he proposes to indicate the scale of cuts that would be required vis-à-vis our needs in relation to the rate of growth in the economy projected for this year, how these cuts are to be achieved and in what way the impact of this on our economy and on individuals in our country is to be minimised. We need, urgently, information on this subject. I hope the Taoiseach will let us know as soon as possible what is proposed.

In regard to the agricultural policy I note that the Taoiseach said he supported the Commission's general approach in this area. I am a little worried about this because I note from press reports that the President of the Commission appreared to give some support to something that seemed close to the British position on this issue and that the President of the Council, President Giscard d'Estaing, dissociated himself from the Commission's remarks. If the Council as a whole and its President took a different view, not merely from the British Prime Minister but from the President of the Commission, in regard to agricultural policy it would seem odd to me that the Taoiseach should support the Commission's general approach. Perhaps the Taoiseach in the words he has used here is speaking very genrally. I hope he will clarify what he has in mind and indicate in due course whether he supports the position of the French President in rejecting part at least of the Commission's approach in this area. Solidarity between ourselves and France, among other countries, on this issue where there is a threat to the CAP is important and I would have thought that the Taoiseach and his party would have wished to maintain that solidarity. What is said here sounds like a dissociation from the words of the President of the Council at the end of the meeting when he expressed his disagreement with the President of the Commission on an issue of vital importance to this country.

The Taoiseach then spoke of the uncertainties that stand in the way of subsidy payments and he gave reasons why there may be delay in making the payments, reasons related to the European Parliament. I do not understand why these difficulties were not foreseen. The Taoiseach told the House on 15 December:

I have also been assured that there would be sufficient flexibility as to the manner in which the interest subsidies operate to enable us to benefit fully from these arrangements early in the New Year.

Of course one understands that with the delay of two and a half months in the entry into force of the EMS there must be a lag of two and a half months in relation to the subsidies and the benefits but it is disturbing that apparently the Taoiseach accepted assurances of immediacy in this matter that were ill-founded for reasons that should have been foreseeable at the time. The problems that arose in the European Parliament were not brought to the attention of the House at that time and I think the House was misled as to the likelihood of these payments being made at an early date. The impression the people received at that time from what was said was that the payments would not only be early in the New Year but that they would occur independently of and in advance of the actual borrowings to which they would relate. I recall my own puzzlement as to how such an arrangement could be arrived at in relation to what were described as interest subsidies. All that optimism seems to have evaporated very rapidly and I do not think that the differences with Parliament account fully for that.

I note also that the Taoiseach's statement makes no reference whatever to the moneys to be raised to lend to us and to provide interest subsidies to us through the consortium of certain member states. I understood this subject was to be discussed informally with the other countries concerned but there was total silence in the Taoiseach's speech which seems to relate only to the arrangements directly with the Community in respect of the loan of £225 million a year and the subsidies of £45 million per year.

What is the position with regard to the consortium? We have been put off when we queried this. We were told in December that it was only a question of working out some details. There has been ample time to work out the details. The delay regarding the EMS has ensured that. Have the details been worked out and what are the arrangements? How are the payments to be made? Are they to be made to us at the outset of each year? Are they independent of the amount borrowed? As appears now to be the case contrary to earlier expectations, do these subsidy payments also become payable only according as we raise the necessary loans, to use the Taoiseach's words?

Much of the euphoria of December seems to have evaporated. It would appear now we are back from the arrangements we were told about then to a situation where we must first borrow the money, where we may not be able to borrow the full amount in the necessary period and where we may not get the full benefit, although we seemed to be assured otherwise at the time. The Taoiseach's silence on the consortium loan and the inadequacy of his statements on the EEC loan and subsidy situation is disturbing and I ask him to arrange that the Minister for Finance clarifies these matters to the House as soon as possible. We are entitled to know what arrangements have been made, whether they have been finalised with the consortium, what they are, and how and when the moneys will come to be paid.

