Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1978

Visits to Brussels and Luxembourg.

Chairman

Since our last meeting we sent two delegates to Brussels on the invitation of the Commission. I led the first delegation and, perhaps, I should say a few words about that. Senator Mulcahy who led the second delegation will speak of the second visit. The general view is that they were worth while. The first delegation travelled out on 19 March and returned on Tuesday, 21 March.

On the morning of Monday, 20 March we began by meeting officials of the Irish Permanent Representation, led by Ambassador Dillon. We welcomed this opportunity of meeting the people who look after our interests in Brussels and we discussed the following items: steel—with particular reference to the position of Irish Steel Holdings, Haulbowline; State aids; fisheries; agri-monetary measures; youth employment and agricultural matters generally and specifically the position regarding milk, beef and sheepmeat—topics which were on the agenda for later discussions with the Commission officials during the visit. The discussions were particularly valuable in that they provided Members with useful background information and briefing on the up-to-date position. We were all impressed by the full and frank replies we received to the many questions we asked. We, indeed, put some of the officials to the test but it was always obvious that any question that was asked that might have a political flavour about it was replied to in the usual civil service way with the object of protecting whatever Minister might be concerned subsequently. Otherwise, we got the fullest possible co-operation.

We had discussions with officials of the Commission later in the morning, with Mr. John Jordan on State aids and with Mr. Fernand Braun on steel. We were then treated to an excellent luncheon which, in the unavoidable absence of Commissioner Burke due to illness, was hosted by Mr. John Hogan, his Chef-de-Cabinet. In the afternoon we had discussions with Mr. Eamonn Gallagher on fisheries, with Mr. George Wedell on youth employment and with Mr. Graham Meadows on agri-monetary questions. Members were, for obvious reasons, very interested in what Mr. Gallagher had to say about likely developments affecting the future of the fishing industry here. The discussions on youth employment and agri-monetary measures were, of course, especially helpful in view of the fact that these matters had been under consideration by our sub-committees and there are draft reports on each on our agenda today. That night, Ambassador Dillon very kindly provided a reception in our honour. This function also afforded Members the opportunity of having informal discussions on a wide range of subjects with Members of the Irish Permanent Representation in Brussels and with officials of the Commission.

Next day, we had discussions with Mr. Tom Dwyer on milk and Dr. John Scully on structural reform, farm modernisation, disadvantaged areas, aid for producer groups and the farmers' retirement scheme. These were followed by talks with Mr. Dooley on beef and sheepmeat and Mr. Driesprong on the proposed common market organisation for potatoes with a concluding session with Mr. Alan Dukes on the agricultural position generally.

I believe that our delegation were fully satisfied that all the Commission officials we met made an admirable effort to deal with the many searching questions we asked. I should like to pay a well-deserved tribute to them and also to the officials of the permanent representation who spoke to us. The Members who were there will, I am sure, agree that everybody was most helpful and forthcoming. I have just given a broad outline of the people we met and an indication of what was discussed.

There was one matter that I think was of particular interest to the delegation. We were alerted to one thing that I think could be very important for the country, that is the proposals for a directive on the provision of public facilities. This is being put forward as part of a plan for the Mediterranean area. The Commission has proposed the adoption of a Council Regulation to provide Community assistance in certain rural areas of France and Italy for (a) the provision of electricity and portable water supplies to villages dependent on agriculture and isolated farmsteads and (b) the construction and improvement of farm roads and local roads used mainly for agriculture and forestry. Any substantial public, semi-public or private investment project for the provision of such facilities would qualify for aid if it contributes to a lasting improvement in facilities, is economically sound and co-ordinated with other measures for encouraging agriculture and for improving facilities. Of the total cost of each project the beneficiary must contribute at least 10 per cent and the member state at least 20 per cent while the maximum subsidy available from EAGGF would be 50 per cent.

This is a scheme we felt would be extremely valuable to this country and it was hard to understand why it was being confined to Italy and certain parts of France. I think the feeling among the Members of the delegation was that there was a large area in this country at least as disadvantaged as the Mediterranean areas. We felt that we should recommend to the Minister for Agriculture that, when this comes up for discussion, the proposals should only be agreed to if Ireland is included or at least the disadvantaged areas of the country are included. I hope that he will accept what we have to say in our report as representing the views of everybody around the table because there did not seem to be any disagreement about this. It could be an extremely beneficial scheme in the west of Ireland particularly and I hope that it is pursued.

That more or less covers what the first delegation did. It was generally felt that it was a satisfactory and worth-while visit and it gave new Members particularly an insight into the way the European machine and its various parts work. I will now ask Senator Mulcahy to deal with the visit of the second delegation.

