Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1979

Vol. 317 No. 2

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill before the House—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1979—is to amend the definition of "treaties governing the European Communities" as set out in the European Communities Act, 1972, by the addition of the treaty relating to the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community and the decision of the Council relating to the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Coal and Steel Community. The effect of the Bill, when enacted into law, will be to make the treaty and the decision part of the domestic law of Ireland.

Deputies will be aware of the distinction between the procedures necessary for accession to the EEC and Euratom and those necessary for accession to the European Coal and Steel Community. In the case of EEC and Euratom, the conditions of admission of a new member state and the adjustments to the treaties necessitated thereby must be the subject of an agreement between the existing member states and the applicant state. This agreement must be ratified by all the contracting states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. For accession to ECSC a decision by the Council only is required. The constitutional requirements in Ireland are that both the treaty relating to accession to EEC and Euratom and the decision relating to accession to ECSC shall be made part of the domestic law of the State.

This, as I have stated, is the purpose of the Bill. But, in addition, since the treaty is an international agreement, it has been necessary to satisfy the requirements of Article 29 of the Constitution.

Hence, the motion seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann of the terms of accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community which was approved yesterday.

Perhaps at this stage it would be useful if I were to outline the history of the relationship between the Community and Greece. The links date back to the conclusion of an association agreement between the Community and Greece in 1961 under which the Community pledged itself to support the efforts of the Greek people to improve their standard of living. Eventual accession to the Communities was envisaged once the operation of the agreement had advanced far enough to enable Greece to undertake the full obligations of membership.

Since the coming into operation of the Athens Agreement in 1962, considerable economic and social progress was achieved by Greece despite the fact that the harmonisation process provided for in the agreement was suspended during the period of the dictatorship. With the return of democratic government it was only natural that Greece should seek to consolidate her rediscovered freedom by aligning herself even more closely with the democratic nations of the European Community. It was this concern as much as the desire to join for reasons of economic progress and development which motivated the government of Prime Minister Karamanlis to submit an application for Greece to accede to the European Communities in June 1975.

In accordance with the provisions of the treaties, the Commission examined the application and presented its opinion to the Council in January 1976. It recommended that a clear affirmative reply be given and that accession negotiations be opened without delay. In February 1976 the Council accepted the application and at its meeting on 19-20 July 1976 agreed to open negotiations leading to accession. A formal opening session of negotiations was held on 27 July 1976 and meetings were held on a regular basis until the substance of the negotiations was declared concluded early this year. The decision of the Council of the European Communities on the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Coal and Steel Community was signed on 24 May 1979 as were the Council decisions on accession to the EEC and Euratom. The treaty between the existing member states and the Hellenic Republic concerning accession to the EEC and Euratom was signed in Athens on 28 May 1979. The Instruments of Accession were ratified by the Greek Parliament on 28 June 1979 and, following ratification by the existing member states, Greece will become the tenth member state of the Communities on 1 January 1981.

Before I deal specifically with the Irish position as regards the Greek application and the general question of enlargement, I would like to refer briefly to the outcome of the negotiations in the various sectors. Copies of a volume entitled Documents concerning the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities have been circulated to Deputies. This volume contains the Act of Accession which sets out the arrangements, conditions and adjustments to the treaties resulting from the negotiations. Since these provisions cover in detail the effects of Greek accession on the entire acquis communautaire it would be impossible to attempt to synopsise them. However, it might be useful to draw attention to some of the more important aspects of the agreement.

Negotiations were conducted on the basis that Greece would accept the acquis communautaire as it exists on the date of accession subject to transitional arrangements. I should note here that an information and consultation procedure similar to that which operated in the case of Ireland, Britain and Denmark in 1972 has been established whereby Greece is advised of and can submit views on proposed developments of the acquis communautaire in the period between the signature of the treaty and the proposed date of accession.

As regards the length of the transitional period Ireland insisted from the outset that what was described as the "classical" period of five years, which was agreed at the first enlargement in 1973, should apply also to Greece. Indeed, this was the position of the Greek delegation, too. In the event, the transitional period was set at five years apart from some minor exceptions which were not of concern to this country. I might mention that in the agricultural sector we were particularly concerned that the transitional period should be as short as possible, especially for beef and dairy produce for which a lucrative market exists in Greece. We argued successfully that the transitional period for these products should be five years instead of the seven-year period originally proposed by the Commission. Otherwise, Ireland did not encounter any particular difficulty in the course of the negotiations and it may be safely said that the agreements reached do not adversely affect the interests of this country.

As I have said, Greece will accept the provisions of the acquis communautaire as from the date of accession subject to the agreed transitional arrangements. This means that Greece will be represented in all the Community institutions and will participate in the decision-making process. Accordingly, to give but two examples, Greece will be represented in the Council of Ministers in its various formations, and will have 24 representatives in the European Parliament. Initially, these members will be appointed by the Greek Parliament but it has been decided that direct elections should be held during 1981.

Customs union between the existing member states of the Community and Greece will be completed fully after the five-year transitional period. Indeed, all duties on Greek industrial imports into the Community have already been abolished under the association agreement. As regards the common agricultural policy, the alignment of prices of Greek products to those of the Community will be completed during a five-year transitional period with the exception of two products—peaches and tomatoes—for which a seven-year period has been agreed. The only other exception to the five-year period is in relation to freedom of movement of workers between Greece and the existing Community, for which a seven-year transitional period has also been set.

Greece will also participate in the European Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund as from the date of accession and the Accession Treaty includes a protocol relating to the economic and industrial development of Greece similar to the protocol which Ireland negotiated at the time of its accession.

I must now, however, refer to the broader concerns which Ireland has expressed in regard to the further enlargement of the Community. At the Council of 9 February 1976, which, as I have said, resulted in the Community stating that it accepted the Greek application for accession, Ireland laid stress on the necessity for strengthening the Community institutions in preparation for enlargement and on the need to set aside additional resources to cater for an enlarged Community. Subsequently, in July 1976, when the question of opening accession negotiations with Greece was being discussed, Ireland proposed and had accepted by the Council, a Council statement which declared—

(1) that the consequences—in particular the financial consequences of an enlargement must not be detrimental to the common projects and policies of the Community or to those which it intends to carry out in the future.

(2) that enlargement must help strengthen a Community dynamic in its aspirations and not weaken or reduce in effectiveness its institutional structures and possibilities for action and

(3) that, with this view, the Council were agreed that subject to usual budgetary procedures, on Greek accession appropriate provision would be made for the needs of the enlarged Community.

At later discussions I reiterated this position and received support from my colleagues in the Council and from the Commission. I made it clear, however, that Ireland was not setting preconditions for enlargement which would have to be fulfilled by the applicant countries. Rather, were we asking that enlargement be used as an occasion for strengthening the Community as regards the budget, in the working of the institutions and in other aspects of progress towards closer integration. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to deal with the present regional imbalances in the Community and a certain amount of success has been already achieved in this area. I refer to the aid for drainage schemes in the west of Ireland which was obtained as a balance to the aid granted to the Mediterranean regions of the existing Community to help prepare for enlargement and I would draw attention also to the fact that further Commission proposals for aid for infrastructural development in the West have been submitted to the Council. I do not suggest that these measures and other moves towards convergence represent an adequate response to our needs but they do indicate a recognition of the fact that there are serious disparities in the Community and that positive and direct action must be taken to eliminate them.

As regards institutional reform, Deputies will know that the report of the Committee of Three Wise Men is being made available to the member states in time for consideration by the European Council in Dublin on 29/30 November. Their reactions cannot be anticipated but there is general acceptance in the Community that changes will have to be made particularly in the context of enlargement.

In conclusion I should like to draw attention to the historical significance of the Greek accession to the European Communities. All Europe owes a debt to Greece and certainly no European Community of nations would be complete without her as a member. It is entirely appropriate and right that Greece will shortly be joining more closely with a Community to which it has already contributed so much and with which it already shares so much in terms of culture and history. The very word "politics" indeed the word "democracy" itself are part of the inheritance that the Community owes to Greece. It is, then, particularly fitting that she should join in an endeavour which I have no doubt will influence not only the future of the people of Europe but the future of mankind also.

Given that Ireland has consistently welcomed the application of Greece for membership of the Communities and that the terms of accession arrived at in the negotiations are satisfactory in so far as this country is concerned, I commend the Bill to the House.

The Minister has outlined the background to the proposal to accept Greece as a full member of the EEC. Beginning with the Athens Agreement of 1961, Greece has had an association agreement with the Community. The major point we can make from this is that the association of Greece with the EEC goes back long before our accession to the Community. Therefore, there is not involved a question of dealing with a fresh application from a European state that is not aware of the mechanisms and workings of the Community. Instead, when we talk about the Hellenic Republic we are talking of a nation that has had a substantial working arrangement with the Community for a long period.

One's natural inclination is to welcome the Bill, but before putting one's final views on record it is important that the various political and economic implications be examined dispassionately and objectively. The Irish people are entitled to be briefed fully on the effects of Greek membership. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages in regard to the membership of Greece from our point of view. Our duty is to ensure that our own people are aware of both rather than to decide blindly own way or the other without a full realisation of the consequences.

Historically, as the Minister mentioned, when we talk of democracy Greece is the country that springs to mind. Indeed, Greece can be regarded as the cradle of democracy, but they have had their ups and downs. They have had problems like most nations of invasions and civil wars and had a period of dictatorship under the colonels from 1967 to 1974. It is clear that full membership of the EEC should buttress the modern democratic system which now exists in Greece. That must surely be a major factor for all of us interested in the maintenance and spread of democracy.

That overriding situation, coupled with what I hope will be the natural Irish response to any reasonable application to join the EEC, provides an immediate favourable reaction to the Bill. Looking at the picture in its overall context we have to see the problems I mentioned earlier. The application of Greece raises the question of disagreements between Greece and Turkey—we must remember that the latter is an associate member with full membership as a stated final objective. Unfortunately, there are conflicts between the Greeks and the Turks over Cyprus. In this area also the talks following the Kyprianou—Denktash Agreement do not appear to be making a lot of progress. There are also difficulties between those two nations over the division of the potential natural resources in the Aegean Sea.

