asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the up-to-date position in regard to negotiations on the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Budget.
13.
Deputies will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Council arrived at a solution to the problem of the United Kingdom contribution to the EEC budget at its meeting in Brussels on 29/30 May. The full text of the agreement is available in the Dáil Library.
Broadly speaking, under the terms of this agreement, the British net contribution will amount to approximately 609 million European Units of Account (MEUA) (IR£408 million) for 1980 and 730 MEUA (IR£489 million) for 1981. Thus for the two years 1980 and 1981, the UK net contribution to the EEC budget will amount to approximately 1,339 MEUA (IR£879 million)—a reduction of approximately 2,585 MEUA (IR£1,732 million). Deputies will appreciate these figures are approximations based on assumption regarding both the overall out-turn of the budget for 1980, and 1981 and on the contributions to those budgets from customs duties, agricultural levies and VAT.
For 1982, if a solution through structural change is not achieved, an arrangement along the lines of that for 1980 and 1981 will be made.
Concurrently with this agreement on the UK budget problem, agreement was reached on the linked issue of farm prices for 1980-81 and related measures. There was also agreement on a set of principles which will form the basis of a common fisheries policy to be agreed not later than 31 January 1981.
Can the Minister indicate the cost to this State of this settlement of the United Kingdom budgetary problem, the cost over the two-year period?
The extra contribution involved would be of the order of £7 million for this year and £8 million to £9 million for next year, that is, £15 million to £16 million over the two years.
That would be the total cost to us?
Yes.
Does the Minister appreciate that in earlier discussions we had on this question it was made clear that we, being a poorer country than Britain, would not have to bear any such burden in dealing with the United Kingdom contribution problem?
I want to inform the Deputy further that we would hope that this extra cost would be met by additional aid to us to cover this cost from the regional fund, or from some window of the regional fund, as the phrase goes.
Have we any guarantee that these £16 million which we have lobbed out to aid the United Kingdom will be refunded to us in any way?
The Deputy might also look at this additional expenditure of £7 million in the current year by way of our contribution in the context of the overall income from the package to Ireland of a sum in the region of £100 million covering both the release of regional fund aid under the non-quota section and the agricultural prices package.
A final supplementary from Deputy Quinn.
I will defer to my Leader.
I have called Deputy Quinn.
Do I understand that the Minister, who was welcomed back at the airport by the Taoiseach, negotiated a package whereby the Irish Republic will subsidise the British Exchequer to the tune of between £15 million and £16 million?
Over two years.
All right. That we will give that sum of money. That is the first question. Do I understand further that the present negotiated position—as indicated by the Minister a few moments ago—is that he hopes to recover some of the cost of this in the future? Could the Minister indicate what he has actually negotiated, what kind of commitment, if any, has been made in relation to that?
First of all, what has happened here has happened to every European country that is a member of the Community.
We are the poorest.
This applies to the Community as a whole. Secondly, I am certain that we will get our contribution back through some other arrangement.
Can the Minister tell me how?
What I am telling the Deputy is that I am hopeful that it will be through the regional fund or some window of the regional fund that we will secure the counter payment in lieu of the increased contribution.
A final supplementary.
The Minister is window dressing.
I am not all that interested in the mechanism by which it comes. I want to know what are the Minister's grounds for certainty that the extra cost to the Irish Exchequer will be met by increased funds?
I am giving that to the Deputy as my opinion as a result of having been present at the negotiations, and that all that has to be devised is the mechanism through which it is achieved.
It is the Fianna Fáil Government's monumental incompetence to end up agreeing that we subsidise Britain——
A question, please.
The question I want to pose is whether the Minister can confirm reports in the newspapers that the agreement about the contribution to Britain is dependent on agreement on the common fisheries policy, as is reported today, and that if that is not agreed the British contribution negotiations will be reopened?
That raises an entirely new element. As far as we are concerned, and the other eight countries present at the final meeting when a decision was taken on the issues concerned, namely the contribution and the agricultural prices package, at that meeting certain Foreign Ministers went back to their countries ad referendum and their respective countries made decisions. I am referring in particular to the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. They announced agreement with the overall package relating to contribution and in regard to the agricultural prices package that had been reached.
As far as the Community are concerned, a final decision has been made on those two aspects.
Is it not a fact that the final package contains a specific reference to the common fisheries policy as a part that must be agreed?
The common fisheries policy aspect of that package was a very general statement, as the Deputy will appreciate. The real meat in the agreement relates to the agricultural price package and the contributions.
The general agreement is not——
The Deputy does not understand the matter. I was there for 12 hours.
Deputy Cluskey with the final supplementary.
Would the Minister not agree that the approach by the Irish Government is inconsistent with the approach they have been adopting at home of transferring resources from the poorer to the richer sections of the Community?
I do not get the meaning of what the Deputy is saying.
For that reason the Minister should not be there.