Can the Minister state why it is necessary for a blank undertaking to be written into the legislation and why a small Bill relating to any undertaking which would be given in respect of 1985 should not be brought in at the appropriate time, just like this is being brought in in respect of the items covered in paragraph 8?
European Communities (Supplementary Funding) Bill, 1984, [ Certified Money Bill ]: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
I am of the opinion that it would strengthen our hand to be in a position to negotiate on the spot. On the number of occasions that I was in Brussels at negotiations of one type or another I certainly believe that it would have been an impediment to us as negotiators not to have been able to do so. I believe the Minister for Finance referred to this in the Dáil as well. There are two sides to the argument, of course, but the brief of the elected representatives, the negotiators, no matter what Government they represent, will be to do everything humanly possible to bring back the best possible deal. I would say to Senator O'Leary that that is a two-edged sword. It could work for us but it could certainly work against us. My view of it is that we would be creating a straitjacket arrangement for our negotiators and I am not sure that it would be in Ireland's best interest if we were to do that.
In replying to the Second Stage debate unusually for him, the Minister, and I am not saying he was discourteous to this House, did not deal with some of the points which were made and which are normally replied to. We do not feel we should give carte blanche to any expenditure without having been properly briefed on the impact of these decisions. Leaving that aside, it is unbelievable that a Government would give prior knowledge to the Commission that they were agreeable to accept for 1985 terms which are before the House at the moment. How could it be a helpful factor in future negotiations for them to know exactly what your position is? We have been putting on pressure for years for an increase in our resources which has been held back mainly by the British. If we are to have a longer term system and not be coming regularly to the Dáil and Seanad with these matters and if we are going to let the Commission and the Council of Ministers representing other countries know in advance that we are in agreement again with this ad hoc arrangement, would the Minister explain to the Seanad how that could assist in negotiations?
In reply to Senator Smith, I want to make it very clear that the Government are absolutely opposed to the ad hoc arrangements and I have said so on many occasions. We work progressively and at every opportunity that we can find, particularly now that we have the Presidency of the EC, to ensure that we have a more permanent financing arrangement. I want to put it on the record of the House that that is the factual position. In so far as what Senator Smith and Senator O'Leary are speaking about those are the actual tactics as such that are adopted vis-à-vis the negotiating strategy. I would have to say, as all Members of this House are fully aware, that there are huge conflicting issues within the EC. For obvious reasons it is very much in our interest that we get a particular system adopted by the EC and we will know exactly what we have to pay and that everybody else plays the game as the rules were laid down. That is our position. That is where we want to go. The problem is that because of the various pressures there are, particularly on the agricultural budget, because of a shortfall, if this ad hoc arrangement was not arrived at the position would become extremely serious, particularly for Irish farmers. We have enough problems. The negotiators did an excellent job in the circumstances to arrive at this position. Because of the contribution that we will be making to the EC it would certainly safeguard our interest.
I must repeat, in case I might be misquoted or misrepresented in what I have said, that of course we want a particular strategy in the future that will ensure that we will not have to have this type of ad hoc arrangement. We want to do that in 1985 in every way we can. We will put our full resources behind that particular objective. I am being as frank as I can be on this, from the information that I have. We will do everything we can in 1985 to arrive at this set of circumstances but it is quite possible that another year will pass. It is important to the Community and it is important to Ireland that we have a set of circumstances whereby this type of thing need not happen in the future.
I accept what the Minister is saying, that he, or the Department, or even this House does not accept and ad hoc arrangement but realising that we are beneficiaries it is imperative that we set about, even in an ad hoc way, to try to rectify the imbalance that has been created in the Community's budgeting arrangements. I will deal specifically with Senator O'Leary's point on the section. In normal circumstances I would consider it to be improper to give anybody a blank cheque in negotiating for us but if we look at the three-year plan, Building on Reality, there is no way that a blank cheque is available to any negotiator in this country to use in Europe or elsewhere, simply because the money is not available. I would put it to the Minister that in our particular situation we have over the past ten years of our membership been beneficiaries, so that for every pound we put in, even on a blank cheque basis, we are likely to get £4 or £5 in return for it. It is easy to negotiate on the basis that we are beneficiaries whereas if it was a deficit situation it would be different. The main contributors to the Community, Germany, France and Britain, have that problem. They maintain the structures of Europe not for any love of us but for the political unity of Europe. That is the only reason why they pick up the tabs and pay the bills, to try to maintain a political unity as a power bloc in Europe. I will have more to say on that when I am contributing to the other motions we are discussing. In this kind of negotiating situation a blank cheque is an advantage on the basis that for every pound we put up we are net beneficiaries and that should not weaken our case in any way. I would accept the point that Senator O'Leary is making as a legislator. Possibly it is the wrong way to legislate in normal terms but in the circumstances in Europe where we in fact go with our cap in our hand, it is possibly the best way for us to negotiate.