It is important that the European Community should not adopt a partisan view in these disputes and that Greek membership does not affect relations between the Community and Turkey. It is also important that the rights guaranteed by the association agreement with Turkey will not be affected thereby. On the other hand, it is to be hoped that the umbrella provided by the European Communities with Greece as a full member and Turkey as an associate member would help in furthering a solution to these conflicts. That may be a pious aspiration and, to some extent, may recall similar sentiments expressed on the national question here at the time of our application for entry into Europe. In the long term I hope, and expect, that, not alone in relation to the problems between Greece and Turkey but also in relation to the problems in these islands, membership of the EEC will help in making a major contribution towards solving such problems.

It is clear that for the Council of Ministers the political benefits of enlargement have predominated and overridden objections that might be made on the grounds of institutional or economic difficulties. I believe, however, that it is essential that the political commitment in the Community must be matched by an economic commitment if enlargement is not to result in a weaker Community which would be unable to meet either the aspirations of new members or existing members. That is the main point in this debate and one which has considerable implications for us.

I am aware of the commitment to enlarge the resources of the Community proportionately with the extended membership. The decision of the Council of July 1976 was outlined by the Minister, but bearing in mind the commitment made then and the present prognosis with regard to Community finances, we must face what appears to be the real issue highlighted by the application of Greece. The advance publicity for the Dublin Summit, largely generated by the British press, indicates that the prime problem facing the Council meeting in Dublin is the amount of the reduction to be allowed to the UK in their annual contribution. This is not the problem facing the European Communities from the point of view of finance. The real difficulty being obscured by this issue is the bleak prospect of the bankruptcy of Community finances unless positive decisions are reached in this area as a matter of priority. The attempt to undermine the provisions of the CAP must also be considered in this context.

The Deputy is getting into an area that is not, no matter how one looks at it, covered by this Bill.

Surely the issue of the enlargement of the Community has a bearing on many different aspects of how the Community operates? Therefore, the debate should be as wide as possible. I seek the guidance of the Chair on this matter.

We are dealing with a limited measure concerning the accession of Greece to the Community. It is in order to refer in passing to other matters but we will not have a debate on them.

We are debating the accession of Greece to the European Communities and we have to consider that in the light of the financial consequences to this country and the Community, and in the light of the response of the Community to the likelihood of those financial consequences. We cannot consider the accession of Greece in isolation from those problems.

It is in order to relate the effect of the accession of Greece on those problems, but it is not in order to discuss the CAP and other matters concerning the EEC at length.

The Chair will appreciate that Greece will be a net beneficiary under the CAP and in that situation any possible dilution of the funds to be made available for the CAP is very much an issue. I do not intend to delve very much into this area but we must consider the overall Community position rather than take a bilateral view as between ourselves and Greece.

I am not stopping the Deputy on that score.

The accession of Greece will highlight the question whether there is a real commitment by the larger nations to implement the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome. The doubts that have been expressed about the financial position of the Community—by coincidence the present indications are that the crisis will be upon us by 1981—coincide with the entry of Greece. We must bear in mind that the estimates that have been prepared at Community level indicate that bleak prospect but do not take into account the funds that would have to be additionally raised to cover the net benefit which Greece will derive from full membership. In that context we have to mention the overall Community financial position at present, the problems of the diminution of the income from sources other than VAT, the common customs tariff, the agricultural levies and so on and the difficulty in regard to the upper limit of 1 per cent on VAT yield. The accession of Greece to the Community highlights even further the need to establish as a matter of the utmost priority a situation whereby it will be able to provide the finance needed to run the Community in the future, bearing in mind the additional financial burdens that will be on it after 1981. That seems to me to be an absolute essential.

It is clear that the 1 per cent limit should be raised and there will be the question of the correct mechanism in regard to the difference that exist between the VAT yield as a percentage of overall Community yields and the percentage of Community GDP of that country. I impress upon the Minister—and I heard him dealing with this and other points on the radio today—that this is an absolute priority. I had hoped that there would be some considerable progress made in this area during the term of the Irish Presidency. I appreciate the intricacies involved but urge from this side of the House that we would give him support in anything he can do to bring this real, basic problem in the Community to a head as soon as possible.

The Bill gives us here the opportunity to indicate the areas of operation of the European Community where we ourselves have been considerably disappointed—in particular in regard to the regional fund and a proper regional policy implementing the spirit of the Treaty of Rome. Apart from the problems involved with the present assault on the CAP, one main area of disappointment in Ireland in regard to the European Community, is the lack of a proper regional policy at Community level. Such a policy would require proper funding and it is in that context that we face the new commitments that will be made to new members, and, in particular, to Greece. There must be no dilution of Community resources to meet the payments that Greece will be entitled to; otherwise we will find a situation where the rather sparse funds already available to fund the regional policy will be reduced, to the detriment of this country. I appreciate the commitment that there is to be no reduction. Bearing in mind inflation and the fact that regional policy has never been fully and properly developed, such commitment is not enough.

There are other aspects arising from the accession of Greece. This has major institutional implications, from the point of view of the EEC. These institutions, it must be borne in mind, were originally designed for six members, then it became nine, by 1981 it will be 10 and probably within the not too distant period thereafter it will be 12, with the likely accession of Spain and Portugal. It is clear that these institutions are already under considerable stress and strain and this obviously makes decision-making more difficult. There must be a substantial improvement in the efficiency of the Community decision-making process and a strengthening of the common institutions.

I am aware that the report of the Three Wise Men on the restructuring of the Community is to be made available now. There was concern expressed about the delay in its publication, but no doubt it will be fully available shortly. I hope there will not be any delay in implementing the main recommendations of that report, so that the Community structures will be strengthened. The accession of Greece will further highlight, and give greater impetus to, the need to achieve this. It is premature for me to comment on that report as I have not yet seen it, but I understand that there have been suggestions from the French in regard to the confining of the chairmanship of the Commission to the larger nations.

Such a suggestion should obviously not be implemented quickly, or at all. That leads me to the next point which is of relevance to a debate of this nature, particularly considering that Greece, which is a relatively small country with a population of about nine million, is joining the Community. There appears to be a development in the Community of a two-tier system, where the larger nations are established at one level and the weaker, or smaller nations, such as ours, are, to some extent, regarded as second-class members. This would constitute a most dangerous development. I would see that Greece, with its similarity of problems to ours and the fact that its population is not that much greater than our own, would be an ally to us in our efforts to ensure that this two-tier system would not develop.

Another aspect which will have to be considered is the question of representation of the different member nations amongst the officials of the institutions. Greece, if it is to be fairly treated, must be enabled to have its fair share of its nationals working in the institutions of the European Community. There have been complaints about the present representation.

In the inevitable shake-up that will occur, with places being made available for people from the Hellenic Republic among the Brussels bureaucracy—I hope an effort will be made to ensure that there is a fairer and more even divide. There are at present nine member nations of the EEC. If one looks at the figures obtaining at present one can see that there are considerable disparities. At present there is a total of 10,722 officials in the EEC. I am quoting from figures which were correct as at March last, the latest figures available. Of that total of 10,722, the number of Irish nationals was 158. It seems to me that this is a figure to which we should draw attention. I appreciate that our population is considerably smaller than that of any of the larger nations, but if we are to be members of the Community on a full and equal basis population is not the only factor that must be considered. Indeed, if one looks at the figures relative to the other countries, it is obvious that population is not the guiding factor, because I see Italy with 2,588, Belgium 2,474, Germany 1,699, France 1,438, the United Kingdom 826, the Netherlands 664, Luxembourg 462, Denmark 323 and ourselves with the lowest figure of all, less than half the next lowest number, 158. Therefore, it is a factor to which attention needs to be drawn. When the shake-up occurs providing for places in the Brussels bureaucracy for citizens of the Hellenic Republic I would hope a more fair and equitable distribution would be achieved.

In debating this Bill we must look at the direct effects of Greek accession on Ireland. If one looks at industry, the position is that duty-free arrangements operate already in respect of Greek industrial exports. Furthermore, under the terms negotiated, Greece is obliged to discontinue its import deposits scheme within three years and its administrative requirements in respect of pro forma invoicing on accession. Therefore, if one looks at the direct effects of Greek accession on Irish industry there should be a benefit to Irish exporters.

In regard to agriculture, the products giving rise to surplus difficulties in the Community markets form a relatively small part of domestic output in Greece. Greece is an importer of dairy products, meat and sugar. It is clear that Greek agricultural products are not likely to be in competition with Irish products. I do not foresee any direct adverse effects on Irish agriculture. In fact, I would foresee, resulting from Greek accession, further opportunities opening up to exporters of Irish agricultural products in that Greece is an importer of those items of agriculture in respect of which we have such a substantial export trade.

One must look also at the indirect effects of Greek accession on this country and here the position is not as bright. Unless substantial steps are taken at Community level, it appears to me that there could be adverse indirect effects on this country. Greece will be a net beneficiary of the Community. This raises the question mentioned earlier: is there to be a sufficient increase in Community resources to cover this, or is there to be a dilution of existing funds? That is the basic question in so far as it affects us and indeed, let us be fair, is also a very basic question as far as Greece is concerned. There are already insufficient funds available in some areas, particularly in the area of regional policy. Even if there were to be no reduction in those areas, increases urgently required may not come now unless there is a strong resolve at Community level to provide the necessary additional resources.

If we examine the position in the main areas from which funds can flow from the Community, as far as agriculture is concerned Greece has a very substantial proportion of its population engaged in agriculture. They have serious structural problems, with small farm holdings fragmented into unconnected plots—indeed reminiscent of some of the worst structural problems experienced in this country. This situation certainly impedes the adoption of modern technology for its improvement. There are further problems resulting from the absence of appropriate marketing facilities, further aggravated by the absence of a comprehensive network of co-operatives. Obviously, taking that into account, Greece will and should be a substantial beneficiary of the common agricultural policy.

In regard to the regional fund, there are in Greece substantial requirements for industrial and agricultural restructuring and for the development of infrastructure. The regional disparities are related to problems of modernisation of agriculture and the problems of industrialisation, compounded by geographical and demographic handicaps. Therefore, Greek membership will result in extended development assistance within the framework of the regional fund. This brings us back to the main problem: will this effect the amount required on behalf of the handicapped regions of the present member states?

The same situation arises in regard to the social fund. Greece would be regarded as socially underdeveloped, possibly even behind Ireland in some areas, particularly in regard to the status of women. Inevitably this will make additional demands on the social fund, resulting in a dilution of that fund.

