Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 May 1982

Vol. 98 No. 1

International Common Fund for Commodities Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

There are a number of points I wish to raise in regard to the Schedule. I do not know if it is appropriate for section 2 and the Schedule to be discussed together, or whether I should discuss them when we come to the Schedule?

Acting Chairman

If the House agrees.

It is agreed to discuss them together.

As I mentioned, the Schedule is very long. It is 44 pages in all and what I propose to do is to raise the points I want to make chapter by chapter. Perhaps when I raise the points on one chapter the Minister will respond and other Senators may wish to contribute so that we do not get a confused discussion. If we look to the Schedule, which is given legislative effect by section II, Chapter I is largely concerned with definitions and raises no difficulties. When we come to Chapter II we are dealing with objectives and functions. I have a real difficulty here that I did mention in the course of my Second Stage speech — as to whether all seven objectives adopted at UNCTAD-IV are properly included. In Resolution 93, of UNCTAD-IV, we have spelled out in considerable detail seven specific objectives. While these objectives are agreed in article II one finds afterwards in the actual implementation that there seems to be emphasis only on the first few objectives. Can we take it that the instrument is adequate to carry out all seven objectives in Resolution 93 of UNCTAD-IV?

Clare): The wording of chapter 2 (a) is to serve as a key instrument in attaining the agreed objectives of the integrated programme for commodities. This will be the first instrument used with a view to achieving what the Senator expressed should be achieved under UNCTAD-IV.

It is not an exhaustive instrument?

(Clare): It is not a final instrument. There will be a further instrument.

This relieves me in one sense and leaves me still anxious in another. It relieves me in the sense that this instrument is not intended to be an exhaustive instrument because if that were intended then I would disagree. I do not think it can fully carry out the objectives of UNCTAD-IV. My remaining worry is that if it has taken us six years to get this instrument, it will be another six before we have the second instrument. Or is the organising committee, which I understand is to meet later this month, to discuss the further implementation as well as this first instrument?

(Clare): It is very difficult to say it will not take more or less time because of the way that these international agreements are discussed. It is difficult to say how long it will take, but hopefully not too long.

We will hope for the best. There are some points to be raised on Chapter III but I think they can be raised under section 3 of the Bill and I will leave them over. Chapter IV deals with the relationship of the various international commodity boards to the fund. I would like the Minister to give some more information about what is proposed in regard to the pre-existing boards. The Minister did indicate that, for example, under the International Sugar Agreement they may not wish to refer to the fund, but what happens if they want to refer to the fund? Does the present sugar organisation have to become an ICB under Chapter IV or can there be dealings without this having to happen?

(Clare): There will be a bilateral agreement between that body and the fund.

We will have the position that some of the pre-existing bodies — the Minister mentioned a number of them — can have relations with the fund and that ICBs will only be set up where there is no body already in existence, which can achieve the objective of the fund. Is this the position?

Mr. Barrett

That is correct. The type of agreement is known as a model association agreement.

I suppose we should welcome the acronym of the ICB. We got used to ICBMs as being something which was destructive. Then people talked about CBMs, confidence building measures, which tended to be good things. It is nice that we now have ICB which is also a good thing. I express the wish that we would be all better off if there were far less ICBMs, far more CBMs and far more ICBs.

On Chapter V of the Schedule we run into some difficulties. I want to refer here to Schedule A to the Schedule. Schedule A appears on page 38 of the Bill. I note from Schedule A to the Schedule that while we have adhered to this agreement, which is the very least we could do, we have adhered at the lowest level. Senator Murphy might be gratified that we place ourselves firmly in the neo-colonial area, that our contribution will be the same as that of the Solomon Islands, the same as that of Nepal and Mali, and democratic Kampuchea and such countries as Botswana and Albania. While I am not urging any additional expenditure, I would express the hope that once this operation is going, we would find it possible in this country to get up off the floor of the absolutely minimum subscription.

I have a couple of queries regarding Chapter VI which deals with operations. Is the Minister satisfied that merely by having a governor as a member that we will be able to satisfy ourselves in regard to the level of administrative expenses and the efficiency of the operation of this international body? Various international bodies, whether they are UN agencies or not, vary very greatly in their efficiency. Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann are being asked to vote moneys here and may be asked to vote more money later. What information will we have back on which we could make some sort of judgment about the efficiency of operation?

(Clare): That was the best we could achieve at that time. It should be remembered that some of our EEC partners will also be represented.