Senator Mulcahy

I take it as read that we had the same fáilte from the people we met in relation to lunches and so on, and I will not go over that again. We got the same excellent treatment as the first delegation and I will concentrate on some of the issues that were dealt with. We visited both Brussels and Luxembourg from 9 to 12 April. At the outset we visited our Permanent Representation in Brussels and were received by His Excellency Mr. Brendan Dillon and his colleagues. We had a wide ranging discussion on the issues that were of interest to us. Needless to say, while we were there, we got the views of various people who had been close to the Copenhagen Summit. The main topic from our point of view, of course, was Economic and Monetary Union which the Sub-Committee on Economic, Commercial and Financial Affairs is currently examining. His Excellency and colleagues entered into some discussions with us on that matter.

As I mentioned, the Sub-Committee on Economic, Commercial and Financial Affairs is currently examining Commission documents on economic and monetary union with particular emphasis at this stage on the monetary aspects, specifically the idea of a parallel currency as an instrument in achieving monetary union. Consequently our general discussions on economic and monetary union with Mr. Paul van den Bendt of the Commission were extremely stimulating in that he articulated the philosophy underlying President Jenkins' Florence speech which initiated the present debate on economic and monetary union. He enumerated the advantages of monetary union and referred to the Commission's enthusiasm in exploring further the advantages of a parallel currency.

We discussed also the " All Saints Day Manifesto " for European Monetary Union to which our own Professor David O'Mahony, University College, Cork, was one of the nine contributors. This manifesto, which was published in 1975, recommends that EEC central banks should issue a Europa currency which would be a European money of constant purchasing power. It would be purchasable by nationals of EEC countries with their national money at a variable exchange rate. In this connection I might mention that the noted international monetary expert, Professor Roland Vaubel of Kiel University, will deliver a lecture in Cork on Friday next entitled " Parallel Currency approach to European Monetary Unification ".

This concept of whether economic measures should precede monetary measures or whether monetary measures should precede economic measures in achieving economic and monetary union was a focal point of our discussion and, of course, we all have varying views on it but it certainly concentrated the mind. Mr. van den Bendt pointed out that there are many ways of introducing a parallel currency and we explored some of those with him.

Subsequent discussions with Commission officials raised in greater detail specific aspects of Economic and Monetary Union namely Regional Policy, Harmonisation of Taxation and Energy Policy. For these discussions we are particularly indebted to Mr. R. Solima, Mr. Brendan McNamara. Mr. Donal Kerr and Mr. Leonard Williams all of the Commission. These discussions brought into sharp focus the implications of economic and monetary union and the practical steps which must be taken to enable the Community to evolve dynamically in that direction.

The remaining discussion was with Mr. Jerry Sheehan on consumer protection. This was a wide-ranging discussion which encompassed the preliminary programme of the EEC for a consumer protection and information policy, the main elements of which are concerned with the consumer's right to protection of health and safety, the right to protection of economic interests, the right of redress, the right to information and education and the right of representation. He put that in a mnemonic he called " hirer ". These rights will be given greater substance by action under specific Community policies and they fall within the context of a policy for improving the conditions of life in the Community. Some of our reports will reflect that.

In the unavoidable absence of Commissioner Burke we were entertained to luncheon by Mr. John Hogan, his Chef-de-Cabinet. This was in parallel with what was mentioned by the Chairman. On Tuesday, our delegation had the advantage of being able to travel to Luxembourg where a brief visit was made to the Parliament. An official welcome was extended by President Colombo to the delegation in the course of the Wednesday morning session of Parliament. I have a diary of that day sent to me by Senator Ruairí Brugha and I see we are referred to as the watchdog committee from Ireland. Whether acting as a watchdog is our function is another matter, but it is in print in the official diary of the day.

We were fortunate to be present to hear the report on the Copenhagen Summit by Mr. K. B. Andersen, the President-in-office of the Council and to hear President Jenkins emphasise in his review and reply to President Andersen that the major success of the Summit was in its working out of a strategy to deal with the economic situation. He went on to say that in his view greater exchange rate stability should be sought between the currencies of the member states. These were matters which we had discussed the previous day with Mr. van den Bendt. Also, we found that people were very much focused on the Bremen Summit in July. Therefore, the whole question of EMU was dominant. I should mention here that the delegation in Brussels were addressed by Mr. Roger Beethan, who is spokesman for President Jenkins. It seems he heard that we had an interest in this matter and he outlined President Jenkins' thinking for us. We are most grateful for that courtesy.

