With your permission, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I would like to make a statement.
Since the Paris Summit of December, 1974, it has been the practice of the heads of Government of the member countries of the European Communities to meet three times a year. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure the development and overall cohesion of the activities of the Communities and of the work of political co-operation which is carried on separately from the ordinary business of the Communities under the Treaties.
I need not say that the meetings which have been held have been varied in their effectiveness. Some have been highly successful—like that in Dublin in March, 1975, dealing with the British renegotiation of the terms of entry to the Communities. Others have not been notable for substantive conclusions. However, I think it would be a mistake, simply on this account, to underrate the significance of these meetings—between the heads of the Government of some of the most powerful nations in the world, working towards the common goal of European Union, in accordance with understandings and procedures laid down in the founding and accession Treaties.
Irrespective of views on the nature and purpose of these meetings, I think that the Council meeting held in Brussels on 12th and 13th July was notable for its effectiveness and brevity. In a meeting time of little more than a working day it reached decisions or orientations for decisions of great importance to this country and for the future of Europe. It was one of the more satisfactory Councils, so far as we are concerned, both in its tone and conclusions.
The first decision of importance related to direct elections to the European Parliament. Obviously many countries have a direct and vital interest in this. The allocation of seats to the different countries of the Community was the subject of a number of different proposals by the Parliament itself, by the Irish Government, the British, the French and the Luxembourg Presidency. The accord reached yesterday gives this country 3.66 per cent of the total of number of seats—the same approximately as in the original Parliament proposals. But this is not the main point. The benefit lies in the fact that instead of ten members, as at present, or 13 under the Parliament's proposals, we will now have 15—and, because of the increase, we will be better able to serve on various committees and in the work of the Parliament itself. The numbers allocated to other countries are 81 each for France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, 25 for the Netherlands, 24 for Belgium, 16 for Denmark and six for Luxembourg.
The Government will be considering in the next few months the question of constituencies, methods of elections and other technical issues. It seems likely that the first elections will be held in May or June, 1978, as I originally proposed at the Paris summit in December, 1974.
There was considerable discussion at the Council of the situation in Northern Ireland. We urged the case for a minimum of three seats for the area. The British proposal, involving 78 seats for each of the four larger countries, which provided the main basis of discussion at the meeting, was amended to increase this figure to 81, substantially to enable that Government to allocate a third seat to Northern Ireland. This makes it possible to make arrangements for the Northern minority to be represented in the European Parliament, together with representatives of the majority, according to their respective voting strengths.
Fisheries was the second item of major importance to Ireland. There are two principles underlying our approach. The first is the need for conservation. The future of the industry is being undermined by gross overfishing off our shores, which is rapidly destroying fish stocks. This depletion is not confined to stocks such as herring which we have known for some years were declining. As I mentioned at the European Council last week, information emerged at a meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in Portugal to the effect that in the past two years one non-member country—the Soviet Union—took over 500,000 tons of mackerel in the waters around Ireland, Scotland and southern England, the so-called western area. Because of this the Commission's scientists consider that not more than 250,000 tons or so should be taken by all countries in this area in 1977 in the interests of the conservation of the stock.
Effective conservation measures are now extremely urgent. The quota system administered by the North-East Atlantic Commission has not, regrettably, proved effective in conserving stocks in the North Atlantic area. I am disturbed at the fact that at last week's meeting of the Commission agreement was not reached on national quotas in a number of very important North Atlantic fisheries in 1977. The issue is further complicated by the stated intention of some States, including America and Canada, to declare an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles shortly. This action would mean that countries which have traditionally fished in those waters would soon move to other areas, including the areas around the countries of the Community.
The second principle underlying our approach concerns the place and potential of fishing in our economy. Fishing provides a bigger share of GNP and employment in Ireland than in other Community countries, with one exception. It is, moreover, especially important to the poorest and least developed parts of Ireland, and thus has a special significance from a regional policy viewpoint. I made these points at the heads of Government meeting.