There is a point that perhaps is not directly relevant here but it is still relevant on the Schedule. Are there any indications that the EEC will become a member, as it would be entitled to do, apart from the membership of the individual Ten?

(Clare): As I said, it is the intention that they would become a community, as against individual members.

On Chapter VII of the Schedule, which is concerned with organisation, there are a few points. This is a Bill for the establishing of funds and so has properly been introduced by the Minister for Finance, who appoints the governor to the board on our behalf. I would like to ask what steps will be taken to ensure that the points of view of Government Departments, other than the Department of Finance, will be taken into account in any representations the governor makes? I note that there is room also for an alternate and I wonder if in view of the fact that while this Bill is concerned with the fund and the fund is concerned with the question of development, which is the concern of the Department of Foreign Affairs, whether in fact while one would accept that the governor would be from the Department of Finance, whether the alternate who would accompany that governor would come from the Department of Foreign Affairs or some Department, other than the Department of Finance.

(Clare): They will be Government decisions and there will be the usual input from all interested Departments. This is the usual practice. There are other Departments involved besides the Department of Finance — Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, which would have a definite involvment, or maybe Trade and Commerce.

My anxiety arises from the fact that the Minister gives me the answer that there will be the usual consultation. Having been in Government, that is what worries me.

(Clare): These four Departments will have a special interest anyway.

Before we conclude on section 2, Senators should be aware that the Chair considers the debate on the Schedule to have been concluded as it was agreed to discuss the Schedule with section 2.

I am concerned with article 21 and also Schedule D to the Schedule. In attempting to find out from this Bill about voting strengths, it would appear that the voting strengths are — for example, the developed countries will have a voting strength of 42 per cent — I am trying to find out how that is related to their subscribed capital. I have seen two different figures. One figure I found in some material indicates that the developing countries will get a 42 per cent voting strength and subscribe 68 per cent. Another source gives me 51 per cent for the voting strength. Has the Minister any information in his brief about the way in which the amount of subscription under the First Account is divided between the four usual groups: the developed western countries, the eastern bloc, the group of 77 and China and others?

(Clare): I regret I do not have any information as to how they arrived at this decision, but we will certainly write to the Senator on that matter.

I would be glad to have these figures. I suppose one could calculate it if one had an adding machine ——

I take it that the governing council will be a fairly large body but it is not too clear what form the election of the executive council will take. Does the Minister envisage a system of rotations so that at some stage the Irish Governor will have an opportunity of serving on the executive of the council, or will it be controlled completely by the various power blocs in the world?

(Clare): As far as we are concerned, we would hope to join with a group of countries in an effort to get representation. This sometimes happens in the United Nations and other big international bodies.

Informal coalitions?

(Clare): Exactly.

Chapter X of the Schedule deals with status, privileges and immunities. I am worried that we do have immunities here, immunities of the fund with regard to certain elements and also immunity of certain individuals to taxation. The agreement states that the immunity for the individuals will be the same immunity that people of similar rank have in similar funds. We have here buried away in a Schedule to a Bill an immunity for individuals and even when we come to Chapter X, if we have the stamina to get that far, we just find reference to similar immunities in regard to similar funds. Has the Minister any idea how many other funds are involved, and how many people have immunity from taxation under funds similar to this one we are approving of today?

(Clare): I understand it has always been a customary and conventional agreement, but I do not have details of the particular agreements.

I am not disputing the arrangement; I am worrying about the extent of the problem. I notice in Westminster this was a subject of a separate order, which at least ensured that if someone was interested in this he would find it in an index. One would never find immunity in any indexing or abstracting of this Bill. It is slightly worrying that privileges are being given here in a way that if somebody wanted to look up the statutory authority for it, he would find it extremely difficult to locate it.

(Clare): As I said this procedure is customary but it is not an ideal situation.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

I understood the Minister to say that it is now likely that this agreement will not come into force until 31 December 1983. This means it will not come into operation until 1984. We will therefore have an eight year lapse from the time of the agreement. I think this is most unfortunate and I suggest to the Minister that we should urge our EEC colleagues to move on this. I was aware that the UK had already moved. I had been under the impression that Denmark had moved, but from what the Minister has said this may not be so. I think that having ratified this agreement, even if we did not do it before 31 March last as we should have done, we should now do everything we can to see that there is no further delay.

(Clare): The two EEC countries which have ratified are the UK and Denmark, and now once the Bill has passed for signature we will be a third member and we will certainly play our part with regard to it.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share