Copenhagen European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to make a statement on the European Council which I attended, in Copenhagen, on 4 and 5 December, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan. The Minister of State at my Department with special responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, was also in attendance in Copenhagen.

The Council did not reach any formal conclusions and was adjourned late on the second day. It will come together again, under the German Presidency, in February 1988. I do not wish to conceal from the House my sense of disappointment at this delay. The Copenhagen Council is the second in succession at which the members of the Community have been unable to reach agreement on vital issues. This is particularly disappointing against the background of the world economic situation, and the dangers of recession threatened by the fall in prices on the major stock exchanges.

The Community is the largest trading bloc in the world and must itself affect and be affected by the despatch and sense of confidence with which it can do its business. The inability of the assembled Heads of State and Government of the Community member states to reach conclusions on matters of vital concern to the Community should be seen in this light.

Because of the postponement of decisions at the Copenhagen Council, my statement to the Dáil is, in effect, a description of work in progress. It should not be regarded as a record of definitive conclusions.

At the beginning of the Council the President of the European Parliament, Lord Plumb, spoke briefly to Heads of State or of Government outlining the views of Parliament on the issues before the Council.

Essentially, the Council was concerned with measures for the implementation of the Delors Plan for the completion of the internal market. Deputies will be aware of the proposals, most specifically stated in the Single European Act, for the abolition of all barriers to trade and the completion of a common economic area or European market, without frontiers, of about 320 million people by the year 1992. The plan has many facets which I do not intend to go into now but, in summary, it is concerned with ensuring that the Community has sufficient resources to achieve its economic and social purposes and that these resources are spent so as to achieve maximum effect. It is also stipulated that a strict code of budget discipline should apply in the disbursement of Community funds.

The Summit concentrated on exploring five crucial issues all of which are related. What we were seeking was a global settlement which would encompass all five and decide their relationship to each other and their separate contributions to an overall agreement. The five issues were: (1) a new regime of own resources; (2) budgetary discipline; (3) the settlement of new agricultural guidelines with overall limits of expenditure and the use of stabilisers; (4) the future size and operation of the Structural Funds and (5) the British rebate. All decisions on these points were to form, in the words of the tentative conclusions of the Brussels Council, an indivisible whole.

There was tentative agreement in Copenhagen that a ceiling should be placed on the resources of the Community equivalent to approximately 1.3 per cent of the Community GNP. While I pressed the point that a limit of 1.4 per cent of GNP would be more satisfactory, I believe that the limit now in contemplation, which would give the Community access to about 55 billion ECUs compared with expenditure in 1987 of approximately 41 billion ECUs, is tolerable. I am assured that on all reasonable assumptions the 1992 total would enable the Community to discharge its functions satisfactorily.

These resources would be raised by way of levies and duties as at present, in addition to a rate of VAT of 1.4 per cent in 1988 declining to 1 per cent in 1992. There would also be a fourth resource to be determined on a basis related to Gross National Product less the base on which VAT is levied. This would be the marginal resource and as its weight increased while that of VAT declined, it would help to make the overall financing system more proportional by reference to relative prosperity, as decided in Brussels. The entire question of how the resources of the Community were to be provided, and, in particular, the nature of the fourth resource, was one of the points on which agreement had not been reached when the Copenhagen Council was suspended.

Under existing arrangements, the Community will continue to operate and be financed on the basis of 1/12th of the 1987 expenditure, for each month during which there is not a 1988 budget. Though the failure to reach agreement on the nature of the Community's resources is regrettable it is not fatal to the functioning of the Community, at least in the early months of the coming year. There is to be a meeting of the Budget Council tomorrow with a view to ensuring that there is the least possible disruption to the functioning of the Community arising from the circumstances where no budget for 1988 has been agreed.

On budget discipline, a number of proposals are under discussion. Since expenditure on agriculture absorbs approximately two-thirds of all Community spending, this is an area which would naturally be affected by the discipline proposals. The first of these is that expenditure under the guarantee section of the Common Agricultural Policy should not grow by more than 60 per cent of the growth of Community GNP, in any year. It was proposed that the base from which this expenditure is to be measured would be a figure of 27.5 billion ECUs, in 1988, with provision for costs connected with the depreciation of excess agricultural stocks to be kept outside these guidelines. That is an important point for Deputies to keep in mind when considering the level of resources. What is proposed as the base for agricultural spending will not include sums to be used for the disposal of surplus stocks. They will be put into the budget separately. To help restore some order to Community finances, payments to member states for FEOGA guarantee expenditure would be delayed for two and a half months instead of two months as under the arrangements agreed for 1987. There would be new stabilisers to prevent the too rapid increase of agricultural expenditure, particularly for cereals and oil seeds, with provisions imposing penalties for production over certain thresholds and other provisions encouraging farmers to set aside land which would otherwise have been used for the production of commodities in surplus in the Community. If exceptional circumstances occur, relating, for example, to an unanticipated increase in subsidies for the export of agricultural produce from the Community resulting from, say, a depreciation in the rate of exchange of the dollar, or a breach by other countries of treaty undertakings in relation to the sale of agricultural produce, there would be special provision for exceeding the stipulated limit for agricultural expenditures. There are many details of these and other proposals, with which I do not propose to detain the House here, since the whole subject is still under discussion.

I must emphasise, however, that, as Deputies will be aware, the negotiations have major implications for Irish agriculture. The proposals I have mentioned were designed to put a tight limit on agricultural expenditure and contain production around current levels. At this stage, they are no more than proposals on which we will continue to put forward our views. In the middle of a continuing negotiation I cannot go further in commenting on details: I shall simply say that while we are prepared to accept reasonable limits in the agricultural area we are determined to ensure that the CAP would be maintained as an effective and fully operational policy: and that it must support to a greater extent the concept of the family farm — a point on which I laid considerable stress in Copenhagen.

The arrangements for dealing with production increases were, in the case of most sectors, largely worked out in the Agriculture Council, which had, however, been unable to find a basis for agreement on cereals. The Commission proposed a limit of 155 million tonnes, for full Community guarantee as to price. Other countries wanted a higher limit. Discussion on this topic took up a great part of the time of the Council and, in the end, this was another of the points on which there was failure to reach agreement in the discussions.