These seem to be the main issues that arise although there is one other point I wish to make. We have now entered the EMS. We welcome that decision. We supported it at the time although we were unhappy with the negotiations that led up to that decision. Among other things we queried the wisdom of adhering to the 2¼ per cent band when we had the opportunity of a wider band. The doubts we had at the time remain and while the economic situation has changed radically because of the Iranian situation and while we now face the position where sterling is strong rather than weak, this unexpected turnabout— although turnabouts occur all the time—does not alter the validity of our concern in the matter. We still remain of the view that by tying ourselves to the 2¼ per cent band in relation to all other currencies simultaneously through the parity grid, we could find ourselves pushed off parity with sterling for technical reasons by a marginal amount causing great confusion and disturbance in our trading, commercial, tourist and other relations with Great Britain and Northern Ireland without any economic effects, good or bad, accruing because of the small extent of the slippage.

Already movements have taken place in the past few months in certain currencies which, it has been stated in the financial press, would have pushed us off parity with sterling within that period had we entered the EMS at the beginning because of the narrowness of the band allowed. One international correspondent asserted—I have not had an opportunity to check the figures—that movements in the Belgian franc in the first two and a half months would have forced us off sterling by a small margin simply because of the narrowness of the band.

I regret the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity of the delay in the entry into force of the EMS to have second thoughts about this. Many people would have welcomed reconsideration of the band. If something happens in the next few months, as happened in relation to the Belgian franc, and we find ourselves diverge by ½ per cent or ¾ per cent in relation to sterling with all the inconvenience that would involve and with no economic benefit, the Government will merit considerable criticism for having dug in their heels on this issue and for not taking the opportunity of a wider band. I do not know if the Government were forced to choose between 2¼ per cent and 6 per cent or whether they were allowed a band up to 6 per cent, but one way or another the 2¼ per cent band is the less good of the two and if there was the possibility of an intermediate band—perhaps of the order of 4½ per cent—that might have been more appropriate. We may find that the stubbornness of the Government may give rise to quite unnecessary difficulties in the period ahead.

In the concluding section of his remarks the Taoiseach referred to various matters in the international arena that were discussed by the Foreign Ministers meeting separately. I note they included discussions in relation to Rhodesia and Namibia. I urge the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take very careful consideration of our position in relation to Namibia in particular. Two years ago before the Government changed I had some responsibility in this matter and I thought then that the Five-Power initiative in relation to Namibia was constructive and that the Community should support it. However, it seems to have evolved in a manner which is not consonant with the basic principles of the United Nations and which may be endangering a settlement in Namibia. I urge the Minister to put the basic principle first rather than solidarity with the EEC—if the Five Powers, including some of the leading EEC states, seem to be pursuing protection of their own interests in southern Africa rather than the achievement of independence for Namibia, something that I do not think was the case two years ago but which has seemed to emerge since then.

Mr. Cluskey

I find myself questioning the whole exercise of these Summit meetings. Too much vital decision making is being pushed up to the level of Heads of Government with a subsequent disregard for the due process of detailed consideration. The danger of illusory short-term solutions to complex problems being cobbled together for public relations purposes is definitely growing. If one looks at Paris this week it provided a good example of the use of the Summit for domestic political purposes with the opportunistic British attack on the Common Agricultural Policy. This attitude by the British is becoming a tiresome and repetitive matter which will doubtlessly go on whatever the political persuasion of any British Government. Their particular version of a cheap food policy is, I fear, one of the hangovers of Britain's colonial past and it will be a particularly difficult one to change.

I am of the firm opinion that the necessary process of improving and strengthening the CAP in line with the dictates of the Treaty and with the real needs of all sectors, particularly the small farmers and consumers, is being damaged by this outdated British approach. Equally, the ritual use of European Council meetings for these outbursts is calling their usefulness more and more into question.

But, as the British Government are seeking to undermine the CAP, I think our own Government should be aware that their domestic policies are themselves gradually undermining the willingness of a growing section of the Irish electorate to support the CAP. The continuing failure to redistribute some of the benefits of high EEC prices more widely throughout the community is damaging public support for that policy. When one adds to that the Government's reduction of food subsidies, with two more phases to come, urban support for the CAP is being put very seriously at risk. The failure of the Government to protect the consumer against high food prices is undermining that national policy of supporting the CAP, a national policy to which this party subscribe. Because of the tendency on the part of some Heads of Government to see Summit meetings excessively in terms of domestic public relations I believe there should be recourse to such meetings within the Community much less frequently and also much less formally.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey

Summit meetings such as that held in Paris in 1972 can, under the inspiration of a leader like Willy Brandt, give a special impetus to the Community but some of the more recent, more confused and leaderless Summits have done precisely the opposite. Making a routine of what should be a focus for hope and progress is a sure way to devalue anything that can emerge from it. The hollow talk this week about the need for concerted economic action is a good example. Some more resources for the Regional or Social Funds decided at a Finance Council would have been much more beneficial, have made much more sense and contributed more to the future of the Community.