Senators will note that the Council issued a statement indicating their determination to protect the legitimate interests of Community fishermen. To this end, the meeting decided to invite the Council of Ministers, at its meeting on 20th July, 1976, to give consideration to a declaration of intent on the extension of fishing limits of the Community to 200 miles.
The question of coastal bands and their extent within the 200-mile exclusive zone will obviously be the subject of further discussion within the Community. I made clear this country's vital concern with a coastal band of up to 50 miles around our coasts.
Terrorism is a difficult subject for obvious technical, legal and political reasons. The Council declared that recent events have again shown that no country, no people and no government can expect to be spared from acts of terrorism, kidnapping and hijacking unless all countries agree to effective counter-measures. The Council asked the Ministers for Justice of the Nine to draw up a Convention on which the Nine will commit themselves to extraditing or prosecuting terrorists and will invite other countries to join in it. I do not wish to go into further detail except to say that I regard the outcome of the meeting on this point as highly satisfactory. In particular, we gained recognition by the nine heads of Government of the principal of trial in the country where a terrorist is caught— as under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act—as an alternative to extradition.
There was general agreement on the appointment of Mr. Roy Jenkins to succeed Mr. Ortoli as President of the Commission. His appointment will come into effect on 1st January, 1977, but the fact that he is designated now as Mr. Ortoli's successor will enable him to have a say in the appointment of his fellow-Commissioners. This will obviously make for a better Commission and is fully in accord with the proposals I made in my memorandum to the Council before the Rome Summit last December, and the similar proposals of Mr. Tindemans in January last, that member governments should first agree by common accord on a President-designate. I understand that Mr. Jenkins will be visiting the capitals of the Nine to discuss relevant matters.
There was a full discussion on the economic situation in the Community and the world. The constructive results of the recent tripartite conference between governments, employers and unions were generally welcomed. Several speakers emphasised that governments alone could not control the economic situation—they must have co-operation with employers and trade unions in decision-making. Stress was laid on better co-operation between the social partners. I supported this analysis and welcomed the start of a consensus at European level with unions and employers as helpful to similar situations on a national level.
The Dutch Presidency has made certain proposals designed to strengthen the internal economic and financial coherence of the Communities and has suggested that the medium-term economic programme of the Communities should be made to play a role in a periodic review of national programmes. The proposals also referred to economic guidelines for member countries and to exchange rate developments. I emphasised the need to ensure that any guidelines should take full account of the real problems, particularly those of a structural nature, which impede progress towards a more cohesive Common Market. I said that otherwise we would find that we are setting ourselves impossible objectives. With other heads of Government I supported the suggestion for a full discussion of the matter, particularly the Dutch proposals, in the Council of Finance Ministers. This, despite certain Press reports to the contrary. was the extent of the discussion and the scope of the decisions on the economic issues before the Council.
As Senators are aware, a conference of seven countries took place recently in Puerto Rico and discussed matters, some of which were within the competence of the Community—without a Community presence as such. There was agreement at the European Council that in future there should be consultation before any similar conference especially on how Community interests will be defended there and, where Community competences are involved, that Community procedures and obligations would be respected.
At a meeting of officials about the same time as the European Council, which discussed the opening of negotiations for Greek membership, we secured an understanding for which we had been pressing for some months past, that the resources of the Community would be expanded in an appropriate manner to take account of the admission of Greece. We regard this as a very important precedent for any future expansion of the Community.
I regard the outcome of the European Council as a success for Europe and indeed for this country. We achieved the go-ahead for direct elections at the time we proposed, 15 seats for this State, and an additional seat for Northern Ireland; the decision to move towards the establishment of a 200-mile exclusive Community fishing zone; the recognition for the first time in a European forum of the principle of trial in the country where a terrorist is caught, as an alternative to extradition: agreement on the new President of the Commission and acceptance of his role in relation to the choice of other members; constructive discussions on the economic situation; a decision with respect to any future Puerto Rico-type Conferences; and the understanding that the resources of the Community will be expanded appropriately in relation to Greek membership.
In accordance with practice, I shall arrange to have laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course copies of formal declarations or statements made at the meeting.