The measures to contain production in the other sectors are more or less in line with the majority view of the Agriculture Council. These arrangements do not, of course, involve additional measures in the beef or milk sectors, which account for some 75 per cent of Irish production — although they do involve some reduction in the compensation for suspended milk quotas after 1988-89. They involve a settlement of the deficit problem in the sugar sector in a way which would be very satisfactory from the Irish sugar industry point of view. Again we have our views which we will continue to put forward, not least in regard to compensation in the milk sector.

Against the proposals for the reform of CAP expenditures, but more especially against the background of the proposals for the completion of the internal market by 1992, the proposals for the reform of the Structural Funds, on which about 7 billion ECUs a year is now spent in aiding the peripheral and other regions of the Community and other purposes, assume particular importance.

The Commission, as Deputies will be aware, proposes a doubling of the funds and their use in an integrated way for the attainment of five priority objectives: (1) promoting the development and structural adjustment of the less developed regions; (2) converting the regions, border regions or parts of regions (including employment areas and urban communities) seriously affected by industrial decline; (3) combating long term unemployment; (4) facilitating the integration of young people into the labour force; and (5) with a view to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures and promoting the development of rural areas.

Under the proposals discussed in Copenhagen, the amount of the funds for less developed regions would have been substantially increased. In addition, there were proposals for a rate of recoupment for the less developed regions of up to 75 per cent of total cost, compared with a figure of approximately 50 per cent at present. I would regard these as favourable developments and a very necessary prelude to the completion of the Common Market; but, again, in this area what we are left with are not definite decisions but proposals under discussion.

Under the Copenhagen proposals, the amount of the British rebate would have been adjusted to take account of the favourable impact on the British contribution to Community own resources resulting from the revision in the method of assessment of these contributions. I do not think it necessary to go into detail here into a subject which again is still under discussion — and far from resolved.

The European Council also issued three Declarations on foreign policy issues: the Middle East, Afghanistan and East-West relations, welcoming the INF agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Copies of these statements are in the Dáil Library.

During my time in Copenhagen, I had a separate meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, to discuss current issues in Anglo-Irish relations. As the statement issued following this meeting indicates the Prime Minister welcomed Irish ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism but expressed concern about recent changes in existing extradition procedures between our two countries. I outlined the assurances I have given in this House that it is the intention of the Government to make the new arrangements work satisfactorily and that if any difficulty should arise, the procedures will be further reviewed.

We agreed to maintain and strengthen further the co-operation between our two Governments against terrorism; and we had an exchange of views on the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The meeting was a useful opportunity for an exchange of views between us: it was frank and friendly and provided an opportunity to improve our mutual understanding of the situation. I also had a separate meeting with Prime Minister Chirac, during which we had a friendly and constructive discussion on bilateral matters of mutual interest.

The Copenhagen Council is the second, in succession, at which the Community Heads of State and Government have failed to come to conclusions on the matters before them. It is easy to be saddened at this inability to reach consensus on issues of such importance to the Community and its member states, but I continue to take some comfort from the fact that the Copenhagen meeting was not ended but adjourned to dates in February, when the same issues and possibly others will be further discussed and, I would hope, decided, under the German Presidency.

In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute here to Mr. Delors, President of the Commission and his staff who worked so assiduously to try to bring together the framework of a solution. I would also like to pay tribute to the Danish Presidency, and in particular, to the ingenious and determined efforts of Prime Minister Schluter to bring the Copenhagen Council to a successful and decisive conclusion. The failure of the Council to reach conclusions was not due to any shortcoming of the Presidency but to the intractability of the subject matter and the existence of so many strongly held and contradictory views on the central issues. Prime Minister Schluter and his aides did everything possible to bring success; and I would like, personally, to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of all he did in Copenhagen for those participating in the Council. I should like to assure the Leaders of the parties who will be making statements that I will very carefully listen to their contributions and take them on board because these matters are still under discussion.

Mr. Dukes

The Taoiseach has given us a very quiet presentation of the results of the European Council and I have the feeling, and it is understandable on the Taoiseach's part, that he is down playing this particular non-event because the fact of the matter is that with 11 other Heads of State or Government the Taoiseach has come home with one arm as long as the other on this occasion. It is a wee bit idle of the Taoiseach to say that the "Copenhagen meeting was not ended but adjourned to dates in February", trailing clouds of glory after it. The fact of the matter is that for the second time in six months the European Council has failed to reach conclusions on all the important issues that were at the centre of the debate, not just here but throughout the Community, for the last couple of years in relation to the Single European Act.

On the first occasion, last June, we were told by the official communique issued by the Council that 11 of the 12 member states had agreed on a certain very clear, very comprehensive statement of what they intended to do in terms of the development of new policies and the financing of the Community. We now find that in December there are at least three member states that do not subscribe now to that agreement of 11 June last. Unless the Taoiseach can inform me, and assure me to the contrary, it seems that the Community is going backwards on these issues rather than making progress. That is a matter of extreme concern to us because the Single European Act, the whole complex of policy developments it set out, and the whole set of commitments entered into by the member states in that Act, represents what the member states agreed between them was the best composite of measures, the best global approach to the further development of the Community.

The Taoiseach has mentioned that there was tentative agreement in Copenhagen that a ceiling should be placed on the resources of the Community equivalent to approximately 1.3 per cent of the Community GNP. As the Taoiseach has pointed out that was not what the member states had in mind during the course of the development of the Single European Act. What we were talking about then was a limit of 1.4 per cent of GNP. I wonder what it is that leads the Taoiseach to say:

I am assured that on all reasonable assumptions the 1992 total would enable the Community to discharge its functions satifactorily.

There was a great deal of argument about that at the time the Single European Act was being negotiated. In fact, there were some who felt that on the evidence and forecast available at the time a figure of 1.4 per cent of GNP would barely be enough to allow the Community to do what is set out in the Single European Act, to increase the Community structural funds and to engage in the development of the range of new policies that have been set out there. I do not know what may have changed in the meantime that will lead the Taoiseach, and the other Heads of State or Government, to be assured that 1.3 per cent of Community GNP will now be sufficient to enable the Community to discharge its functions satisfactorily.

It is important that that issue is thoroughly and energetically pursued. There are other aspects to this — I will deal with them in a moment — in relation to the contributions of other member states which affect the total amount available in terms of disposable funding for the Community in any given year. The Taoiseach mentioned the fourth resource, the marginal resource the weight of which would increase as VAT declined. I am not at all sure, and perhaps the Taoiseach over the next few days will give us more information about this, to what extent the nature, the size and the procedure relating to that resource had been defined. In the June Communique that was not made very clear.

