asked the Taoiseach whether he has under consideration any bilateral meetings with other EEC heads of Government to assess jointly the implications of the Council of Ministers majority decision on agricultural prices; and whether he considers that the resulting situation merits any action on his part.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Prices.
2.
Bilateral meetings with other heads of Government for the purpose suggested by the Deputy are not contemplated at present. The matter is, of course, being considered by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Community.
Mr. O'Leary
Since countries within the Community cannot utilise the veto to prevent ongoing Community policies, would the Taoiseach agree that if the veto can no longer be exercised — which is the implication — it poses a very serious threat perhaps to the long-term national interests of this State if it cannot be used in defence of legitimate national interests? Would the Taoiseach agree that this should be looked into?
I accept that there is a need to go into this issue very carefully. It is a complex one. I would like to distinguish between the use of the veto in regard to the implementation of ongoing policies of the Community and the introduction of new policies, There is in most peoples' minds an important distinction between these two aspects of the veto. The use of the veto in regard to the introduction of fundamentally new policies is one thing and the use of the same veto in regard to relatively current issues is another matter.
Would the Taoiseach agree that there are serious implications as a result of the recent decision which must be looked at from the point of view of our national interest? Would the Taoiseach agree that the national interest of smaller countries could be threatened if there is not a decision to increase the national contributions from VAT revenue above their present level and that failing such a decision by the Community there could be a decision to cut expenditure on regional and social policies and on the CAP and this could affect the national interest here? If we were unable to use our veto in that situation it would not be in our interests. Would the Taoiseach agree that we should, without delay, consult with like-minded EEC states who are worried about the implications of the abandonment of the veto?
The Deputy can be assured that consultations of the sort he has in mind are in progress and are a matter of continuing activity on our part.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the second last reply confuses the situation further and betrays a lack of knowledge of the working of the Community because of course all new policies have to be introduced under their own treaty by unanimity? Qualified majority voting only arises on the implementation of policy. Therefore, the Taoiseach's reply makes no sense. Would the Taoiseach also agree that the position adopted on the use of the veto by this Government is in direct contradiction to the position they have adopted consistently in this House in criticising the policy of our Government in supporting the use of qualified majority voting when national interests are not involved and when the questions involved are not ones that affect the national interest?
Recent developments have proved that this is not a situation in which it is possible to take a very hard and fast view. The Community is continually envolving. The Community faces very many difficulties and crises from time to time and, fortunately, has shown a capacity to overcome difficult problems and survive crises and I hope that will continue to be the situation. Deputy FitzGerald should not adopt any particular legalistic point of view in regard to the use of the veto. I know that he has taken the view that the majority voting system is a preferable system. I do not think that he can maintain that conclusively.
The position that we have taken up consistently on this side of the House is that the qualified majority voting system in cases where there is not a vital national interest should be allowed to operate for the very reason that failure to allow it to operate prevents policies being implemented to our benefit. The Taoiseach has misrepresented our position. Would he not agree further that Fianna Fáil have in fact taken up a hard position in the past which they changed very fast on this occasion and that it is only in that sense that the phrase "hard and fast" can be used by him?
I do not think Deputy FitzGerald should endeavour to score any party political points in this regard. It is a very serious issue. It goes to the root of our membership and participation in the Community and our national interests and any of us who have participated from time to time in the Community discussions and conferences and meetings understands that it is something on which certainly most of our officials have a common view in regard to the difficulties they encounter.
Could the Taoiseach indicate how many other member states share the view that he has expressed, that a distinction can be made between the implementation of ongoing policies and the adoption of new policies, as he put it, although the matter refers to a great deal more than the adoption of new policies? Would the Taoiseach also state whether the view on this matter, set out in this House last Thursday evening by the Minister for Agriculture, is one the Government in general share?
I think there would be fairly widespread agreement among most member Governments that the veto should not be used for relatively unimportant on-going matters.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it would be in our national interest to discuss this matter with other EEC states as quickly as possible to obtain clarification of the status of the veto after that meeting of Agriculture Ministers? In the medium term we could be net losers if we were not able to use this weapon of the veto and if its status is in doubt after that meeting, would the Taoiseach agree it should be examined as soon as possible?
We are doing that. I think there is general agreement on all sides of the House that we must try to increasingly inculcate a Community spirit in relation to all these matters. Everyone would agree that, after all national viewpoints had been debated, the ideal thing would be to work towards a consensus.
The Minister for Agriculture went on at some length about this matter and gave me to understand that this country had joined in an initiative to bring about the situation that arose on the fixing of the farm prices and on qualified majority voting.
A question, please, Deputy.
Could the Taoiseach say if there was such an initiative and, if so, to what extent it was initiated by his Government?
I am not quite clear what the Deputy means by an initiative.
We were not clear what the Minister meant.
There was a very definite move by all the Community partners, with the exception of the United Kingdom, to settle the farm price package. Among seven of the partners there was a desire to have that price package settled in the absence of agreement by majority voting. Two of the partners wished to have the farm price package settled but they were not happy about proceeding by way of majority vote. It was a fairly tangled situation. I do not think it is appropriate to talk about taking initiatives. It was a general movement among seven of the Community partners to get a state of majority voting.
The Minister was gilding the lily when he spoke of an initiative.