Therefore, I come to the net question, the real issue which faces not just those of us in this House but the entire European Community—it is highlighted by the accession of Greece and perhaps that is just as well—whether there will be a renaissance of a true European spirit. Is Greece to be welcomed into the Community with a full commitment to implement the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Rome? These are major questions to be answered by the Community as a whole. In my opinion these questions will not be answered properly by the Community unless it organises its financial situation and its institutional structures so that, as a whole, it will be able to implement fully the principles on which we as a nation, applied to join the EEC, and indeed on which I have no doubt Greece has applied for full membership.

That therefore is the net issue as far as I and my party are concerned. As a nation I feel we have much in common with Greece in the context of the problems I have mentioned in the Community, in the context of the situation that I believe has developed to some extent between the bloc of larger nations and the bloc of smaller nations, in which we have a natural ally in Greece acceding to the EEC. I extend the hand of friendship to Greece as the tenth member of the EEC and I wish them céad míle fáilte. I support the Bill.

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this legislation and the motion being taken with it and we also welcome the people of Greece into the Community. We do that not with anything like the naive belief expressed by Deputy O'Keeffe with regard to the aspirations and ideals of the Community. We do it as a party which opposed our entry into the EEC in contrast to both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and in the knowledge that the Community will not do what it says it will try to do, that is, live up to the sort of aspirations Deputy O'Keeffe is talking about. In effect what Deputy O'Keeffe was asking is "Does capitalism have a human face?" It does when it has continuous growth and healthy profits. However, since the oil crisis of 1973 there has been no human face and no generosity of the kind we saw prior to 1973. This example illustrates what I mean. In the opening ceremony at the end of May, President Giscard d'Estaing of France, on behalf of the Community, welcomed Greece into the EEC and said that France would not regard Greece as a daughter but as a sister. I am sure that was a lot of consolation to the Greeks who in the last few weeks watched how France treated her sister across the English Channel when she tried to export lamb and sheep meat products into France. If that is sisterly treatment, I do not know how Greece can handle it or how much she needs it. Let us have no illusions about the Community into which Greece is entering. I hope she has made the right decision.

We in this House must be concerned with the changing of treaties to which we were signatories, the reasons for them and the consequences of the changes for us within our obligations to the treaties. In his opening speech the Minister, regrettably, did not refer to the fact that the Joint Committee of these Houses has published a report which deals specifically with the question of enlargement generally and precisely with the entry of Greece. In that report are some of the facts and figures which I sought from the Government by way of an assessment of the effects on us of the entry of Greece.

On 8 May last during Question Time I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government would publish a document outlining this Government's assessment of the entry of Greece into the EEC in terms of how it might affect our economy. The Minister acting for the Minister for Foreign Affairs was Deputy Lenihan and he stated at column 32 of the Official Report for that date that:

There are no plans to publish a document of the sort described by the Deputies but, as I said, the Dáil will have an opportunity to discuss the terms on which Greece will enter the Community. Deputies will also be aware that I have on many occasions expressed support for Greek membership while at the same time advocating measures to alleviate structural and regional disparities in the existing Community.

We have not yet seen the sort of balance sheet I sought. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to offer such a balance sheet by way of indicating to the House the benefits and disadvantages for us as a result of the entry of Greece. If we have such a balance sheet we can monitor progress over the years. If we had the records of the fulsome promises made by the two major parties here in relation to our entry into the EEC to compare with what we now have it would make very interesting reading.

Another important point that the Minister glossed over in his speech was the two preconditions that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, stressed in the Council's agreement to the accession of Greece to the Community, when the negotiations were opened in 1976. On 8 May, at column 34 of the Official Report, Deputy FitzGerald stated:

Is the Minister aware that the Irish Government, at the time the Greek application was made, made two preconditions in no unfriendly spirit towards Greece. The precondition to the opening of negotiations was that additional resources should be provided pro rata with the expansion of the Community and this was accepted. The second precondition was that the conclusion of negotiations would be preceded by a significant improvement in the decision-making mechanism of the Community. Will the Minister say what has happened to the second Irish precondition?

Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the report of the Three Wise Men; but, frankly, the Labour Party are concerned at the lack of progress made in the general area of dealing with the essential problem of the EEC budget during our period of the Presidency of the Community. The regional and social policies and funds are a part of that. There is no evidence to suggest, having regard to what happened over the last six months within the Community and bearing in mind the political reality of the federal elections in Germany next year and the French presidential elections of the following year, that there will be any significant increase in either the social or the regional funds that will meet the needs of the Greek people without our interests being seriously damaged—and that is the point.

That brings me back to the first point of this debate, which is the reason for the entry of Greece into this Community. The Minister stated:

With the return of democratic government it was only natural that Greece should seek to consolidate her re-discovered freedom by aligning herself even more closely with the democratic nations of the European Community.

That makes liberal reading and it is a sentiment with which no one could argue, but would the House not accept that if the Community incorporate in a large trading area, a growing and in many areas, fragile and structurally weak economy, without a consequent firm commitment to alleviate and correct the growth distortions that a capitalist economy will produce, very quickly the social unrest and disparities of wealth distribution within that country will become a greater cause for the distruction of freedom than the take-over of power by the colonels in 1967? If the Community is sincere in attempting to consolidate the post-dictatorship regimes of not only Greece but Spain and Portugal as well, it must make a reality out of words such as an effective and reasonable social and regional policy.

It is appropriate that this House should be discussing this Bill on the eve of the Dublin Summit when the big issue is that one of the wealthiest post-imperialist countries in the world —despite her per capita income today—the wealth is buried in the roads, the buildings, the underground and so on, wealth she took from other countries—is quibbling about the amount of support she has to give to the EEC. It is the first time Britain has paid anything to anybody and she complains about it; it is sickening. We shall come to Mrs. Thatcher later.

Within the context of the Bill I suggest to the House, and I should like the Minister to give a clear refutation of this if he can, that there is another dimension to Greece's welcome into the Community by the other eight member states: I say eight because we are not members of NATO. I suspect that the Community's concern with freedom á la Greece is much more directed towards southern European security for northern Europe and that, having got Greece into the Community because it was potentially unstable—Iran has displayed to the West what an unstable dictatorship can do—Spain and Portugal will bring up the rear and that the well fed and wealthy nations of northern Europe can relax without honouring their obligations.

That view is not just held by me. Because we are not members of NATO we frequently fail to recognise the implications of the fact that the other members are, even allowing for the weird and extraordinary position of France vis-á-vis NATO. In an article in The Guardian newspaper of May 29, on page 7, the final paragraph refers to Greece's entry. It is from a noted European correspondent, John Palmer, who states:

"Mr. Karamanlis, faced with a vociferous and apparently growing opposition to membership, insists that a simple majority in the Greek Parliament will be enough to authorise Greek membership but the opponents of Greece's EEC vocation—to be found mainly among the supporters of Mr. Andrea Papandreous' Panhellenic Socialist Party and the pro-Moscow Communist Party of the Exterior, will demand ratification by a two-thirds majority. Even so——

This is the point of the quotation:

——Mr. Karamanlis will secure his 10-year objective of bringing Greece into the EEC (and in the process full membership of NATO) but by a more modest majority.

I suggest that in the final weeks of our EEC Presidency we have an obligation to ensure that membership of the Community by Greece will be met by a much firmer commitment than we have seen to date from the heads of the nine member states, including our own, to an effective regional and social policy. I can say that to the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, this afternoon; I could not have said it to him in May and it cannot be said after Christmas. The opportunity extends from now until 31 December. I can understand Fianna Fáil's difficulty in this regard. I can understand their failure to get an effective and regional social policy. Without doubt they failed. The decision of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in conceding the shuffling of the allocations to the regional fund is as good an indication of failure as we want. I am sure that Deputy O'Donnell the European Member for Munster will in his own way illuminate that failure and what it means to us. There is no way in which a party like Fianna Fáil, even with 84 seats, in the Presidency of the EEC can argue with any kind of moral strength for an effective and regional social policy— which is in effect a redistribution of wealth within the Community—when everybody around the council table knows that at home they abolished wealth tax. I am saying—do not interrupt me, please.

The Chair must interrupt if the Deputy is going to discuss domestic policy. We are dealing with the accession of Greece to the Community and how that may effect the remainder of the Community. The abolition of wealth tax in Ireland does not arise on that issue.

The regional fund is a European wealth tax.

The Chair will give the Deputy every latitude but the Deputy should not take advantage of the Chair.

I have no wish to argue with the Chair as I recognise he has a job to do. But let the Chair also recognise that I have a job to do and frequently over the last two and a half years we have claimed that this Government are supporting demands for an effective regional and social fund on which we all agreed, but they are only claims. The accession of this state, which is as poor as, if not poorer than we are, is the largest single threat to the few miserable pounds we get out of the regional fund as it is.

We paid to enter into the EEC. Many industrial jobs were lost here. They will be lost in Athens and Piraeus and in Thessalonica and if there is no compensating regional fund to undo the damage that the open free market of the EEC will wreak on that economy, then the conditions for freedom in Greece will be eroded as quickly as they were before and the whole objective of taking in this country will be lost sight of. That is the essence of the argument. I should like to hear the Government refute it if possible. I would be much more comfortable if it could be refuted. Without doubt that is what is at issue, because after Greece comes Spain and after Spain, Portugal or in the other order, or they will be taken together.

What is happening is that the EEC is putting a brake on the industrial development of certain countries saying: "We already have enough steel, thank you; we already have enough shipbuilding, thank you and you may not produce any more. So, we are not going to increase the Community's budget by more than 1 per cent of GNP." It is that distortion that is implicit in the whole argument going on at present.

Tomorrow in this city the heads of the nine states already in the EEC will quibble about the size of the CAP, its percentage of the total EEC fund which is now just 80 per cent of 1 per cent of our GNP, and a particular Prime Minister will wax eloquent about how much they are subsidising the inefficient farmers of Europe without any reference to how much all the northern European industrial states subsidise their industry. How much subsidy does the British taxpayer pay directly to the car workers of British Leyland? In terms of productivity and efficiency they make some of the German hill farmers appear extremely productive. This is the dishonesty of the argument.