I understand that there is no official communique from last weekend's meeting except in relation to those parts of the meeting that had to do with foreign affairs outside the Community. The House should know to what extent the nature and the operation of that fourth resource has been clarified. As the Taoiseach has pointed out on every issue in the course of his remarks, anything that is now on the table is still tentative, is still subject to further discussion. Perhaps there is an area there where that particular element of the Community's resources could be made more definite and could be given a clearer focus than it now seems to have.

The failure to reach agreement also affects the 1988 budget for the Community. It is clear that a budget in the order of 40 billion ECUs is needed for 1988 in order to allow the Community to carry on and to discharge its responsibilities under existing policies. I am afraid that there again the Taoiseach is being a wee bit optimistic in relation to what will prevail until such time as a budget is agreed for 1988. As he has pointed out, under existing arrangements the Community will continue to operate and be financed on the basis of one-twelfth of the 1987 expenditure for each month during which there is not an 1988 budget. The Taoiseach went on to say that the failure to reach agreement on the nature of the Community's resources, by which I take it he meant the budget, was regrettable but not fatal to the functioning of the Community. That is true as far as it goes. It is not fatal in that the Community would be able to keep on functioning but only after a fashion.

The Taoiseach I am sure will know, and I can assure him from personal experience of looking at this from two sides of the budgetary process, once in the Commission and once in Government here, that the provisional twelfth procedure is an extremely irksome procedure and one which makes it very difficult from month to month to be sure that the Community's operations can be properly carried out. They make it very difficult for the Commission to plan expenditure and those difficulties in the Commission inevitably spill over into member states, and particularly member states which are drawing down substantial amounts from any of the current expenditure areas in the Community budget from month to month, as is our case in relation to expenditure on the market intervention system.

As long as there is not agreement on the 1988 budget there will be a double disability for us. First, there will be the inevitable difficulties that come about as a result of the operation of the provisional one-twelfths, and then there will be the other point now in discussion, to which the Taoiseach referred, that is, a proposal that payments to member states from FEOGA guarantees would be delayed for two and a half months instead of two months as has been the case in regard to the arrangements agreed for 1987. That is another factor which will push onto the member states a yet greater proportion of the cost of funding the FEOGA guarantee expenditure. The longer the member states have to wait, the more it costs them and the less the cost is to the Community budget.

For member states like ourselves which rely very heavily from month to month on our drawings on the intervention expenditure in the Community, that will create an additional cost in that we will have additional payments to carry and to finance ourselves.

The Taoiseach

There is an interest provision.

Mr. Dukes

It does not cover the whole amount of the interest by any means and obviously any extension of the delay between obligation and payment creates an extra cost for us.

We have, of course, the very complex discussion going on about the future shape of the Common Agricultural Policy and the future level of funding of that policy. In that regard, I presided over the Council of Ministers in the second half of 1984 when we finally reached agreement on the first expression of budgetary disciplines as it would apply to agriculture. I remember at the time that the Taoiseach and his colleagues were highly critical of that development and regarded it in some way as being a curb on the future contribution of agricultural expenditure in the Community to this country.

We now find before us an even more restrictive proposal where, we are told by the Taoiseach today, it is proposed that the rate of growth of agricultural expenditure would not be allowed to exceed 60 per cent of the rate of growth of total Community expenditure. If total Community expenditure were increasing at 2½ per cent per annum, the maximum rate of growth in agricultural expenditure would be 1.5 per cent. That will create difficulties for us in future. I am glad the Taoiseach indicated a deal of concern in this and I hope his degree of concern becomes sharper between now and next February because this is one of the central issues, both in the short term and in the long term, which must concern us.

The Taoiseach has pointed out — and we must welcome it — that the cost of surplus disposal is now not to be included in the base on which the budgetary discipline provisions are to be funded in relation to agricultural expenditure. That is an important point and I hope that particular part of what is now in discussion will survive to final agreement in this area.

The Taoiseach

It is fairly well agreed.

Mr. Dukes

I am glad to hear it because this is an important matter from our point of view.

The Taoiseach referred to another aspect of the restrictions in relation to agriculture, that is, that the arrangements in relation to the milk sector will involve some reduction in the compensation for suspended milk quotas after 1988-89. That is an area which would be of very considerable concern to us, and would be of most concern to the Irish milk producers who have the smallest quotas. This is another part of a complex of measures which will make it more and more difficult for small milk producers to face the future with any confidence that there is room for them to expand. The detailed measures we take in relation to the operation of the flexibility provisions on milk quotas must be very carefully looked at so that we do not inadvertently reinforce these restrictive measures which tend to work very strongly against the interests of the smaller milk producers.

The doubling of the provision for the structural funds is essential. This is one of the areas of most concern to us in this latest failure of the European Council to reach agreement. The Taoiseach has not mentioned this and perhaps he might be able to clarify it for us. The Taoiseach is speaking as if the matter under discussion were the expansion of the amount which will be available in the structural fund by 1992. I am given to understand that there are suggestions that the date on which any expansion should fully take place should be postponed until 1995. If that is the case we would take the most serious view of it because we will need——

The Taoiseach

I think it has dropped.

Mr. Dukes

I would like to know it has dropped. I am a bit worried that the Taoiseach thinks it has dropped so soon after the meeting. I am very concerned that he makes sure it has been dropped and that 1992 is the date we are talking about, the date by which the structural funds should be doubled in real terms.

The Taoiseach

It has dropped but I cannot guarantee it will not reappear.

Mr. Barry

These things have a habit of reappearing unfortunately.

Mr. Dukes

The Taoiseach knows perfectly well that his present Minister for Finance was the man who came into this House and twice claimed he had killed the milk quotas. This is a many headed monster and it kept coming back. I hope this 1995 date for the increase in the structural funds does not turn out the same way because some of these things, as my colleague Deputy Barry says, have a habit of reappearing. I want the Taoiseach to make sure that the date 1995 stays off the agenda and that the doubling of the structural funds takes place in 1992. It is essential that agreement be reached on that at the earliest possible moment so that we can begin to take the measures needed to ensure that we fully and properly utilise the extra resources which will become available.

In some discussions I have had — and I hope the Taoiseach will not be upset by this — with diplomatic persons from embassies in Dublin over the last week or two, and I must confess I was trying to use undue influence on some of them——

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Was the Deputy wined and dined?