I must say I failed to make the connections the Minister was making between the benefits which were accruing to this country in respect of the solution of the budgetary problem of the EC and the point that I was making. Of course, we accept that the solution to the problems of the EC is to the long-term and short-term benefit of the country. The major portion of my Second Stage speech was taken up with hammering home that point. I have no objection whatsoever to the permission which the Government is seeking to reimburse the £6.2 million which is our contribution. That does not answer the point that I am making.
The point I am making is that we are now giving public notice that our negotiators have a blank cheque. Senator Ferris may say that that is all right because we are going to get back four times as much as we give in anyway. But that might not always be the case. If, for example, during the course of next year, instead of being asked to pay 0.86 per cent we are asked to pay 1 per cent that change would not require any further consideration by the Dáil or Seanad. If, instead of giving the United Kingdom a refund of 66 per cent of its contribution it was decided to give a refund of 100 per cent of its contribution, that would also not trigger off a situation where the further approval of the Dáil or Seanad would be required. I am not objecting to our making the present arrangement in respect of the agreement that is now being made. I congratulated the Government on making that arrangement. Also, I am not suggesting that the same thing would not happen again and I would not offer the same congratulations next year. But what I am saying is that we are going further than that and we are legislating in such a way that we are taking from the Oireachtas the power to control the expenditure of money. That is primarily a matter for the other House and I do not understand why the other House allowed this Bill through. I think it is unbelievable that they should agree to this variation of the power of scrutiny which is theirs, not ours.
With regard to the argument which the Minister makes that our negotiating position will be strengthened, I think that is a Civil Service argument. That argument could be made about anything. Was our negotiating position weakened by reason of the fact that this Bill was not on the Statute Book in respect of the negotiations which have now been completed? I do not think our negotiating position was affected by the fact that the Bill was not there because nobody expected the Bill to be there. We can rest assured that the other Governments and the British Government are not going to introduce legislation giving such powers without reference to their Houses of Parliament. It could have been included in one Bill but there could have been a subsidiary clause that any future undertaking would be the matter of a motion in the Dáil and Seanad, or at least would be the matter of a ministerial order which would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and would come into operation unless there was an adverse motion passed. There are many ways of doing this, but still maintaining a degree of supervision in Dáil Éireann. I am not happy but I have nothing further to say.
I agree with the Minister on one thing he says in relation to the EC. The whole process of how own resources is developed is intricate and complex. I cannot accept Senator Ferris's rather weak-kneed contribution. We have consistently tried in this country, since we joined the European Community, to be as community-conscious as possible. We have taken many considerations into account in trying to be as European as possible. But what exactly has been happening? At the same time as we have been interpreting gross benefit to this country by the terms of our accession to the European Community there have been many disadvantages.
We are now supporting a Bill which is necessary because the British have succeeded in getting a refund which was not part of the earlier negotiations. At the same time, the surpluses in agricultural production which create the stress on the European budget are partly caused by agreements which the British have maintained with colonial interests and they are not prepared to change that situation. We have also suffered in this country in relation to the comparison with many other European farmers in milk production. We asked that we be allowed to increase at least to the European average and we are not allowed to do that. We argued against cereal substitutes being used in the Community and what do we find? We find tonnes of gluten coming in from Thailand and called Third World imports. The owners of these companies come from Germany, Holland and Denmark, people with real interests in the Community, but have these interests as well and are complicating and making this system more intricate and more complex and more difficult to manage.
The benefits to this country can be exaggerated and I do not understand why we should have all the time to give in. We have had many changes in industrial areas. We have massive food imports coming in here. I do not think we should at all times stand aside and agree to terms cap in hand. It looks as if agreements which have been reached in terms of having a different discipline in relation to agricultural expenditure for the future by the Council of Ministers are going to further threaten and diminish the flow of funds from the Community to Ireland because of our overall dependence on the necessity to further develop, expand, process and market our agricultural production. It is difficult to see why we should be so confessional in our approach. We do not wish to push this matter to a vote but the Minister should take into account the reservations that we have about letting the Commission and the Council of Ministers know in advance what our terms are.
I certainly take note of the twist that this debate has taken. It has been a very informative one. Like most other stories there are two sides to it. I take note of the reservations but I still maintain that because of the track record we have vis-à-vis our European partners we have done quite well under the old system in the sense that our negotiators were not tied or straitjacketed. Perhaps there will be occasions in the future when it would suit us to do things the other way round. When that occasion comes, we will be talking about a different ball game. As of now I believe we would be tying the hands of our negotiators because of the special position that we have there. All I can say to the House at this stage is that the points that have been raised are uppermost in our minds. The next year or two will be critical from the point of view of all the Governments involved, but particularly from ours. There is an old saying, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. The people who pay more in than they get out have in the last two or three years become increasingly uneasy. I have to accept that some of them have more or less changed the ground rules. It is true to say that because of the size and the muscle that countries have inside that club it is very important for small nations like ours to ensure that the rules are kept. In the next year or two I hope that the roles will be more clearly defined and that once we get over this ad hoc business we will know exactly where we stand. Because of the importance to Ireland of this measure it is very important that it gets a clear run through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.