I want to hear our Government and our Minister who have democratic responsibility arguing that case. I have not heard it done to date, nor have the Labour Party. If we slide into 1981 with Greece in tow, full members of the Community and no extracted commitment to an effective regional fund or a social fund or a commitment to maintain the principle of the CAP whatever about its structure and price levels, not only will Greece be poorer but we shall be poorer, all of us. It will not be any consolation then to hear the mellifluous tones of President Giscard telling us that he treats us more like a sister than a daughter. Democracy even with 84 seats has its responsibilities. There is the veto and it is like a bee's sting; you can only use it once if it is to be effective. The ground was set in 1976 for this country to use that veto with full moral authority.

The two preconditions that Dr. FitzGerald sought were laid down, the effective pro rata increase. The pro rata increase means nothing if the resources of the EEC budget are going to self-destruct in the middle of 1981. A reasonable interpretation today of that commitment was given by the other member states to our Foreign Minister who occupied the democratic seat that the Minister of State now holds and holds in trust, who has my full democratic support and he is no mean arguer when he wants to be. That precondition unequivocally put down by this country can reasonably be interpreted today as an effective commitment to extend the resources of the Community and to raise the ceiling. In no way must it be allowed to enable Britain or any other country to effectively distort the miserable commitment of just on 1 per cent of GDP that the EEC makes through the three funds.

The relevance of that argument has been made extremely more acute in the last two months as a result of what has happened and as a result of the kind of campaign that the so-called Iron Maiden is attempting to conduct. It should be confronted head on. It gives me a certain amount of personal satisfaction that the Irish Presidency is in a position to do it. What right has Britain got to complain about contributing to anybody? She spent 300 years taking from the rest of the world. For the first time in her life she is being asked to give £8,000 million or thereabouts. She has got her infrastructures built; she has got her industry; she has got her schools; she has got everything that Greece, Spain, Portugal and this country do not have. There is a side to that argument that I know cannot be frequently made in public by a Minister of State because that is not the way diplomacy works and I recognise that, but, for God's sake, let him make it in private.

Last week we discussed in this House the fifty-second and forty-seventh reports of the Joint Committee in relation to the problems of the EEC budget, and so the record of the House is quite fresh in that regard and everybody recognises the extremely difficult position. What I said on that occasion stands today. The Joint Committee of this House, on a visit to Brussels, was sought out by both Commissioner Tugendhat and President Jenkins in order that they might emphasise and underline the importance of the budgetary problems that we are faced with. If any country thinks that the accession of Greece is not going to make them worse off they are crazy. It is definitely going to make them worse off. What we are not witnessing is resolute political action by the party and country that is most affected by the consequences of such an upheaval of our budget.

We frequently hear from the two major parties that we are net beneficiaries from membership of the EEC. Not all of us are beneficiaries. This country may be but not all of us are. If the impact of Greece's entry into this community—leaving aside whatever damage it does to the position of industrial workers in Greece—has the added affect of breaking down fragile budgetary relations within the EEC, then the honeymoon, even for those people in our economy who are beneficiaries as a result of our membership of the EEC, is undoubtedly going to be over. All the money that went into the agricultural sector, from Wexford through to Limerick East, did not find its way into Ringsend or some of the industrial areas that I represent and there are fellows unemployed today who will remain unemployed because of our accession to the EEC. The failure to recycle and turn around that net benefit that we got from the EEC, albeit our own, is no consolation to the people who lost their jobs as a result of free market entry.

This entry of another state with similar problems, in some instances more aggravated than our own, will aggravate the situation unless we get resolute political action from the Government. That resolute political action will have to concentrate on and obtain, as was promised, an effective regional policy. In our fifty-first report attention was drawn to the fact that regional internal imbalances in the African countries are already considerable and could be aggravated following the liberalisation of trade after accession and that in the Commission's view corrective measures in the form of "large-scale regional policies" would be required. We have about five weeks left of our Presidency and there is no evidence that any large-scale regional policy is coming out of that six months of heaven. The federal elections in Germany are going to concentrate the minds of the FDP and particularly the Social Democrats; the position in France is equally going to occupy domestic politics there. Yet we will decide this afternoon on a course of action that will, by January 1981, add to the Community over nine million, and probably ten million, people who will put a hand into the miserable cookie jar of the regional fund as it is today.

There is not much time and, regrettably, there does not appear to be a lot of political commitment to actually produce the goods as distinct from aspiring to them. I have already made the political observation about the difficulties that the Minister will encounter. What I am asking the Minister to do is not easy. I have no illusions about the lack of generosity on the part of the different members of the EEC on the other side of the table. They rushed to welcome Greece into this Community; they did not put down the preconditions; there were no preconditions from France and in particular there were no preconditions from Germany. Indeed they overruled the recommendation of the Commission which said at the time that Greece was just not ready to come into a full trade membership of the EEC. The Commission were more cautious because they work with the political reality of the Council and they recognised that the military considerations of Greece's entry into the EEC were one thing and the post-1973 willingness of Germany or France or Belgium or Holland to actually contribute effectively to the regional fund was another.

Never has a country been so armed in terms of argument as we are now at the time of the Presidency before the Summit. I would earnestly request that the Government would use their position, which was prepared for them by the previous Government in 1976, to argue the case as loudly and as strongly as possible. I would hope that we will not get the same repetition we had some weeks ago when the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Professor O'Donoghue, conceded an effective reduction in the regional fund.

The trade between Ireland and Greece is very much in our favour at the moment. Hopefully it will remain so. However, I suspect if we were to put the net tourist earnings of Greece from this country against this the balance would be somewhat evened out. We export to Greece three times the amount we import from them. Their imports from Ireland amounted to $10.6 million and exports to Ireland to $2.3 million approximately, according to Facts About Greece published in Athens in 1979.

I have not got the figures for the amount of revenue which Greece would gain from our economy via tourism because they would be Greek figures, but it has been growing and probably will continue to grow. Therefore, we are interdependent economies and I would like to think that that interdependence can be developed and enhanced.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has seen opportunities for sales, particularly of beef and milk, within Greece. The Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe have referred to the trading difficulties. It is to be hoped that these can be sorted out without delay. I am referring to the deposits, the three-year phasing and so on. If Greece recognises that in Ireland they have a very willing ally around the council table at various meetings of the Community and the Commission, then the capacity for co-operation between our two communities undoubtedly will be enhanced. People do not forget their friends.

They should not.

They should not forget their friends. More important, we should know where to look for our friends in the first place. There is the potential for an alliance between our two economies by virtue of common interest. I hope that the State now will follow up the Minister's recognition of positive trading possibilities for beef and milk products by establishing a positive trading presence by the State in the Greek Republic. About two years ago Córas Tráchtála looked at the question of establishing an office in Athens and then did not proceed with it. I regret that decision. It was a bad one, made in an internal assessment relative to a variety of factors which really were commercial which a semi-State organisation must consider. It was wrong in that it ignored the political dimension that the presence of such an office would have had combined with our Embassy there. It took us about a year to get our Embassy out of the Hilton Hotel and into their office. Effectively we were not represented properly in a physical sense as distinct from the quality of the diplomatic representation, with which I have no argument.

Regarding the statement about the recognition of trade in Greece, the Minister should ask CTT if this is a separate departmental responsibility. He should look again at the whole question of CTT, the Meat Marketing Board, Bord Bainne or some other body getting into Greece in a physical way. Nobody is going to come along, knock on our door and ask if we have any meat or milk to sell. Certainly the Greeks are not. Their door is being kicked every day by people who are selling. Unless we get in there too and sell as aggressively and commercially as others, they are going to take the goods from the people who are there beside them.

The Minister must recognise that there is an added political dimension that will not show up in any cost-benefit analysis of such an operator. We, as a poor, peripheral nation are going to need allies around the council rooms of the EEC and Greece is the first nation which is effectively as poor as if not poorer than we are to join the EEC. We should get to know her very well, and I do not mean by two weeks in Rhodes on a charter flight but by our physical presence in the economy and in the capital of Greece. That does not apply only to the State. Once Greece becomes a full member it is up to the trade unions and the political parties to do the same. The Minister of State has responsibility in that area.

There is one point to which the Minister has not referred and it is considerably important. Greece is a maritime nation with an enormous registration of merchant ships amounting to something like £38 million. In the Fifty-First Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, paragraph 23, there is reference to sea transport, which will now be affected as a result of Greece's entry to the EEC. I quote:

In the course of its examination of the accession of Greece the Joint Committee observed that the fact that Greece is one of the major shipowning countries in the world should assist the measures being taken by the Community to combat marine pollution by tankers, with which the Committee dealt with in its thirty-eighth report of 7th March, 1979 (Prl. 7928). With Greek accession the Community's percentage of the world fleet will be increased from 20 to 30 per cent.

In other words, Greek merchant shipping is effectively half the size of the Community's merchant shipping at the moment.

This will be an important aid to the Community in seeking to bring the IMCO Conventions, MARPOL and SOLAS into force. Moreover on accession the Greek fleet will become subject to the legislation adopted by the Community on the subject of tankers.

This is a complex area in which I am in no way an expert. I simply draw the attention of the House to the implication of Greece's membership of the Community. IMCO are not, as may be thought, the cleaners who used to be located on Merrion Road, but the International Marine Co-ordinating Organisation, who have attempted over the years to raise the standards of shipping and the conditions of the seafarers who work in shipping. MARPOL are concerned with anti-pollution and SOLAS with safety of life at sea.

For many years back Greece has had an enormous and continued involvement in shipping. We, to our shame, have not. However, we have as a percentage of our land area, the largest coastline of any member state in the Community, with the exception of Greece if we take into account all her islands. The potential of our maritime resources is as enormous as our ratio of coastline to our land area. The volume of traffic in our waters, particularly up and down the Irish Sea, is of such a scale that any kind of disaster could have tremendous implications for this country in terms of damage to the environment and so on. Two weeks ago we passed an Estimate in this House to cover some of the costs of the Whiddy Island inquiry alone and the amount involved would have built quite a number of houses in my constituency.