Mr. Dukes

Yes, I was wined and dined and enjoyed it enormously. I was making the point that the importance of this matter tends to be lost on some other member states. I made the point in particular that it was grossly offensive not only to other member states but particularly to us, that there should have been even a suggestion in the weeks coming up to the Council meeting that some member states believed all the extra funds in the structural funds should be reserved for the two newest members of the Community. That I would regard as gross provocation. I hope the Taoiseach can confirm that we can take some comfort in the knowledge that that bit of nonsense is no longer on the table.

I would like to go further and point out to the Taoiseach and his colleagues that the European People's Party group in the European Parliament have made a submission to the Christian Democrat Heads of State and Government in the Community insisting that the present system of spreading the structural funds over a wide area must be abandoned in favour of the system of multi-annual integrated programmes concentrated on the most needy areas. That is the structure for which we must work because it will allow us the greatest level of control and level of selection in picking the projects and the uses of those funds which are most suited to our needs. It is important that we get clear decisions on the timetable for increasing the level of expenditure from the structural funds at an early date so that we can get on with building up proper programmes to use the funds to our greatest advantage.

What is on the table at the moment in relation to the rate of recoupment from the structural funds is a rate of 75 per cent in less developed regions compared with a rate of 50 per cent at present. That is a most welcome proposal and I hope the Taoiseach will use his maximum energies to make sure that that proposal stays there and is part of the final agreement. The problem of the British rebate continues unabated, to coin a phrase. The Taoiseach dealt with this very briefly and the only thing that encourages me from what the Taoiseach said is his comment to the effect that the issue is far from resolved. This is an area where there is a great need for the Taoiseach and indeed some of his colleagues, the heads of other Goverments, to assist the interests of common sense and of the smaller countries in the Community. It is an argument that has been going on for some time and I am sure it will go on for some to come. It really is flying in the face of reality for the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany to continue to argue in the way they do about contributions to the Community budget as if that budget were all that was there in terms of activity in the Community, when the rest of us know perfectly well that the net position of the United Kingdom and Germany in relation to the Community budget is only a very small part of the total benefit they derive from the existence of the Community. That will become more and more the case as the single market is developed in the years up to 1992 and beyond. I hope in discussions on that issue that the Taoiseach gives full rein to the dictates of common sense because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Chancellor of Federal Germany give full rein to a very partial view as far as they are concerned of the relationship between Community contributions and the total benefit from Community membership.

In relation to that part of the business of the Council, between now and February it is essential that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Food get on their bikes and meet and discuss with their colleagues in the other capitals of the Community to make sure that our concerns are fully understood by the other member states and also to make sure that when the Taoiseach arrives at the next European Council meeting he will know the ground he is fighting on. It is a very worthwhile process and, properly carried out, can bring substantial advantages. It stood us in very good stead in the arguments a couple of years ago about the starting size of the milk quota system. It also served us extremely well during the debates on the Single European Act and, therefore, I urge the Taoiseach and his Ministers between now and February to get going in a determined way on that kind of direct personal lobbying and discussions with our counterparts in the other member states.

I note that the Taoiseach has included a very brief paragraph about Anglo-Irish relations which I admit is customary in these statements. I also note that the contents of that brief paragraph and the contents of what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said in her own briefing after the meeting seemed to have been couched in slightly less angular terms than was the case on a previous occasion. I do not know what is behind it and I am sure the House will understand me if I say that I am more than a little sceptical about what lies behind the language. I hope, however — I am a born optimist — that there is some reality behind the apparent improvement in relations between the Taoiseach and the UK Prime Minister on matters connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement generally because it is important that that process is carried through with energy and dedication. The Taoiseach has no need of my advice to know that there is no difficulty whatever involved for the process of Anglo-Irish relations if he is fairly blunt and straightforward with the UK Prime Minister on the other issues that have been dealt with in relation to the European Council because the divergence of interest between the UK and Ireland on those matters is well known, of long standing and will probably remain until the UK finally gets some common sense and comes around to our point of view in relation to those issues. As I said, I hope there is some foundation for the apparent warming up in relations between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher in this connection.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to remind the House that under Standing Order 41 it will not be possible for the Taoiseach to make a reply.

Mr. Dukes

The Taoiseach, being a person of considerable resource, will find other occasions on which to make a reply.

The Taoiseach

I will do that.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Having listened to the Taoiseach's statement here this afternoon one is immediately struck at the difference between it and the kind of statement he would make if he was sitting on this side of the House listening to a report on the unfortunate failure, for the second Council in a row, which the Copenhagen Council has been. It is disturbing to see that the European Community, within months of receiving a new momentum and dynamic with the coming into force of the Single European Act, should now find itself reeling under the weight of a deep and disturbing financial crists. The plain fact is that the European Community is effectively bankrupt. That bankrupcy arises even at the current levels of spending within the Community, let alone any anticipated increases in spending programmes. The accession of Spain and Portugal has fundamentally altered the balances in the Community.

Those two countries alone now account for an increase of 71 per cent in the expenditure on disadvantaged or poorer regions in the Community. They have also changed the north-south plans in terms of the focus of attention in relation to agricultural issues. Not surprisingly, this situation has led to huge pressure on the budget, both in terms of its overall size and in terms of the distribution of spending as between agriculture and other items such as regional and social spending.

For the next two months at least, and depending on the outcome of the emergency Council meeting to be held by the heads of Government in Brussels in February, the European Community will be forced to live from hand to mouth on the basis of spending on a monthly basis not more than one-twelfth of last year's approved expenditure levels in each month. This is totally unsatisfactory when we consider the state of the international economic climate, the climate within the European Community itself and the prospect of falling output and growing unemployment throughout the Community. It places an even greater onus on the Taoiseach and the other heads of Government to ensure that at the very least, the Council in February comes to grips with the financial problems of the Community.

In Copenhagen the Commission, through the Delors Plan brought forward their proposals for offering an essential counter-balance to the completion of the internal market within Europe. One of the key objectives in bringing in the Single European Act was to ensure that by 1992 the market for free movement of goods, services, capital and people, would be fully completed. To balance any negative effects which might arise in poorer regions the Delors Plan suggests the doubling of the Regional and Social Funds in order to produce a greater and more lasting economic and social cohesion within the Community. This is absolutely vital to Ireland's national interest and every diplomatic effort should be made between now and next February to ensure that full effect is given to the Delors Plan. Without it the Community will not only be bankrupt in financial terms, but in social, economic and moral terms, in so far as one of its objectives is to maintain a one-tier rather than a two-tier Community where the strong and the weak would jointly prosper.