On the EMS question I should like to make these points. First, the events of the past week have confirmed everything I have said here about the incredible incompetence of the Government's handling of the whole EMS affair. Given that the French objection, inspired largely by the Gaullist camp of the present majority in France, held up the starting date, we might have expected a smooth exercise in Paris. Instead, we have had another instalment of the confusion and indecision which has marked every stage of the negotiations since Spring. At this point I should say that I have absolutely no confidence that the Government know what they are doing. I agree entirely with the opinion of one leading business man who said on an RTE programme the other night that the EMS issue was being played as a short-term political game by the Government with no real regard for the vital long-term economic consequences. The Government's incompetence in this whole affair has been simply staggering. From last Summer up to Christmas the Taoiseach and the Government have stumbled from one miscalculation to the next. The amount of resources transfer considered essential to protect our basic national interest was reduced by no less than two-thirds, from £650 million in transfer by way of grant to £225 million by loan, and all this has been done with utter shamelessness. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development have apparently declared open season on all facts and figures.

Let us be clear about what the Taoiseach has done here this morning in regard to the EMS. He has, in fact, stood up before the Irish people and admitted total failure by his own criteria in the negotiations for our entry into the EMS. These negotiations reached a point where we were told that we would get loans of £225 million each year over a number of years and that we would get them at 9 per cent. In regard to the £45 million, we are now being told that it is uncertain whether it is coming to the Exchequer, being paid into the European Investment Bank or what is happening to it. But even to take it at best, as the Taoiseach tried to present it to the media after the Summit meeting in Paris, these are precisely the terms that the Taoiseach would not recommend to his Cabinet, to the Irish people or to this Parliament for our entry into the EMS.

After the Taoiseach had made the decision not to recommend to the Government and the Government had decided not to recommend to Dáil Eireann and the Irish people that we should join on the basis of what was announced here this morning as the conditions for joining, a frantic effort was made to go around various member states who were and are well disposed to this country. In fact what we did, as I said here before, is that we went with our cap in hand asking and pleading with them to throw in a few pounds each in order to justify the Government recommending our entry under the terms that were negotiated by them. There is no mention this morning of that unilateral gift or loan. We do not know what it is or where it is coming from. We are not sure of the details, not sure how it will be paid. We are not sure what conditions govern our getting that money, but it is the factor that tipped the balance between the Taoiseach recommending acceptance and not recommending acceptance by the Dáil and the Irish people of entry to the EMS.

Is it not an incredible situation that we are making this major decision and that we do not know under what conditions we are entering? It is so staggering that one wonders can it be really true, but we have as little information now as we had right through the negotiations for entry. I appeal to the Taoiseach—I am not just making a political point—for the sake of Ireland at least let us know under what conditions we are entering the EMS, because the decision that has been taken by the Government can have very serious repercussions on our economy and on our people. The Irish people, Irish industry and our trade union movement are at least entitled to know the conditions under which we have joined the EMS.

We are in the EMS now, whether for ill or for good, but we know that the Government have failed totally to obtain what is necessary in money terms to deal with the inevitable consequences of membership for the Irish economy and for Irish jobs. Neither will the Government deliver the necessary package of policies which were spelled out so clearly by us earlier in the debate on this question. There is a real threat of monetary instability. The inaction and indecision on the part of the Government have led directly to an unprecedented run on the stock exchange. These factors add up to an indictment of the Government but, more seriously, to a threat to our economic prospects. As we enter a new, extremely damaging and demanding system there is little hope and little reason for confidence. Rather, there is every reason for grave concern about the future of this country.