The possibility of a major marine accident occurring is growing. The benefit of Greece's entry is evident when we remember that the EEC now have within their collective membership sufficient tonnage to attempt to have some of the conventions of IMCO made effective law within the Community. I do not profess to be an expert in this area. I do profess to have responsibility in the Labour Party for the environment and to recognise that a unique opportunity is occurring at the point of Greece's entry. We will have not only the scale of Greek merchant shipping; we will have also their undoubted expertise and accumulated experience. I would like to see our country, with its vested interest in the whole question of developing our marine resources, trying to benefit from the association of Greece with the Community as full members, by doing two things: first, attempting to ensure that near accidents such as the Cristos Bitos incident will not occur again and that if there is a gap in standards, whether on shore or otherwise, that it be closed in so far as is possible. I recognise that Community ships are not the only ones to use the Irish Sea. Consequently, there is a considerable limit to the argument I am putting forward, but that does not invalidate our pursuing that argument. The second benefit would relate to direct connections between the large merchant shipping fleet of the Greek Republic and our own Irish Shipping. Again, this is an area in which contracts should be made without delay by Irish Shipping and the various shipping concerns in Greece.

Finally, there is the situation of a shortfall of technical personnel in our Department of Tourism and Transport particularly in regard to monitoring shipping—the whole question of standards, regulations and so on—while Greece obviously has much expertise and experience in this regard. By developing connections in this area it might be possible to have some people from Greece here for a period of time to work in co-operation with the Department of Tourism and Transport. The Merchant Shipping Bill, which has not come before the House yet, has been delayed for some time because of pressure of resources within the very limited resources of the Department. That is a shameful situation but one that has been in existence during the terms of office of many administrations.

It is not the intention of the House to divide on this measure so at least the Minister will be spared that much.

I do not mind.

We welcome Greece's entry to the Community. The Labour Party believe they will have allies within the Greek Republic with whom we can work. We hope that in time, with the reality of Greek membership, our working alliance with those allies will be cemented. Similarly, I should hope that the Government party will find suitable allies, too, within the Greek Republic, but perhaps that courtship has begun.

Whatever about the degree of co-operation that exists between the two countries, our Government, with their new democratic allies from within the democratic party in Greece, will have to show a little more performance in relation to the regional and social funds than has been the case up to now.

In the September 1979 issue of the Community Report, which is issued from the Dublin office, there is an article on Greek entry terms which contains the following paragraph:

During the period between May 28, 1979 and January 1, 1981, when accession will come into full force, a consultation procedure will be applied, whereby the Community will communicate to Greece drafts of decisions to be taken on which Greece will express its opinion and will discuss subjects deemed of interest with the competent Community authorities. Greece has made it clear that it does not oppose the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Communities.

I should like the Minister to let us know when replying what kind of consultation has taken place between the Community and ourselves. Obviously, the details cannot be revealed to us, but only three days after the signing by Greece of that interim agreement as part of the overall package, the Government assumed presidency and, consequently, responsibility for implementing that particular section of the overall accord. Presumably, Greece has been consulted in relation to aspects of the budget, for instance, and in relation to aspects of the regional and social funds. Respecting the privacy of the Government in regard to such Community responses, I would however like some indication from the Minister as to how effective has been that whole process of consultation. The House is entitled to know what has been the outcome in that regard.

When people talk about Greece's accession to the Community they talk about that country's marvellous democracy, about its traditions of creating European democracy. However, to me that is as false as the French talking about our marvellous contribution to christianising Europe. Having regard to the way France treats us sometimes, one would be forgiven for thinking that we failed to christianise anyone in Europe. Therefore, we can afford to be a little generous in regard to Greece's creation of democracy and to our efforts in the area of christianity in the Dark Ages. The Greek's have a great modern literary tradition. Recently, the Nobel Prize was awared to one of their poets. Another of their poets, Mr. Kavafis, wrote a poem called "Waiting for the Barbarians", from which the following is an excerpt. I quote from page 583 of The Penquin Book of Greek Verse

"What are we waiting for, gathered in the market-place?""The barbarians will come today.""Why is there no activity in the senate? why are the senators seated without legislating?""Because the barbarians will come today; what laws can the senators pass now? the barbarians, when they come, will make the laws.""Why has our emperor risen so early, and is seated at the greatest gate of the city on the throne, in state, wearing the crown?""Because the barbarians will come today ..."

The poem continues:

"Why has this uneasiness suddenly started, this confusion? how grave the faces have become! Why are the streets and squares quickly emptying and why is everyone going back home so very concerned?""Because night has fallen, and the barbarians have not come. And some men have arrived from the frontiers and they said that there are no barbarians anymore." And now, what will become of us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution.

I suggest that the barbarians of 1979 might very well be the EEC if it does not live up to the social promises that are embodied in the kind of phrases that Deputy O'Keeffe referred to but which so far we have failed manifestly to put into reality. The Minister has a difficult task; but, in so far as this party can support the leverage and argument of our Government in attempting to bring about effective social and regional funds, they will have our full support.

At the outset I should like to congratulate Deputy O'Keeffe on his first speech as spokesman for Foreign Affairs. I noted with delight, too, the contribution from Deputy Quinn, especially his earlier remarks.

I rise to participate in this debate because I am not sure that the unanimity being expressed in this House is the sort of unanimity that would be expressed in the country having regard to the fact that 90 per cent of the Irish people do not know the Community is being enlarged while 99 per cent of them do not care. It is the duty and the responsibility of those of us here to let the people know that the Community is being enlarged. In particular it is the duty of the Government to draw to the attention of our people the possible implications of this enlargement.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a few years somebody will make a fortune by writing a book on why Ireland slept. Without any national debate or real discussion we are drifting into a situation whereby we are approving on the nod the enlargement of the Community. I joined this debate to pose the question: should we not be opposing the entry of Greece into the Community or, to put it more accurately, should we not be opposing the enlargement of the Community until we know more about the implications? I pose those questions in the knowledge that they will not make any difference. The Bill will be passed. I am only posing the questions so that we can shake ourselves out of the apathy and laziness with which we approach public affairs.

I welcome the accession of Greece because I have great affection for that country which must rate as one of the most beautiful countries in Europe. I welcome the possibility that the accession of Greece to the EEC will help towards the stabilisation of democracy in that country. I should like to pose another question? Is the opposite true? Will the accession of Greece, rather than benefiting that country and improving its stability, threaten the stability of the EEC? I pose that question not because I believe that to be likely but because that question ought to be answered.

We tend to approach our public affairs in a sort of lazy and apathetic fashion. More than any other Department, as far as politicians and the public are concerned, that is true of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs is not a local issue; there are no votes or interest in it.

That was a serious and mean attack on the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was a very damaging statement.

We are not considering Foreign Affairs at all. The Deputy should not get on that line. We must stay with the accession of Greece to the EEC. The Department of Foreign Affairs is not under discussion.

I must have been misunderstood because I did not intend to say anything concerning the officials of the Department or the Minister. I was pointing to the lack of public and political interest in foreign affairs. I am not talking about the officials but about the politicians and, to a great extent, the public.

We tend to approach public affairs with a certain amount of apathy and laziness. One example is that we have allowed an important decision such as the enlargement of the Community to pass on the nod. There is not a lot of interest in foreign affairs by the public at large. The fact that there is no interest does not mean that such matters are of less importance. Such matters are very important and we should express our dissatisfaction at the absence of a public debate on this question. We should also express our dissatisfaction at the absence of a White Paper on the implications of the accession of Greece, as was requested.

I should now like to ask some questions about the accession of the Hellenic Republic. In doing so I am glad to note that the Greek Ambassador, and other members of the diplomatic staff are present.

The Chair must rule that any reference to people in the public gallery or in the VIP section is not in order.

The interference of the Chair, as usual, is not very helpful. There are ample precedents for referring to people in either gallery.

There are not. The Deputy must be aware that the Chair has always ruled that reference to people in either gallery should not be made by Members. The Deputy should remember that for the future.

I have no wish to fall out with the Chair but I cannot imagine what help the Chair's intervention has been to the debate.

The Deputy must obey the rules of the Chair. The Chair has always been very kind to the Deputy but he always questions rulings of the Chair. I did not make those rules; they have operated down the years. I have been a Member for almost 25 years and I have listened during that time to occupants of this position giving such rulings. I am not making rules for the Deputy or any other Member.

I do not wish to be sidetracked into a row with the Chair. I welcome the accession of Greece and I hope that country will benefit from such a move and that Europe will also benefit. Deputy O'Keeffe raised the question of Turkey in this context. We are all aware that for a long time there has been troubled relations between Greece and Turkey. Like Greece, Turkey is of strategic importance to the security of the West. Deputy Quinn referred to the strategic position of Greece but that argument is more important in relation to Turkey because of the Islamic nature of the Turkish Republic. It is important because of the Islamic solidarity that exists between Turkey and the Arab world. The relationship between the EEC and the Arab world needs strengthening. Although the EEC has announced a sound policy on the Palestine question, it must be stated that not many Palestinians or Arabs have much conviction in that policy. On that basis our relationship with the Arab and Islamic world needs strengthening.

I understand that Turkey is anxious to have stronger ties with the EEC and that many people in that country aspire to eventual membership of the Community. We have not asked why Greece which has indicated that it will not veto the further enlargement of the Community to incorporate Spain and Portugal, has not given such a commitment in relation to Turkey. As far as I know such a commitment has not been sought. It would be too bad if the eventual enlargement of the Community to include Turkey were to be vetoed by Greece because of the troubled relationship between the two countries. Has this question been raised and, if so, what are its implications, or what is its answer?

There will be more acute problems as we seek to embrace Spain, Portugal and whatever other countries aspire to join us. What impact will this have on the decision-making process in the Community, which to some people is already cumbersome and inefficient, to say the least? Will enlargement make it more inefficient and more cumbersome? What plans are in train to tackle the decision-making problems, following enlargement? Are there going to be another one, two, three Director Generals, and Directors and other staff to represent adequately Greece, Spain and Portugal? If this is so, will it mean additional staff or displacement of present staff and how much will this all cost? There is the additional factor of coping with another language, which adds to the cumbersomeness and inefficiency of the bureaucratic machine of Europe. Would the Minister tell the House what provisions are being made as far as staff and the whole decision-making process are concerned, for the present time and for the future?

I add my voice to those of Deputy Quinn and Deputy O'Keeffe, especially about the regional fund. What will be the impact of Greece's accession on the regional fund? Has any account been taken of the total Community budget in the context of enlargement? In relation to the bilateral relations between Greece and ourselves, will that accession bring a greater political, social, cultural, trade and communication contact between Dublin and Athens, between Ireland and Greece? I am not aware of any increased political, social, cultural or trade relations between our two countries. The only two observable developments in this regard were the appointment of an Irish Ambassador to Athens and of a Greek Ambassador to Dublin and, since then, the visit of Mr. Karamanlis. Would the Minister tell the House what plans are in train, or what discussions have taken place, about improving the political, social, cultural and trade contacts and communications between our two countries? It would be helpful to encourage understanding and an alliance between what will be two small countries in a large Community.