If at a Community level considerable effort is invested in trying to increase the Structural Funds such as the Regional and Social Funds then, equally, there should be an effort here on the ground in a nation such as ours, which from the European point of view is defined as a single disadvantaged region. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that over time more and more the flow of funds, especially the Regional Fund, through the Department of Finance has become a substitute for national expenditure. It is important that the availability of significant funding for programmes of economic and social development here, coming through the Community, should be additional to whatever efforts we can make at home. To this end I would urge on the Government the introduction of a proper regional planning capacity which would allow the regions themselves to determine some of their own economic and social priorities and give them, for the first time direct access to Brussels. This is in order to ensure that such funds as do come here are genuinely additional to whatever effort is being provided nationally in development terms.

Although many might not presume to look to them for examples, I would suggest that it is entirely appropriate that Ireland look at one of the new member states and consider the Portuguese experience in terms of the development of regional policy. Although it comes from an economic and social background considerably more disadvantaged than ours, Portugal offers a process to those involved in local authority and regional planning and development, a much more sophisticated capacity to plug into the Brussels network and into the European funds. Thus they can ensure that in the region themselves those responsible for their development are capable of making a genuine input to policy making which most assuredly is not the case in this country.

In addition to the need to develop new systems and structures which would open up the capacity for regions to deal with Brussels, decentralise the level of administration in this country and afford people genuine opportunity to become involved in planning and development of their own areas, it is also important that the Government here would act on a number of other fronts. First, it is selfevident at this stage that the enormous pressure which is being exercised for reform of agricultural spending in the European Community is such that it will not go away. In that context it is important that Irish agriculture be geared up to gain the maximum advantage in the new situation. The ability to rely simply on intervention funds and pricing policy to shore up agricultural incomes, irrespective of the commodities being produced, the quality of the commodities being produced, the time cycle over which it is produced and so on will not do in future.

It is important that developmental policies here in relation to a sector so vital as agriculture be produced in such a way as to maximise our prospects in income earning terms for that sector taking fully into account the kind of conditions likely to be faced within the new environment for the Common Agricultural Policy within Europe. Simply to leave the situation standing still as has been the case to date is not sufficient.

In addition to that, it is sad to relate that although the Single European Act has now come into force and has set a key target for the Community to achieve significant levels of harmonisation, and a Europe free from internal borders by 1992, it has been marked by a virtual total absence of emphasis by leaders here, both political and business leaders. Much remains to be done in this regard. For example, I am aware of the results of a recent survey conducted in France which indicated that in excess of 80 per cent of all French businessmen were aware of the fact that 1992 was a key target date for industrial and commercial activity and had serious implications for themselves and their business if they were to survive and prosper in the future. In Britain recently, a similar survey indicated a level of awareness slightly below 5 per cent in the business community. I am not aware of any such survey being conducted in Ireland but I would be surprised if the level of awareness of the key implications of the 1992 date was a great deal greater than is the case in Britain.

If Ireland wants to play a full role in the Community then it must do so by anticipating changes which are clearly evident for all to see under the Single European Act, and by ensuring that we develop programmes and systems to maximise the advantages to ourselves within those changes. Bearing 1992 in mind, that means that we must be gearing up now in 1987, and into 1988, for the implications of the movement towards a single internal market within the Community. It is not sufficient to wait until 1991, and late in December in that year, to start seeking a whole set of derogations for Ireland, or to start taking legislative steps that arise from it, as was the case with the Single European Act itself in this House last December. We are in a position now to fully anticipate many of the implications and consequences of the movement towards a single market.

The growth and dynamic prospects which the European Community offers to this country which is so heavily dependent on international trade still remain enormous. I would urge on the Government to use all of the political and diplomatic pressure at their command to ensure the success of the emergency council in Brussels next February to ensure that the Community is put on a sound financial footing and to ensure that that financial footing is such as to allow the implementation of the Delors Plan which would double the regional resources. More than that it is vitally important that the level of resources given to the Community institutions be such as to allow the Community to get on with its business between now and 1992 and keep its eye on the firm objectives of the Single European Act.

Year in and year out we witness this sordid wrangling about who should pay what, to whom and when, in a Community which is on the verge of bankruptcy. That has got to stop. In such a context, and assuming that there is a firm financial footing within the Community for a period of several years it might be well worth reviewing the six monthly holding of these Councils or Summits between the heads of state. None of the treaties within Europe provides for the holding of these summits, other than a brief reference in the recent Single European Act. More than that, they give rise to all sorts of uncommonly high expectations about results which are presumed to follow because of the importance of the individuals attending the meetings. These have become more and more a distraction from the fundamental Community business. If the Community can place itself on a firm footing for a number of years, it might be better if we had fewer summits and got on with the job of completing the internal market.

Mr. Barry

They know the other councils can opt out of coming to conclusions by passing them up.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I certainly agree with Deputy Barry's view that that is the case. If every six months the European Council is seen as a fallback it removes the pressure that would enable decisions to be arrived at more readily in the ordinary councils.

I want to refer briefly to the Taoiseach's reference to his meeting, on what is called the margins of this Council, with the British Prime Minister. What he has said here today is not new in the sense that it has already been reported through the media but nonetheless I would like to draw attentian to one or two aspects of what has been said in regard to that meeting. I think, Sir, at the outset there was a sense of relief that the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister was not an unseemly slagging match, which at one point a week or two ago it appeared it might be. Because it did not, we hope, evolve into that we feel relieved. Nonetheless, we have no particular reason to be satisfied with the state of Anglo-Irish relations at present.