President Colombo, because of his commitments in Parliament, and particularly because terrorism and aspects of it were being discussed, was unfortunately unable to receive us personally. The delegation, however, had the opportunity of discussing the functioning of the Parliament with the Secretary General, Mr. Hans Nord. Lunch, which followed, was hosted on behalf of President Colombo by Senator Michael Yeats. The lunch was attended by members of the European Parliament including some of our own delegates.

One or two impressions in terms of data that came out of our meeting which cannot be attributed directly to the people concerned, were the pre-occupation with the July Summit and with the full Summit which is to take place after that when the larger countries of the world come together to discuss economic policies. Another issue was that of enlargement. A direct question was put to one or two people as to how long it would be before enlargement takes place. We were informed that in the case of Greece it would take a year-and-a-half and that it would be about three years in the case of Portugal and Spain together. A figure of 1,000 European units of account was mentioned as the cost of enlargement. Another item of interest was that there seemed to be a shift in the German view in that they appear now willing to accept the necessity to take action towards ensuring a 4½ per cent growth rate in economies, which this country would welcome in relation to its own policies.

In conclusion, I would just like to say how worth while the visit to Brussels and Luxembourg was. Certainly, we, as parliamentarians, were enabled to grasp at a practical level the role of the Commission as both the guardian of the Treaties and as the initiator of policy for the Community. Now that the dates for the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament have been decided, we can look forward to the transformation of the Parliament into a democratically elected institution ready to play its part in the evolution of the political life of the Community. I would like to thank the members of the delegation who co-operated with me in every way.

Deputy O. J. Flanagan

Could I add, arising from the very accurate report of the visit given by Senator Mulcahy, that one of the highlights of the visit was the discussions that took place with Mr. Leonard Williams in Brussels who answered questions on energy policy on the morning of our departure for Luxembourg. He dealt very clearly and thoroughly with energy matters, including oil supplies and resources, nuclear energy, solar energy, and power from wind and water. The visit was very worth while if it was for no other reason than to hear the explanations of the Community's energy policy and the comprehensive manner in which Mr. Williams went into the matter. It was extremely valuable and useful to us as Members of this committee. I join with Senator Mulcahy in expressing our deepest appreciation for the very high standard of courtesy extended to us and for the great welcome we received.

Deputy Quinn

Could I make a number of comments arising out of the chairman's report and Senator Mulcahy's report. First of all, undoubtedly both visits were worth while, and I would like to think they can be arranged on a regular basis. Secondly, after being there for the first time officially, I think we could derive a greater benefit from them if we all had—I am speaking now for myself—a clearer understanding of the intricate way in which the entire Community functions. Perhaps it is in order to suggest at this stage that we talk to the Commission's office here to see if they could facilitate us in explaining it. My experience in this committee so far is that we have not, to my satisfaction, got down to the stage of examining in detail the decision-making procedures within the Community at large. It would be a useful exercise.

With regard to the visit, in drafting any kind of response to any proposals for legislation that come from Brussels, and drafting it in such a way that we protect the sectional interests we represent as politicians, we need access to a lot of people in Brussels, not only to officials of the Irish Permanent Representation or of the Commission in their capacity as servants. I would like to think that we would have access to lobby groups that are also in Brussels and who are there for specific purposes. I am speaking specifically of people like the farmers' organisation based in Brussels, the Irish Business Bureau or any other group that has a particular interest and has gone to the trouble of going to Brussels or making representations. They would have a particular insight into it and are not inhibited about making political comments in a way that the chairman referred to the reticence of some people in regard to political questions. I would like to think that this committee would be open to receiving these people in whatever format could be devised by the secretariat.

Finally, if we are to brief ourselves properly about what is going on in Brussels, we will have to have some idea of what kind of resources are available to the committee to enable it to contemplate going to Brussels at different times or, alternatively, inviting people over to talk to us. I suggest that some kind of response to that is required at this stage because my understanding is that we went out at the invitation of the Commission but that there is no commitment that this should be done on a regular basis.

Chairman

Perhaps I could give a partial reply to the points raised. An impression I got about the usefulness of our visit was that I thought we had too many items on the agenda for a full discussion of each of them. I thought we also had too many Members in the delegation. I sensed a slight dissatisfaction among the membership about the leadership of the delegation during the first day and, on the morning of the second day, I offered the leadership to anybody prepared to take it, but nobody did. Maybe they were having a bit of fun at my expense.

Deputy Smith

By that time our efforts of the previous night had had some success.