We are told that membership of the EMS would provide us with a wonderful opportunity, that we could break the link with sterling and link ourselves with the strong economies and currencies of Europe but we were told also that certain conditions must prevail at home if we are to take advantage of this opportunity. Can anyone suggest seriously that there is any prospect of our being able to meet those conditions? Inflation is once again into double figures. There is deep-rooted discontent concerning the social injustice that has been perpetrated continuously on our people as a result of the policies of Fianna Fáil, especially since their return to office in 1977. We have a situation that spells potential grave danger for our whole society. The quest for social justice by some sections who have been long suffering is being interpreted unfortunately as a division between urban and rural Ireland. Should there be a persistence of that attitude our nation will be split. Therefore, there is a grave responsibility on the Government to take immediate action to prevent a widening of that division.

Another development that has been referred to briefly in another context by the Taoiseach is the question of developments in Iran. The one member of the EEC that has not joined the EMS is also the one member that is able to supply her own domestic needs of oil. What is to be the position when the multinational oil companies move in to ensure that they get their profit? What will be the effects of that situation on our economy?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would point out to the Deputy that this is not an occasion for a long speech on the national economy. He is making a wide-ranging speech on internal matters.

Mr. B. Desmond

It is a very good speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be so but it is not in order at this stage.

Mr. Cluskey

I accept your ruling. Unfortunately, though, the incompetence of the negotiations on the part of the Government are likely to have wide-ranging and detrimental effects for this country. If we are to survive and advance within the EMS there must be a planned approach to all aspects of economic and social development. By that I mean exactly what I spelled out here before Christmas. We must have firm control of investment decisions and a comprehensive programme of public sector development in key economic areas. There must be a profound and radical change towards real economic democracy and a full sharing by workers in the major decisions at national, industrial and firm level. The massive slide towards foreign control of every sector of Irish economic and commercial life must be halted. Banking and credit must be brought increasingly under direct State control. All the talk of discipline and responsibility and all the drumming up of Fianna Fáil-style nationalism will cut very little ice within the Europe of the EMS. There must be a real and genuine effort and an appreciation of the hard facts. We do not need a re-hash of the Fianna Fáil manifesto.

Mr. Leyden

Who wrote the speech for the Deputy?

Mr. Cluskey

Obviously someone who was a lot better at his job than the person who wrote the speech for the Taoiseach. This whole affair has demonstrated the inherent weaknesses within the EEC. The Community have neither the decision-making system nor the economic and social structures that are necessary to deal effectively with an issue which cuts across the existing relationship within the Community. This reinforces some of the worst features of the free market system.

The EMS spells potential disaster for a weak and peripheral economy such as ours. It threatens jobs and industries and threatens also the whole process of the economic development and of the living standards of our people. Equally, it can lead to a totally unacceptable degree of external control of Irish economic policy in a situation in which the Community have no effective regional or social policies to offset the inevitable effects of the capitalist system. It is the view of this party that this whole development must be watched closely in the coming months. We cannot accept that the decision to enter the EMS should lead to a diminution of the authority of the elected Irish Government in their fiscal, economic and social policies. If the results are to be negative and if there is to be interference in our affairs to an intolerable degree there will have to be unilateral action of a protective nature. The whole history of the Community to date is that of a failure to achieve a proper balance between various key aspects of policy. In the socialist view there must be a balance between monetary integration of any kind and countervailing policies in the investment, regional and social areas. Failure to achieve such a balance can do nothing but damage to our national interest. We must preserve at all the times the right to ensure that the Irish people are not hurt by the unbridled exercise of the economic muscle of non-national interests.

The Taoiseach referred to the question of energy. Before going into detail on matters of supplies, alternatives and strategies for energy saving there is one fact that we must note. Recent weeks have seen the re-emergence of the unholy alliance of the private multinationals in the petroleum world. Outrageous and unjustified price rises are being extorted and more of the same is undoubtedly on the way with Governments apparently helpless before their activities.

The European Council would have been well occupied if they had got down to the business of putting an end to the private enterprise stranglehold of the oil companies. This is a matter for State enterprise and for Government and inter-government action and not a matter for private profit. We believe it is essential that there should be a common Community approach. In 1973-74 lack of co-operation at EEC level almost wrecked the Community following the OPEC venture. The lesson should be learned and learned well that a common approach necessitates not alone a strong and planned view of the supply demand and price relationship, but equally a just and balanced internal approach. No member state should or must be left to its own devices as was the case with Denmark on the last occasion.

In his speech the Taoiseach said that at the Summit meeting the question of energy was discussed and he reported that to the House. Am I not entitled to comment on that?

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1979