Before I deal with that point more generally, I would like to refer to what the Taoiseach said here and what he said in Copenhagen. Apparently it was the intention of the Government to make the new arrangements work satisfactorily and if any difficulties should arise the procedures would be further reviewed. That statement assumes, Sir, that we have in place a new and permanent procedure under the Act that was passed here last week and in the Seanad yesterday and that it would be necessary or appropriate at the end of, let us say, a 12 months period, which I think was the period mentioned by the Taoiseach last week in the House, to review the procedures to see whether any changes should be made. In spite of the constant reassurances in these terms, and I think that commentators generally on this matter overlooked the fact that it will not arise, under the terms of the legislation passed in this House last Thursday evening, the question of a review in 12 months does not come up because the legislation goes out of force in 12 months' time. These assurances that were given publicly in this House and to Mrs. Thatcher at Copenhagen are therefore of no relevance, to say the least of it, because the procedure enacted here last week contains a provision in section 6, I think, whereby it expires of its own terms after 12 months anyway. I think it is fair to say that you cannot review in 12 months something which comes to an end in 12 months anyway because its own terms have put it out of existence.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I has ended.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Precisely, if it has ended it has ended, as Deputy Mac Giolla has said. I do not therefore see what importance, relevance or meaning these assurances of a review in 12 months will have. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that the Bill will expire in 12 months' time in any event and can only be renewed and kept in law if motions are passed beforehand in both Houses, which I get the impression there is no intention of moving. The fact that this has not been referred to, that the Bill is self-repealing at the end of 12 months, may well be due to an unwillingness to draw this fact to the attention of a number of people who might, if they fully understood the implications, be very dissatisfied indeed with this happening. We are told that apparently an assurance was given last March to Deputy Blaney that an earlier Extradition Act would be, to quote the words he quoted "allowed to wither away". Happily that has not happened to the earlier Act but it is itself part of the legislation in regard to the later Act which is self-withering and will have disappeared in 12 months in any event.

The meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister was the second, I think, since the Taoiseach assumed office in March of this year. But each of those meetings was brief and took place in the overall context of a European Council. It is quite some time since the Taoiseach had a meeting with the British Prime Minister specifically on the point of Anglo-Irish relations. I think that is regrettable, as these brief meetings which tend to produce short uninformative communiqués of clichés about the atmosphere are not much use and are not a substitute for real working meetings where the whole question of Anglo-Irish relations, which is of paramount importance to us, would be fully thrashed out. I referred to Anglo-Irish relations in the debate last week on the Extradition Bill as did Deputy Harney and it was noticeable that the Minister for Justice reacted very strongly and extremely defensively to the observations we made and in considering why he did so——

The Taoiseach

The Deputy is talking about a European Council meeting, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. D. O'Malley

That reaction, Sir, is perhaps on a par with the reaction of the Minister for Justice last week. I did not in this debate introduce the question of Anglo-Irish relations or the question of a meeting with the British Prime Minister. That was done by the Taoiseach himself and I felt free as did Deputy Dukes before me to comment on that fact but——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Malley please indicate it is a very short reference.

Mr. Molloy

Oh no.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An bhfuil rud éigin ag cur isteach ar an Teachta Molloy?

Mr. Molloy

Tá mé ceart go leor.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that Deputy O'Malley will appreciate that the particular reference is contained in one short paragraph, and while the Chair appreciates that being there, that similar latitude will be given to Deputies entitled to make statements, the Chair would hope that we do not want a debate on this particular matter when such provisions are not in Standing Order 41.

Mr. D. O'Malley

For the record, my count makes it two paragraphs, but I take your point. I simply say in conclusion, noting the sensitivities there are in this matter and the way they have been conveyed, it seems over recent months that Anglo-Irish relations are being conducted in what I would call a normal bilateral way with ambassadors. Anglo-Irish relations should not be conducted in a normal bilateral way between the Taoiseach and the British Ambassador. We have the privilege and the good fortune to have a particular machinery under the Hillsborough Agreement of November 1985 whereby difficulties that arise from day to day in the course of Anglo-Irish relations may be sorted out. We, in the Republic, have the privilege of having a say in certain aspects of things that happen or do not happen in Northern Ireland and I ask the question, and note the sensitivities it gives rise to, are we utilising that machinery at the moment?

Are we using the very fortunate position we are in or are we allowing our relationship with Britain to revert to the pre-Hillsborough system of carrying it on between ambassadors or between Ministers and ambassadors as is the case in our bilateral arrangements with any other country? If we are doing that — and all the evidence seems to suggest that we are — then we are doing a very foolish thing because we are allowing to run into disuse one of the most valuable pieces of progress this country has made since independence in terms of Anglo-Irish relations. I would greatly deplore the failure to use that agreement to the fullest possible extent. I would be extremely sorry to see these 15-minute or half-hour meetings on the margin of the European Council being substituted for the very valuable procedure which exists for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of the British, in Maryfield in Belfast.

Mr. Desmond

I should like to divide my comments between the two aspects which have been developed in the responses to the Taoiseach's statement, namely, the internal discussions of the Council itself and the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and Prime Minister Chirac.

We can thank the Taoiseach for ensuring that in the course of these difficult meetings no hostages were given by us in relation to the fundamental issue of the 1988 budget, the preservation of our ongoing policy in relation to the CAP and the pressure we are continuing to exert that the social and regional funds should be substantially enlarged. There is a common policy shared by almost all parties in this House that the thrust of Ireland's accession to the Single European Act should be adhered to and that we should continue even more strenuously to ensure that the commitment to greater economic and social cohesion within the community should be pressed forward. Therefore, it is a matter of very serious disappointment that the budget for 1988 will have to stagger along in great difficulty. There will be an over-run of about five million ECUs from February onwards out of a total expenditure this year of about 41 million ECUs. That is totally unsatisfactory and it has considerable implications for the forecasting of the Irish budget and the general receipts and expenditures in our own Exchequer. It is a matter of the utmost disappointment.

We must remember some of the statements made in the first half of this year by our European partners regarding our failure in that period to endorse the Single European Act and the pressure they brought on us to have the ratification completed by way of referendum as a matter of the utmost urgency. It is disappointing that in the latter part of this year they are beginning to sit back and allow German and French considerations in particular to dominate overall decisions once again.

The Social Fund and the Regional Fund are of crucial importance to this country, being worth the best part of £200 million per year. Without the income to the Exchequer from those two funds our ongoing budget arrangements would be in dire difficulty. I was particularly impressed by the proposal that there should be a 75 per cent recoupment in future. One of the ironic benefits is that it would stop the perennial arguments in the Department of Finance in relation to Exchequer contributions matching regional and social fund contributions. We have absorbed the revenue successfully and competently but we have always been very reluctant to have a matching Exchequer contribution and there have been circular arguments internally in the Department of Finance. To that extent I share some of the criticism made by Deputy O'Malley.