Chairman

There is a good deal in what has been said by Deputy Quinn. The Commission and the officials in Brussels are prepared to meet a small delegation at any time. They are prepared to come here, if necessary, on any measure from Brussels. That is one thing they made quite clear. We have no budget as such but we could find out to what extent we can do this type of visiting. I do think we will have to do it in smaller numbers and on particular questions.

Deputy Quinn

We are given to understand these days that money is no object so I am sure it will be forthcoming.

Chairman

That may be so, but there is a limit. I have a fair idea of procedures because I have lived with them for quite a while, but for Members who have not had that opportunity it might be easy enough to put on paper the normal procedures proposals go through before they eventually reach acceptance or rejection in the Community. I am sure we can arrange to have that material circulated to Members.

Deputy Woods

I should like to join in thanking those who organised the trip. It was well worth while. I am in agreement with all that is being said here about the visit. I found two points particularly interesting. One was in relation to youth employment. In this regard I must congratulate the Secretariat because when we were in Brussels we got details of some new Commission proposals which are being considered at this stage. They are referred to in our draft report for this meeting. That was done very efficiently by the Secretariat. I will not go into the proposals themselves because they are commented on in the draft report.

I agree with Deputy Flanagan on the usefulness of the discussion on energy. This was very enlightening. Mr. Williams was obviously very experienced in this area and he has a wide knowledge of it. He worked apparently in London in a much bigger energy department. He made it clear that when he went to work in Brussels he was surprised that his department was considerably smaller in staff than his department in England. That tends to highlight the fact that the EEC did not address themselves as a Community to the energy problem at the time the problem occurred but, on the other hand, it is heartening to find now that they are doing so. It was interesting to hear Mr. Williams' observations. He said that the Commission regard our high energy growth prediction as a reasonable one, given our circumstances and our low base in economic development. He also viewed with considerable concern the general world situation on energy and pointed out that in his view world demand for oil will overtake world supply in the 1985-1995 period. Consequently they see this as a major problem at this stage. They see the American demand as something which will have to be looked at very seriously.

Two points he made are interesting from my point of view. One was that they plan to set up a demonstration project fund which could be of value to us. They plan to set aside 150 million units of account spread over a few years and they hope for a decision on this fund by 30th May next. They hope to have available from this fund grants of the order of 40 to 49 per cent for member states who participate in this demonstration project fund. This would give opportunities for the development of wind and solar systems and the sort of thing which a number of people are expressing interest in currently. The other point he raised was that they are also trying to get support in the EEC for an energy conservation fund. It is hoped to have a similar arrangement for member states in relation to energy conservation. Those two points are important. In relation to energy conservation I was very disappointed that the EEC did not take some action in relation to measures like this earlier but I was pleased to find that they are now taking some positive steps. A great deal more was said about the energy situation but those two points were important.

Senator Mulcahy

In mentioning that there is one fact I should like to refer to. Even if we accelerated the developments in wind, solar and tidal energy we still would not be able to produce more than 5 per cent of our energy requirements by the year 2000, even at the most optimistic estimates. It is important to remember that only about 1 per cent of the EEC budget is devoted to the energy aspect and that is a big problem that we should discuss some time.

Deputy O. J. Flanagan

Having heard the phrase " unit of account " used in Brussels and Luxembourg so frequently, I should like to know what the monetary value of a " unit of account " is in pounds as far as we are concerned?

Chairman

It used to be related to the gold value of an American dollar when it was first devised.

Deputy O. J. Flanagan

Has it fallen in value since?

Senator Mulcahy

It is now related to a basket of currencies which are examined periodically. The latest value of the European unit of account is published regularly and at the moment it is £0.67.

Chairman

There is a special unit of account for agricultural purposes.

Senator Mulcahy

It is described very well in Deputy Noonan's report.

Deputy Quinn

On the points about contacting or having access to the various lobby groups, has that been agreed? Are the Committee open to that suggestion?

Chairman

It occurred to me when the Deputy was raising that point that when one talks about the lobby groups from here that go to Brussels or have representation in Brussels one must remember that we have access to those groups here. That is the sort of group we bring before us when we are examining various proposals.

Deputy Quinn

That is true. Two specific organisations of national importance have gone to the trouble of basing permanent representatives in Brussels. Therefore it seems a matter of common sense, if we go on visits to Brussels, to include them at some stage in our discussions. They know far more about developments than their Irish headquarters.

Chairman

We should be getting feedback from them through the organisations they represent. It could be quite useful.

Deputy Quinn

On the question of a budget for the Committee, have the Committee made any decision about trying to get clarification from the Minister for Finance as to whether we can anticipate any kind of fund allocation, or is it a completely open-ended vague situation?

Chairman

We will certainly look into that and we will report back on it. That is all we can do in relation to that.