This debate is appropriate and timely as it precedes the meeting of the European Council in Dublin, starting tomorrow. Issues and questions will be discussed tomorrow and the following day, which may be looked at differently because Greece is now entering the Community, though that may not be the case. It is a pity that almost exclusive attention by the media to the forthcoming Summit Meeting has been about Britain's net contribution to the Community budget—the £1,000 million which Mrs. Thatcher has all Europe hopping about. Regarding net beneficiaries and net contributions, Deputy Quinn referred to the fact that we in this party and the Government party are always saying that we are net beneficiaries of the EEC. I have said before in this House, and repeat, that nobody is in the EEC for benevolent purposes. Nobody is in the EEC to give away money—least of all Britain. Britain is not giving £1,000 million to the Community for nothing; the Federal Republic of Germany is not continuing as a substantial net contributor to the Community for nothing. There are massive trade benefits to them by the existence of the Community. It should be driven home tomorrow to Britain that they are not in the Community for charity and are not giving charity. They are benefiting from the EEC. It also should be driven home that earlier £1,000 million net contribution is not unconnected with the fact that Britain's relationships with some of her former colonies and the Commonwealth countries like New Zealand are closer than Britain's relationship with the EEC.

Greece has been referred to as a likely net beneficiary in the context of the EEC budget. Greece had better watch out. Greece ought not to take it for granted that because, on paper, they are getting more money from the EEC budget than they are contributing, in the overall context they are net beneficiaries. It does not follow that they benefit from trade and so on; I hope they will. As I said before, I hope that Greece and the Community alike benefit from Greece's accession; but it does not necessarily follow that those who are getting, on the face of it, most out of the EEC budget are getting most out of the EEC.

I shall conclude in the hope, or the knowledge, that the Bill and the motion will be passed without a division in this House. I wish Greece every good fortune as a member of the EEC. I hope, when it comes to future enlargements, that we as a country will closely examine the implications of that enlargement and not—as we seem to be doing now—apathetically approve the enlargement on the nod, only to find out in a few years' time that we really made a mistake.

I take this opportunity of welcoming the latest addition to the EEC. I speak here in my capacity as a member of the European Parliament. I look forward in due course, on 1 January 1981, to welcoming an additional 24 colleagues to that European Parliament.

I have listened to the contributions of the last couple of speakers. I am at a disadvantage in that I did not hear the contribution of Deputy O'Keeffe. I have no doubt he welcomed the enlargement of the Community, the fact that we are, in an economic and political sense, extending co-operation across Europe. While the present Nine form a bloc in their own way of western European nations, taking in all of Western Europe with the exception of the Iberian peninsula, we are now breaking into new ground, opening our doors, taking the Hellenic Republic into the EEC. I take this opportunity of welcoming our new collegues from Greece who will be joining us as from 1 Janaury 1981.

I listened to Deputy Mitchell talking in terms of Greece wanting to watch out; that they might not be getting the economic benefit they may be expecting in this regard. I suppose this is speaking in a reflective way about the economic benefit that membership of the EEC has been to Ireland since our entry on 1 January 1973. I am glad to see that Deputy O'Donnell is here and will be contributing. People who have visited the European Parliament, who have seen it in action, may comment, perhaps legitimately, on its being a mere talking forum, a talking shop, with its powers and functions subject to question. This is where our priorities lie. I have no objection to the European Parliament being described as a talking shop. At present we have members from nine different countries contributing to debates on a variety of subjects, some extremely controversial from a political point of view. As from 1 January 1981 we will have members from ten countries, people of all shades of political opinion across Europe, arguing the toss, generally discussing their problems and certainly not all of them agreeing. And this is the bright aspect of it: all of them agreeing to disagree, being willing to talk about it rather than taking up arms, which has been the history of Europe on two occasions within this century. The latter part of this century has been devoted to the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, subsequently the European Economic Community, then the nominated Parliament of the Six, now the nominated Parliament of the Nine, with the elected parliament of the ten from 1982. The 24 new representatives from Greece will be nominated as from 1 January 1981. At present we have a directly-elected parliament; for 12 months we will have a proportion of that parliament being nominated but, as from some time in 1982, we will again have a directly-elected parliament.

Apart altogether from the economic benefits which allegedly each country is anxious to get out of this amalgamation of nations of Europe, the priority benefit—the one which should stand over and above all others—is that of countries getting together, with representatives of their people getting together saving millions of pounds and millions of lives by being able to talk about their problems and resolving them rather than taking up arms in an effort so to do, because inevitably these are problems which must be solved eventually around the conference table.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the fact that nobody is in the EEC to give away money. I accept that. Certainly the attraction offered at the time we were joining was the pronounced economic benefit membership would bring to this country. That was one of the reasons we found the overwhelming majority of our people in favour of joining, despite the opposition of the Labour Party.

I listened to Deputy Quinn saying that the people in Wexford, Limerick and all over the country, with the exception of those in Ringsend, had derived an amount of benefit from our membership. This brings me to a major criticism of Deputy Quinn. He has been consistent in so far as he is obviously still opposed to the principle of our membership of the EEC. His party opposed our membership originally. But Deputy Quinn is talking about the fact that, while other people have benefited therefrom, the people in his constituency have not derived any such benefit.

I was dealing with certain industrial sectors. It is not confined to Ringsend.

I shall say something about the protocol that the Hellenic Republic have built into their treaty protecting their capacity to attract industrial development to Greece. I note that the protocol built in to their accession treaty is exactly the same as was built into ours to enable us continue with the industrial development that had been building up here before our entry, again one of the reasons which accounted for our having been successful in selling membership to our people—we being the Government of the day and the main Opposition party, with the backing of the farming community. Our contention was that we would be able to maintain our attractiveness as an industrial base for foreign industrialists who might come here to manufacture goods for export to the Common Market. But then Deputy Quinn and his colleagues might express opposition to a number of those multi-nationals we attract here, contending that, while they give a lot of employment and apparently give people more profits, it appears that sometimes they use employees——

There was ample in my speech to criticise without the Deputy inventing what I was intending to say and then criticising it.

I did not invent anything. I referred to Ringsend, and Deputy Quinn by way of interruption came in to explain himself. I am working on that supplementary explanation now.

I stood in Europe as a member of the European Progressive Democrats with whom Fianna Fáil are associated and we recently discussed the budget there. During the course of the European election campaign Fianna Fáil were criticised for saying that we did not subscribe to the view that the European Parliament should have the overall power and should have their powers increased. Both Fine Gael and the Labour Party claimed that it would be far more beneficial for us if additional powers were conferred on the European Parliament so that more Fine Gael and Labour representatives could be elected to the European Parliament in order to use their undoubted influence on the parties with which they proposed to be associated when elected to Europe. I have no doubt that if Deputy Quinn checks with his four colleagues who are members of a Socialist Group in the European Parliament they will confirm that it was embarrassing for them to have to stand up as four almost isolated men in the Socialist Group in their efforts to defend the common agricultural policy. They were supported by the French Socialists, whom, Deputy Quinn was critical of in his contribution. There was no evidence that they succeeded in exerting any influence on this tremendous group of which they were members. During the campaign they said "Elect us and let us be members of the largest group in Europe and we will use our influence for the benefit of this country". Deputy Quinn should direct his words in relation to additional social and regional fund moneys to his colleagues in the influential Socialist Group. My four colleagues in the European People's Party were not as lonesome when they stood up to protect the CAP as were the four people in the Socialist Group. The extent of their influence in that party did not appear to be as extensive as was conveyed by their leader, Deputy Cluskey, when he was stomping the country campaigning on their behalf prior to June last.

One of the reasons why I welcome Greece into the EEC is because they will have pretty much the same type of interest in the preservation and the protection of the CAP as we have. Greece will stand in the way that all of the 15 Republic of Ireland representatives and the French, Scottish and Danish people stood in a bloc, irrespective of what party bloc they were in, for the preservation of the CAP. I was in the happy position of being able to stand in a group, even if small, who were all standing for the preservation of the CAP. Deputy Quinn's colleagues in Europe were not in a position to influence even one member of their group. The actions of every Frenchman and of every Irishman were predictably for the protection and preservation of the CAP. Our 24 new colleagues from Greece will also seek to protect the CAP. As far as I am concerned, the Greek representatives cannot come in quickly enough to prevent Deputy Quinn's Socialist colleagues from crippling the CAP to the detriment of this country.

Deputy Mitchell wondered if the Government were conscious of the provisions for the entry of Greece into the EEC and wondered if the EEC were prepared for the expansion. Deputy FitzGerald was a member of the Council of Ministers away back in 1976 when the decision was taken to admit Greece into the EEC, so Deputy Mitchell's question was ill-timed. Deputy Mitchell should not have posed the question whether we should oppose the Bill until we knew the implications. In fairness, Deputy Mitchell answered his own question and said that he was in favour of their entry. I would have expected a Fine Gael front bencher to have been positively in favour of their entry without raising questions in view of the fact that his party leader was the Irish representative and the member of the Council who handled this at the time when Greece was signed up.

Another point about Greece's entry, from the agricultural viewpoint, to which the Minister drew attention when making his Second Stage speech, was that we were concerned that the transitional period, which is the same as our five years, should be as short as possible, especially for beef and dairy produce, for which a lucrative market exists. From that point of view we cannot get Greece in quickly enough and the transitional period cannot be short enough to meet our requirements.

My contribution as a member of the European Parliament is to welcome the accession of Greece to the EEC. There is no reason why anything that will emerge as being to the economic benefit of Greece, from a policy point of view, will not in the same way be a benefit to us.

I took a note of a statement made by Deputy Quinn and I cannot be contradicted because I wrote it down. This gets me back to what I was saying a few moments ago about the contribution that can be made by Parliament in support of representatives at council who will be fighting in the national interest. He said they hoped they would have allies within the Greek Republic with whom they could work. I understand he was speaking as a Labour Deputy looking forward to having socialist colleagues coming to the European Parliament, either nominated or directly elected. He went on to speak about the new democratic party, but one may assume he will not be drawing his colleagues from them. I hope that the colleagues, if he attracts or joins colleagues there, will be colleagues of the French type who will have some regard for the preservation of agricultural interests rather than colleagues who would be looking over their shoulders at their next door neighbours who wear the red tie.