I do not share his criticism relating to the Irish capacity to avail of and use those funds. We all have considerable experience of the extent to which the Greek Government, for example, continue to fail to avail of the Social Fund and the Regional Fund and I am not at all convinced from my knowledge of the embryonic administrative structures of the Spanish and Portuguese accession that they are even one-fifth as competent as we are in availing of the social and regional funds. Ireland has benefited in very large measure from those funds and I am very disappointed that there is no enlargement of the funds on a very committed basis. It is a matter of great concern.

There has been a diminution in the health area, in which we availed of substantial benefits from the European funds, and a diminution of expenditure in the education area from which we milked a good deal of Social Fund moneys in the past two or three years. Many a third level student has gained substantially as a result. There has also been a diminution of our Exchequer contribution from own resources in the environment area which was supplemented substantially by the Regional Fund contributions. I stress very adamantly that any reduction in these two vital funds would have a very immediate and substantial impact on the future of our own Exchequer contributions. I hope that in February there will be this commitment, giving us some added increment into 1992 and onwards. This would be a very considerable benefit.

I equally stress that my party are becoming very worried that the major members of the Community will press ahead with substantial measures for the completion of the internal market by 1992 without the parallel development of those funds. Unless these developments go in tandem there could be tremendous repercussions and implications for employment here and the overall budget situation. For example, there would be a very serious impact on our VAT structure. Unless there is parallel development of the Social and Regional Funds with the integration of the market by 1992, we will suffer greatly in our economic prospects.

This is an aspect which could be in some respects catastrophic for us in the years ahead unless a very careful and very emphatic Irish governmental policing of these developments is kept in train. To that extent there is some merit in suggesting that we should have a White Paper from the Government because it is quite a long time since we have had a White Paper on this matter. We had various documents arising out of the Single European Act but it might well be desirable that the Government put together a White Paper which would find considerable support in this House as there is virtually all party unanimity on national policy on such matters. This would be of great benefit to the country and also to those of us who have contacts with our counterparts, for example, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and also at European Council level. We could present a national coherent joint European approach from the Government in relation to the internal market, to our policy on CAP — which is undergoing continuing development — to the structural funds and particularly in relation to taxation policy, for example, the changes in VAT. These are of major impact and it would be particularly beneficial if, coming up to the next Council meeting, we had a Government White Paper to assist us in that regard. There is a need for a restatement and for a clear emphatic pronouncement from the Government as we enter the further difficult discussions in 1988 in relation to such policy matters. These are the main points I want to make in relation to the internal discussions of the Council meeting.

Regarding the side meeting which is now customary between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister one can only say that one is pleased it went off all right — if I may use such mundane terms. My party are pleased that the Anglo-Irish Agreement effectively has been reaffirmed and consolidated to the extent acknowledged by the British Government. Admittedly, the British Prime Minister was very circumspect in her observations. I understand she said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement continues. I cannot imagine any more minimalist statement but I think we know the thrust of her intent in that regard. In that framework it was understandable that she should make a comment of that nature. She herself has been utterly bemused at times by the true reaction of the Taoiseach and has been quite uncertain concerning the real reaction of the Taoiseach in regard to such matters.

I trust that the meeting with the British Prime Minister has clarified the position in relation to extradition. The House last week was in a state of utter bemusement as to what exactly was the Government's policy. We have now managed to decipher all the signals. I could not blame the British Prime Minister in having great difficulty in trying to assess and put into a framework what it was exactly the Irish Government were trying to achieve. I appreciate the appalling difficulty the Taoiseach had with his own backbenchers on this matter but he appears to have successfully — and I congratulate him in this regard — sidelined all the recalcitrant, more obdurate and more Nean-derthaloid of those Members of his backbench who have a profound misunderstanding of the process of Anglo-Irish relations and indeed a more profound misunderstanding of the process of Irish extradition. Therefore, the clarification has come as a matter of great benefit to our country and to our relations with the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that these relations can go ahead.

In that regard I was pleased to see that the Minister for Health met, in the past day or so, his Northern Ireland counterpart, Richard Needham, for discussions on matters of mutual and direct interest in the health area. I presume that was done — as was the case when I had such meetings, with the holder of that office — under the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I presume that that equally happened at the meeting which took place in Barretstown Castle in the past few days. I urge that that process be continued because it would be, above all else, profoundly educational and beneficial to the Government party. It would strengthen their resolve to change their policy, as they have changed, very considerably in relation to Anglo-Irish relations and would lead to the elimination of the endemic distrust which has, unfortunately, infected a good deal of these relations. We are, to borrow the phrase used by Deputy O'Malley, relieved that the meeting went all right.

I note from the Taoiseach's comment that a separate meeting was held with Prime Minister Chirac. That intrigued me even more. I presume it was not just a discussion on whether a legion of honour should be given to Stephen Roche for Christmas.

The Taoiseach

It was not.

Mr. Desmond

I presume it extended beyond that. I imagine that the French Prime Minister gave some interesting information in relation to the Eksund affair. In that regard I should like to say to the Taoiseach that I still find myself in a position of absolute bemusement at the fact that he has not yet commented in any way on such matters, particularly our relations with Libya. I have no doubt whatever that the British Prime Minister raised the matter with him. As she has referred to the matter in public presumably she referred to it in private. When one recalls that the leader of that particular country has made it absolutely clear that he is providing arms to the IRA for a double barrel purpose — (a) for their activities in Northern Ireland and (b) to eliminate physically from this earth the British Prime Minister, I have no doubt that she is aware of that — I would regard it extraordinary if she did nor raise the matter. If the Taoiseach did not raise with Prime Minister Chirac the matter of the framework of our diplomatic relations with Libya — relations that should cease — the three line comment made today needs some further elaborate reading but I will leave it at that.

I do not want to delay the Taoiseach any further in relation to his report to this House except to say that it is highly unsatisfactory that under Standing Order 41 — this is a point which might be raised with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — the Taoiseach of the day should be subjected to, in the proper parliamentary sense, so many questions and so many observations without being given the opportunity to respond. This has been a long-burning issue in this House. I have always held the view that when a statement is made by the Taoiseach he should have an opportunity to respond to the major issues raised. He is getting a multiple response from the four separate political parties in Opposition. He should have an opportunity to respond briefly to the major issues raised because frequently such statements, including today's, raise more questions than are contained within the statement. That is inevitable. That procedure should be changed.

Mr. Barry

Also the rule under which one member of a party only can contribute should be changed as well.

