I would like to say just a few things on this Bill which, as the Minister said, is a technical Bill to deal with the question of additional payment to the European Communities. First of all, the Bill must be put in the context of the recurring crisis in the funding of the Community which has been a feature of the Community over the last few years. This crisis has arisen because of two problems. First and foremost, the expansion of the expenditure of the Community, particularly in the agricultural area but not exclusively in that area, has meant that the 1 per cent VAT base used for the raising of a substantial portion of the Community funds has proved to be inadequate. That has been a problem. The second problem has been the desire of some member states to change the rules which applied to them at the time they entered the Community. It is important that we should examine very briefly both of those problems in seeing whether we should agree with Dáil Éireann in giving extra money to the Government, in concurring with Dáil Éireann that extra money should be provided by Dáil Éireann to the Government for the purpose of discharging their voluntary obligations under European Community legislation.
It would be the desire of most Irish people that the expenditure of the Community would increase and increase moderately. It is also the desire that spending in the agricultural sector should be kept at a realistic level, not allowed to go completely overboard, but kept at a realistic level so that the many benefits to be derived from that policy are in fact derived from the policy, but at the same time, that it does not become so burdensome on the Community at large that there is a revolt from the non-agricultural producing members of the Community which has the effect of upsetting the normal growth pattern of agricultural income. In addition, it is also true that the other expenditures of the Community in regional and social areas have expanded and we are in favour of that expansion. It is inevitable, I suppose, that the bringing together of those two expansions should mean that the Community would, during the year 1984, find itself inadequately financed.
It is right to say that there are a number of ways of tackling that problem and this is only one possible way. The most obvious way was the way it was originally suggested, that the VAT rate which would be applicable and payable to the Community should be raised from its present ceiling of 1 per cent to a higher percentage, and that the Community should in that way finance the deficit. Some members of the Community felt — and I think we should go along with them — that careful scrutiny of the expenditure of the Community was wise before making that decision. But other members of the Community in addition to that felt — this is something which I do not think we could or should share — that the rules which apply to those members should be changed so as to limit the contributions which they were making or about to make to the Community.
In this regard the attitude of the British Government towards the funding of the Community must be specifically referred to. Their attitude has been unhelpful and has not reflected any commitment by that country to the Community itself. The battle cry was joined by the present British Prime Minister who said that all that they were looking for was their own money back. It was not their own money; it was the Community's money because they joined on the clear understanding that there would be a certain system of calculation of the contribution of each country. That system has not changed. Therefore, all they were being asked to pay was their lawful club membership fee. We may find that it is fairly typical of that country that once it gets a foot in the door it seeks to change the rules. We will have an opportunity, I understand in the consideration of the wider motions on the European Community which are at present before us to consider this matter in greater detail, but I would like to say that the prospects of giving a rebate to the United Kingdom of 66 per cent of its deficit does not fill me with any great enthusiasm. Therefore, I approach this problem and this Bill in the following frame of mind: I congratulate the Government on negotiating a deal which in the narrow interest of Ireland is excellent indeed. We have done an excellent job. This is all part of our milk super-levy deal. With all its problems it is a superb deal and something which reflects great credit on the Government in general, and on the Taoiseach in particular.
Unfortunately, I must add to that the view that in the consideration of this budgetary problem the whole concept of the European Community as a community has taken a hammering. The idea has gone forward and has been propagated by the United Kingdom Government in particular that each country should get back from the Community a sum of money approximately equal to what it puts in. If that is the basis of the Community we may as well not be in the Community at all because there will be no convergence of living standards throughout the Community if it is only a system of circulating funds within the Community, if we as one of the poorest countries on the periphery of Europe contribute a certain amount of money every year and get back in return exactly the same amount of money. That is the basic philosophy which is behind the United Kingdom approach towards budgetary matters. I am afraid that by accepting that the Community at large has departed in a most fundamental way from the concept of the Community as a community.
In the narrow Irish self-interest our Government have, undoubtedly, done the right thing and I enthusiastically support their decision to which we are about to give effect. But I think the Community itself as a community has started on the slippery road of no longer being a community but being a system of circulating their own money back to their own members under various policy guises. That is a very dangerous thing and does not encourage us to proceed further towards the unification of Europe. That is a matter I will develop in the broader motions which will be before the House later on today and, I am sure, will be carried on the next time we meet.
With regard to the Bill itself there is one matter I would like to raise on Committee Stage with the Minister. It is not a very technical matter; there is nothing very dramatic about it. There are two operative parts of this Bill section 2 (a) and (b). I have no objection to section 2 (a) at all. I am just telling the Minister in advance so he can get advice on this matter. Section 2 (a) proposes to implement the undertaking that has already been given by the Government to give some £6.8 million to the Community in this year by way of additional voluntary Irish contribution. However, I do not like the drafting of the next subsection, which gives the Government carte blanche to agree to any sum of money whatsoever in respect of 1985 without further reference to the Dáil or Seanad.
I am not suggesting that this Government or any Government which might conceivably replace it during 1985 would abuse that position. But I think it weakens their negotiating position for a law to be already on the Statute Book which enables them to pay out any sum of money they choose. I do not think that is a good thing for democracy, nor is it a good thing for their negotiating position. One of the strongest cards the other members of the Community have played in the budgetary negotiations is the card played by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when from time to time she said: "I do not think I can get that through the House of Commons". Therefore, she was able to say that she needed further concessions. It would be no harm for our Government to be able to say at some time in the future: "I do not know whether I can get that through the Dáil and Seanad". What we are proposing to do is to say, "Whatever you agree, lads, that is all right". Privately I might say that is all right but I do not want to have it on the Statute Book that it is all right. I know it is there because a man with a tidy mind in the Department of Finance said, "We will not only solve the problem for 1984 but for 1985 also". If I know those gentlemen in the Department of Finance — whom I cannot criticise and I am not criticising — if it was necessary to include such undertakings up to 1997 they would be in the Bill as well, because administratively it would be very convenient for them to do that.
Why should we allow any Government to make any commitment whatsoever without further reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas? It makes no sense whatsoever. That is what we are doing in section 2 (b). It is not that I think that this Government or any Government that would replace them between this and the end of 1985 would make any foolish agreement, but it is the principle of the matter. It is that it is bad legislation. In spite of what people might think, we are here to change bad legislation; we are not here as rubber stamps. For that reason the Minister should reconsider the matter. He should give further consideration to the question of whether paragraph 2 (b) is necessary. If a situation arises during 1985 in which the Minister feels it is necessary to come before this House for approval of an agreement which has been entered into by the Government, no doubt he will get the same ready response from this House and the other House as he is getting today. For all those reasons and in order to strengthen the negotiation position of our Ministers I do not think we should put this carte blanche on the Statute Book. It is important that we maintain the control by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the money which is being spent on our behalf. It is a matter primarily for the Dáil in respect of the expenditure of money but we have a right, even if it is a minor right, to be heard in matters of public expenditure. It is important that this point should be seriously considered by the Minister in the consideration of this Bill.