I am grateful for the benefit of the Deputy's wisdom and experience.

I knew you would be. I have a fair share of experience and not a little wisdom, even if I say it myself.

I merely wanted to welcome Greece. I really feel we shall have colleagues there who will help to preserve and protect something that has been useful to us since our entry, something that is under attack at present. Hopefully, we shall be able to hold out until we get the additional 24 who may assist in preserving the Common Agricultural Policy.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte fial a chur roimh an mBille seo. Is ócáid spéisiúil í, teacht an Phoblacht Heilléineach chuig an Chomphobal. Oireann sé go mór le gluaiseacht chuig aontas na tEorpa go mbeadh an sean tír seo ag teacht isteach, tír atá mar chliabhan do chultúr, daonlathas agus polaitíocht na hEorpa.

I do not wish to detain the House, but both as a Dáil Deputy and as a Member of the European Parliament I feel I should make a brief contribution to this discussion. The Bill is to be welcomed. The accession of Greece to the European Community will be regarded by most people in our country and by most peoples in the present member states of the Community as a very significant and historic milestone on the road to European unity. It is a singularly appropriate development and worthy of special welcome, that Greece, which can be described as the cradle, source and fountain of European civilisation, should now be about to join the broader European community known as the EEC.

The attitude of Ireland as represented by the present Government, and by the previous Government of which I had the honour to be a member, towards the possibility of Greek accession has been sympathetic, positive and constructive, but most of all our attitude as a nation has been logical. In his opening speech, the Minister gave an interesting résumé of the various events leading up to the present situation when Greece will shortly become a member of the EEC. I am sure that Greece will send, initially on a delegated basis, members to the present European Parliament. Judged by the welcome that has been extended and the consensus that has been reached in relation to Greek membership I am confident that the members who will be coming from Greece to the European Parliament can be assured of a hearty and very warm welcome.

In a little time the question of the accession of Spain and Portugal will also come up for discussion. While we welcome enlargement and would particularly welcome the accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain to the EEC we must not close our eyes to the harsh economic realities of EEC membership. We must be conscious of the implications of enlargement. I have no intention of following Deputy Lalor in recrimination and in pointing out that his group were better than my group or Deputy Quinn's group—this is irrelevant. I want to repeat what I said yesterday in the debate on the Dairy Produce Bill. The 15 members who have the honour to represent this State in the EEC have worked together. We have indicated our opposition or approval of various motions, but notably in relation to the CAP when there were a number of votes recently on the occasion of the budget debate. We have shown our solidarity. We stood up and were counted whether we are Christian Democrats, Socialists or Gaullists. One of the most pleasing aspects of the short experience I have had so far as a Member of the European Parliament is that the 15 of us have established a rapport and are conscious that while we are committed to the European ideal we are also conscious that we are representatives of a small peripheral island nation with immense economic and social problems. We can be relied on, while we have our political differences, to stand up and be counted when the interests of this nation are at stake.

I do not wish to prolong the discussion because I shall have an opportunity of speaking in another forum on this subject, but there has been one rather worrying reaction in Europe. I have the privilege of being involved in regional policy there. It is my great personal interest, and probably one of the reasons which motivated my candidature for the EEC. The question of enlargement has immense implications for regional policy. References were made in the debate to the disparity existing between the better-off regions of Europe and the weaker ones.

Some years ago a comparison between the standard of living and income of the people in Hamburg and those in the west of Ireland or in the south of Italy indicated that there was a difference of one to four. That has now worsened; the difference is now one to six. It is estimated that when Greece, Spain and Portugal come in the difference will be one to 12. This is an alarming situation. It is frightening, because one can look at the situation and say that Greece, Spain and Portugal have immense regional problems; they have large regions which are underdeveloped, very similar to our own country and in particular the western regions. Will they all be drawing from the same cake? Unless the EEC cake is greatly enlarged matters will be much worse. The Minister very rightly referred to the effects of enlargement in relation to the budget, the social policy and, in particular, the regional policy. The realistic way to look at the implications of enlargement is that it provides a unique opportunity to get down to tackling the enormous challenge of formulating and implementing an appropriate regional policy for the entire Community which will ensure that the weaker regions can evolve and can make economic and social progress. This matter is coming up for urgent consideration by the Council of the committee dealing with regional policy and planning of which I have the honour to be a member.

I would like to talk at length on the subject of regional policies which is a hobby-horse of mine but I will not detain the House. I welcome the accession of Greece. I am also satisfied that our attitude here to the application by Greece for membership has been the right one. I want to give due credit to the previous Government of which I was a Member, to the present Government, to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and to the present Minister for Foreign Affairs. I hope that all the institutions of Europe will, as a matter of extreme urgency, tackle what is the top priority now in relation to the EEC, and that is the formulation and implementation of an appropriate, realistic regional policy which will be backed by a realistic and adequate regional fund.

I came in at rather short notice because the senior Minister in the Department had to take himself from this hallowed chamber to another place in the context of tomorrow's EEC summit. In the circumstances I apologise to Deputies if I cannot reply as adequately as I would wish to do in normal circumstances. The circumstances of my presence are rather abnormal to say the least of it, but that is the way of politics.

I would like to join the other Deputies in congratulating Deputy O'Keeffe on making his maiden speech as spokesman for Foreign Affairs on the Fine Gael benches. It takes some considerable time to read oneself into a new brief, but it is quite clear that Deputy O'Keeffe has grasped the fundamental issues in the very short time that he has been in his present position.

In addition I welcome the general support given to the Bill by the generality of the Deputies who spoke. Deputy Mitchell was critical in a very general way. Nevertheless at the end of his speech he was able and willing to accept the importance of the Hellenic Republic's accession to the Community.

Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned the question of relations between Greece and Turkey. Obviously the position of Turkey as an associate member of the Community did not arise during the accession negotiations with Greece. However, Prime Minister Karamanlis and the other Greek politicians have stated on many occasions that their country will not block a future application for membership on the part of Turkey. That is a very generous attitude on the part of Greece, and it should be recognised and given credit. It is an attitude which found acceptability with the other nine existing members of the EEC when Greece came to make their application in July 1976. In their turn, while they found acceptability in the common market, they are prepared to extend a generous attitude to Turkey in the same way.

Present financial difficulties were raised by Deputy O'Keeffe. They are a much wider problem which would have to be dealt with irrespective of Greek accession. In fact they would form a debate on their own.

In regard to the financial implications of Greek accession the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the Council commitment which was made in July 1976 during the negotiations. We had a reiteration of this statement from our partners and from the Commission itself. Let me refer specifically once more to the Council's statement as outlined in the Minister's introductory speech. It is stated:

In July, 1976 when the question of opening accession negotiations with Greece was being discussed, Ireland proposed and had accepted by the Council a Council statement which declared—

(1) that the consequences—in particular the financial consequences—of an enlargement must not be detrimental to the common projects and policies of the Community or to those which it intends to carry out in the future.

(2) that enlargement must help strengthen a Community dynamic in its aspirations and not weaken or reduce in effectiveness its institutional structures and possibilities for action; and

(3) that, with this view, the Council was agreed that subject to usual budgetary procedures, on Greek accession appropriate provision would be made for the needs of the enlarged Community.

At later discussions I reiterated this position and received support from my colleagues in the Council and from the Commission. I made it clear, however, that Ireland was not setting preconditions for enlargement which would have to be fullfilled by the applicant countries. Rather were we asking that enlargement be used as an occasion for strengthening the Community in relation to the budget. That has been a very reasonable approach acceptable to successive Governments.

It is important to place on the record, particularly for the benefit of Deputy Mitchell, that his own party leader presided over the Greek application in the first instance in July 1976. He and others were worrying about enlargement and Greek accession since they applied in 1976. Deputy Mitchell came into the House in 1977. Both prior and subsequent to that year there has been much public debate, and his own party were involved in it when they were in Government and his own political leader was Minister for Foreign Affairs. There have been many parliamentary questions over the past four or five years in relation to Greek accession. In the Fifty-First Report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities the problem of enlargement was discussed. The Committee on Secondary Legislation is a Committee of this House. The report was printed pursuant to the orders of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 13 and 14 December 1977 respectively. We should stop trying to suggest that there has not been public discussion on enlargement generally and Greek accession specifically. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Deputy O'Keeffe made the point that the accession of Greece would be a renaissance of our true European commitment. There is no answer to that. He posed the question of whether the Hellenic Republic would answer to the spirit and letter of the Treaty. There is no doubt about it. It is a generous nation and the Greeks are a generous people. Perhaps we should not be asking questions of this nature, but the answer to that question is yes, they will approach it in the spirit of the Community and commitment to the Community in both the letter and the spirit of the Teaty.

Ireland has much in common with Greece. I do not for one moment concede that we are a poor nation. We may not have as many resources as some other members of the Nine and there is the reality of our peripheral geographical position in relation to the rest of Europe. Our country was not blessed with natural resources which are available to and worked by the other richer nations of the Community, but as members of the Community we have not done too badly.

By way of clarification, when I referred to welcoming Greece in the full letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome my reference was to the Community implementing the Treaty, not Greece. I have no doubt about the position of Greece.

I stand corrected by that clarification. Deputy O'Keeffe also made the point that he would extend the hand of friendship. That has been the common thread throughout the whole debate. All Deputies, even those who raised questions which were rather obscure, still in the final analysis extended the hand of friendship to the Hellenic Republic.

I may seem out of order in referring to a point made by Deputy Quinn on a matter which has concerned me in the past two or three weeks. That is the prominence given to the British Prime Minister coming to this country. One would imagine that she was the only person coming to this Summit of nine nations who are equal, and that she was coming to re-colonise this part of the country. I find the hysteria propagated by the very sycophantic British press nauseating. However, the British media are very good at supporting the British establishment. We are all entering into this council tomorrow as equal members of a very strong economic unit. To suggest for one moment that the question of the budgetary contribution of Britain will be the only item and the only concern of the Council tomorrow and the following day is false. Many issues were raised here which Deputies were concerned should be on the agenda for tomorrow and the following day and I have no doubt that they will be on this agenda in addition to the British problem. However, as Deputy Quinn says, perhaps the least said soonest mended when a Government representative is expressing the views that I have expressed. In general I agree with what the Deputy said on this issue.