Mr. Desmond

Yes, it should be changed.

Mr. Barry

Other people have things to say as well.

Mr. Desmond

It should be changed in the best interests of having a constructive exchange of views in this House.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I shall be very brief. The first thing to be said about the Summit, and probably the only thing that can be said about it, is that it was a flop. No amount of talk or suggestions of any progress having been made, or of many problems having been dealt with, can avoid that fact. It was so much a failure that the Heads of Government had to set up another meeting for February, four months ahead of the next scheduled meeting.

Despite the assurances given during the course of the debate on the Single European Act not many months ago that the doubling of the Regional and Social Funds was a virtual certainty, we are still no closer to agreement on that issue than we were 12 months ago. The Taoiseach in his remarks today repeated that the Commissioners are all for doubling of the funds — of course the Government are all for doubling of the funds — but the fact is we have not got it. We are as far away from that objective as ever.

During the course of the referendum campaign on the Single European Act. The Workers' Party urged that the doubling of these funds should be a pre-condition to Ireland's ratification of the Act. Supporters of the Act on both sides of the House told the public, in all their propaganda in the course of that campaign, that this was a needless safeguard. Now we can see that the size of the Regional and Social Funds is regarded as a matter of trading and bargaining between the more prosperous powers in the EC. The warning we issued during the campaign on the Single European Act, in the light of the flop of the Summit in Copenhagen, can be seen to have been sound political sense. It will be found, in the intervening years of 1992, that the ratification of the Single European Act, without any pre-conditions or derogations, simply to show that we are good Europeans will have hung like an albatross round our necks and will have caused us increasing trouble in areas such as tax harmonisation and so on as the years progress.

The Workers' Party regard the European Regional and Social Funds as potentially the most important instruments in our economic development. Right from the time of our entry to the EC they were one of the major factors which we saw as not something which had been finalised but rather was advocated as most important for those outside of farming. Unfortunately successive Governments, Coalition and Fianna Fáil, who have been in power since 1972, failed to make the most effective use of the funds this country obtained. In addition, the money allocated by the Community to the funds has never been adequate to meet the demands on them although, as has been said before, Ireland has received a higher than average positive response to applications for funding especially from the Social Fund.

The Regional Development Fund could be of major economic benefit to Ireland because funds emanating from it can be put into productive areas of our economy, such as food processing, technology and the others outlined by the Taoiseach. One of the reasons for the failure to use the benefits of that fund effectively has been the need for Irish investment of approximately 45 per cent. A reduction in this investment to a level of 25 per cent, if it does occur, will be of great importance. Of the Regional Development Fund money allocated to Ireland from 1975 to 1984, over 70 per cent was expended on infrastructural development, such as roads, rail and communications, most important infrastructural developments in themselves. But, while infrastructural spending created some jobs, both directly and indirectly, as a policy it has failed simply because, in trying to create an environment suitable for investment, Governments relied on private enterprise to complete the process. Capitalism has failed to invest and so negated the whole infrastructural spending policy.

With the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal to the Community, all countries with similar levels of development and problems to ours, it was clear that existing levels of spending on the Social and Regional Funds would need to be very substantially increased, doubled at least. This has not happened and increasingly the Community is showing the strain. Ireland must now vigorously oppose the predictable monetarist approach to this problem advocated by Mrs. Thatcher, that of seeking cuts in other areas before agreeing to any increased social and regional funding. We must seek the co-operation of our natural allies in the EC, expecially Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, to join with us to procure substantial increases in social and regional funding. Implementation of the single internal market by 1992 must be conditional on progress being made on the Regional and Social Funds. Between now and February next I hope the Government will be engaging in much hard footslogging around Europe to gain support for our position.

In relation to the communiqué issued after this latest Summit we welcome the positive attitude shown to the agreement on the elimination of short and intermediate-range nuclear weapons from Europe. As the communiqué describes it, it is indeed a milestone and could create the conditions and climate for further steps towards full nuclear disarmament. The policy of this country should be a nuclear-free Europe and, by Europe, we mean not just the EC but Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. We hope that, without compromising our neutral position, the Government will pursue this objective within the EC. The attitude of the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, who apparently believes that nuclear weapons are necessary to preserve peace, is perverse. I believe she does not speak for the majority of people of Europe in this matter if, indeed, she speaks even for the majority of the people of Great Britain.

In relation to the Taoiseach's meeting with Mrs. Thatcher, I hope that both Governments will co-operate fully, not alone to defeat terrorism, but to work for peace and political progress in Northern Ireland. Without political progress, especially towards devolved government and protection of civil liberties under a Bill of Rights, the climate for the elimination of terrorism will not exist. The establishment of devolved government was one of the objectives agreed by the two Governments when they signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement two years ago. I do not know whether this matter was raised at the meeting between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher. I was very shocked and disappointed to learn that the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, recently told a delegation from The Workers' Party who met him in Belfast, that the Dublin Government had not once, since the Agreement was signed, raised the matter of devolved government. I asked a question about that this afternoon and it was not denied by the Minister.

Mr. Barry

It was, and I denied it also.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It was not denied by the Minister. It would seem that the Anglo-Irish Agreement now serves no purpose other than to act as a back-up for John Hume and the SDLP.

Mr. Blaney

On the matter of the Taoiseach's visit to Copenhagen, might I just——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy. As the matter of statements of the kind we have heard from the Taoiseach is governed by Standing Order 41, I cannot hear the Deputy. Participation in such a debate is confined to parties in the House.

Mr. Blaney

At the discretion of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot call the Deputy. I must conform to the relevant Standing Order and the precedents of the House. I have no discretion in the matter.

Mr. Blaney

Might I just draw your attention to the fact that I am an elected Member of this House, that I am denied the right to speak and put views which are radically different from those of most of the speakers who have spoken so far, that I have no voice on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, over which you preside, and through which normally complaints of this kind can be investigated? It is scandalous that that sort of thing obtains.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Blaney, some Members have adverted to the need or desire to have the Committee on Procedure and Privileges look into this whole matter of Standing Order 41. That is a matter for the House. The Ceann Comhairle will faithfully carry out any changes that are made. I can only tell the Deputy now that, to be regarded as a party for the purpose of Standing Order 41, a party must have at least two members in this House. My predecessors have consistently ruled to this effect. I have no option or discretion in the matter.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 8 Dec 1987

Copenhagen European Council Meeting: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1987