The question of the assessment of the cost to the Community of Greek accession was referred to. Again we rely on the July 1976 statement of the Council that the necessary additional resources will be provided, and there is no doubt about that.

On a liberal reading of the Minister's speech, Deputy Quinn made the point that the Hellenic Republic was a fragile and structurally weak country. If I am wrong he can check me on that. He will agree that with the return of a democratic government, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his opening speech, it would be only natural that Greece should seek to consolidate her rediscovered freedom by aligning herself even more closely with democratic nations of the European Community. Of course Greece is structually fragile. The Hellenic Republic may be fragile and have a structurally weak economy, but surely if those conditions exist in that wonderful country it should not be prevented from joining a stronger economic unit because of the existence of those conditions. It should be welcomed in, if for that reason alone. Another reason for welcoming it is support for the return to democracy in that nation which has been described throughout this debate as the cradle of democracy.

Deputy Quinn made much of the regional fund and social fund. It is interesting to look at the improvement of the figures over the years. I intend to read them into the Official Report. The regional fund has been increased substantially since its inception in 1975. Irish receipts from that fund and from the social fund mentioned by Deputy Quinn have increased steadily. Nobody suggests that they are the ultimate as far as this country is concerned. Of course we want more from the regional fund and from the social fund, and we are moving very steadily towards achieving reasonably realistic figures. We are not satisfied with what we are getting in receipts from the regional and social funds. However, we are fighting our corner very strenuously and with considerable success, as these figures will prove to the House.

The following are details of Irish receipts from the regional fund: 1975, £1,757,568; 1976, £8,541,000; 1977, £8,496,101—a reduction between 1976 and 1977; 1978, £11,103,000 and in 1979 from the beginning of January to 7 October the figure has increased to £18 million. There are ascertainable facts and it would be no harm if those people in the Opposition who are critical of the Government in relation to the regional fund, would look into their own hearts. Of the total quota Ireland received 6.46 per cent. Regarding the social fund Irish receipts have been as follows: 1974, £3,631,850; 1975, £4,029,866; 1976, £4,616,758; 1977, £8,173,266; 1978, £19,337,591 and 1979, to the beginning of this month, £25,900,000. Those figures speak for themselves and those who express unhappiness in regard to them might look to the achievements of the past number of years in relation to a definite and dramatic increase in receipts from the regional and social funds though these funds are still not adequate from the national point of view.

Deputy Quinn made the point of there not being an Irish trading presence in Greece and said that Córas Tráchtála moved away from Athens some years ago. I do not have any knowledge of that offhand, but it is something that I shall check out and communicate with the Deputy on. However, I would remind the Deputy that we have an embassy in Athens, in other words, that we have full diplomatic relations with the Hellenic Republic. We are represented there by a first-class diplomat, while Greece also has an embassy here at which they are represented, too, by a man of whom Greece can be proud.

In recent years it has been the policy of the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure a strong trading presence in all countries with which we have full diplomatic relations. While there may not be an identifiable trading presence in Greece, Deputies may be assured that should anybody go to the embassy in Athens inquiring about trading prospects, he would be well received and be given whatever information he might require.

I am not being snide but, regrettably, it would not be possible for him to get the information in Greek.

I do not agree. There are Irish people who can speak the Greek language. I might add that we have an Irish diplomat in our embassy in Japan who can speak Japanese and from first-hand knowledge I know that we have a representative in Saudi Arabia who can converse with the sheiks and princes in their language so we have quite a multi-lingual diplomatic service.

Perhaps the Minister might try that field himself sometime.

I speak a little Irish, a little English and my French is not too bad either. With the accession of Greece to the Community there will be a greater awareness of an Irish presence in Greece, but through our respective embassies we have maintained social, cultural, economic, and other very strong links with Greece and these links will become stronger when Greece takes her rightful place among the nations of the Community.

Deputy Quinn went on to talk in terms of Greece being a major maritime nation and to the fact that with her accession the Community merchant fleet will increase from 20 to 30 per cent. I should like to assure the Deputy that that is an important aspect. It is an increase of 10 per cent on our existing 20 per cent in terms of our merchant fleet within the Common Market and this again will be an additional bonus to the Community as a whole in that we will have at our disposal the experience of a first-class maritime nation with all the additional technology and other advances that will mean.

Regarding the question of consultation between the Hellenic Republic and the EEC prior to Greece's application being received and accepted in July 1976, there have been ongoing consultations and these have been as effective as the Greeks would wish them to be. I think they would agree that these consultations have been most effective.

Deputy Mitchell in his general remarks made the point 90 per cent of the Irish people are not aware that the Community is being enlarged and that 99 per cent of them do not care. Such an assertion is an insult to the intelligence of the Irish people. How has the Deputy arrived at these figures? Is he suggesting that only 10 per cent of the nation is aware that Greece is joining the Community, that only 10 per cent know that Spain and Portugal are interested in becoming full members? I do not know where he got those figures from but to say that 99 per cent of the nation do not care is a gross misrepresentation of the position. It is not true. I would be prepared to argue further with the Deputy on this matter on a different occasion if he produced the basis for his argument. He appeared to give figures off the top of his head thrown out to be destructive rather than constructive. They might be damaging to the prospects of Greek-Irish relations.

Deputy Mitchell said that the Community was being enlarged without any national debate. This matter has been debated over the years through the participation of his political leader in the original application by Greece, through Dáil Questions, other debates and in the proceedings of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. According to the 51st report of that committee that matter was specifically discussed. Deputy Mitchell also made the point that public representatives, and Members of the Dáil in particular, were lazy in their approach to public affairs. I must defend the hard working Dáil Deputies of all parties. Deputy Mitchell uttered the sort of throwaway line that brings this House into disrepute and the Members specifically. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dáil Deputies give a 14-to 16-hour day whether they are in government or in opposition. I do not need to outline how hard Government Ministers work, senior and junior Ministers. The majority of Members work very hard in one way or another whether through Committees or answering replies to constituents. The sophisticated say that Members should not do that, that it is not part of the work of a Member but the sophisticated have never been in the Dáil and it is most unlikely that they ever will be elected. Such a statement does not measure up to the reality of the situation.

Some of them would not last very long if they were elected.

The people of Ireland get the type of Dáil Deputy they want. I do not agree that we are a lazy group of individuals. If we were paid properly and given proper working conditions it would be better. I do not believe we are paid adequately or have proper working conditions.

That statement is perfectly in order.

It may be welcomed by a lot of people but it hardly arises on the question of the accession of Greece to the EEC.

We could suspend Standing Orders to develop that last point.

The charge that Dáil Deputies are lazy and approach public affairs in a lazy fashion is irritating. If Deputy Mitchell puts such a value on himself the public will accept that valuation. I get hot when I speak about such matters and I should not because I have been working very hard on humidity in the last couple of years. I should like to tell Deputy Mitchell that the Euro-Arab dialogue is continuing all the time. I participated in that dialogue on a number of occasions. In fairness to him, he ended on a positive note in that he welcomed the entry of the Hellenic Republic into the EEC.

In his thoughtful speech Deputy Lalor outlined the role played by the European Parliament. He dealt with the situation that will exist after the accession of Greece and pointed out that the Parliament would welcome 24 additional members to the existing 410 members. He made the point that one of the great merits of the Common Market, and the European Parliament as an institution of the Common Market, was that it had brought peace. We had world wars between 1914 and 1918 and 1939 and 1945 but, thank goodness, we have achieved a reasonably peaceful state in the world context since. Deputy Lalor discussed the difference between himself and Deputy Quinn and referred specifically to the performance of the socialist comrades of Deputy Quinn in the European Parliament, but that is a matter between the two Deputies. Deputy Lalor pointed out that in the accession of Greece Ireland would have an additional ally in the context of the preservation of the CAP. We welcome that because there are members of the EEC who would try to erode the benefits that countries like Ireland receive under the significant common agricultural policies. With or without the accession of Greece we will continue to defend the CAP as strongly as we have been doing in the past. As far as we are concerned the CAP is unassailable. I know that the Hellenic Republic when it becomes a member will feel as strongly about the CAP as we do.

Deputy O'Donnell, in his fair-minded speech, welcomed the Bill and praised the attitude of this and previous Governments in their positive, sympathetic, constructive and logical approach to the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the EEC. He wisely made the point that we must not lose sight of the harsh realities of the enlargement of the Community and the economic prospects of existing members when Greece becomes a full member in 1981 and with the accession of Spain and Portugal. I have referred to the EEC as an economic bloc but there is more to it than that. There are cultural and other aspects to the Community which do not receive much prominence. I also welcome the statement of Deputy O'Donnell that he had seen the solidarity of the Irish 15 from the southern part of the island in defence of the CAP. That defence across the political divide is as it should be. The Deputy mentioned the question of regional imbalances which exist within the Community. The richer nations have a lot of responsibility to ensure that the less well-off countries are given a fair deal.

Deputy O'Donnell mentioned, particularly, the west of Ireland. We are very conscious of our obligations to the west of Ireland in the context of the regional imbalances which exist in the EEC. The Deputy made the valid point that the accession of Greece was a unique opportunity for the Commission, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committees of the Parliament, the Council and the Ministers to restate formal, proper and cohesive regional and social funds. This Government are quite clear on their obligation to ensure that Ireland receives greater amounts from these funds; their philosophy is quite clear in regard to these funds. Anything which can be done to improve the situation should be done, and I welcome Deputy O'Donnell's original idea in that regard, immediately subsequent to the Hellenic Republic's accession to the EEC.

I do not think there is much more for me to say. I understand that the Bill can be passed with the agreement of the House but I restate the pleasure of the Government and of the people of Ireland in being associated, in a very positive way, with the Hellenic Republic's accession to the EEC. It is an established fact that successive Irish Governments have consistently supported from the beginning the Hellenic Republic's application to become full members of the EEC. We have pursued the application of this great country consistently and positively. I know that I am speaking on behalf of the whole House in welcoming the Hellenic Republic's becoming, after 1981, a full member of the EEC.

Question put and agreed to.

I should be grateful if the Opposition would agree to all Stages of the Bill now, for the very good reason that we should like to have the matter disposed of. I think this would be a propitious time, as we are on the eve of the Economic Summit.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Top
Share