Vol. 255 No. 9
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the formula for calculating the contributions by new member States to the financing of the EEC during the transitional period referred to in paragraph 7 of a statement published by his Department on 15th June, 1971, under the title of The Financing of the Communities.
7.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, having regard to a published table of figures in relation to Great Britain (details supplied), he will give a comparable table relating to this country's contribution to the Budget of the EEC and this country's receipts from the Community.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together. The matters raised by the Deputy will be dealt with in the report on the progress of the negotiations which I shall circulate to members of the Oireachtas next week. In the meantime, I would refer the Deputy to the reply of the Minister for Finance on 6th July to the debate in the Dáil on membership of the EEC.
Is the Minister telling me that he will include the table I have asked for in his report next week?
I hope to answer the Deputy's requirements in that report.
Would it not have been a better idea to supply them now or is it that he has not got them now? It is usual to answer a question that has been asked in the House, as the Minister knows.
I have another question asking for a statement which covers what would normally be about five or six specific Parliamentary questions. It is very long and as we did agree among the Whips that I would circulate these but if there are specific points arising out of these which Deputies want answered I will certainly answer them next week.
The Minister is aware that in normal times the Dáil would be adjourning next week and it would not be possible to get information if the Minister does not give it.
I do not think the Dáil will be adjourning next week.
When the Minister's reply was being prepared it would be assumed that the Dáil was adjourning. I want to make sure the Minister next week will include the information I am seeking, otherwise I would not get it, I will be honest about it, for quite a long time.
The Deputy will have it in this document I am circulating.
Why not now?
I told the Deputy before. We agreed in the Dáil and there has been a statement in the House already—it is on the record——
I know there was a certain arrangement made between the Whips but there was no arrangement made by which questions would not be answered.
The question will be answered but Deputy FitzGerald who has put down a question seeking a statement will have the same complaint. It arises out of an agreement between the Whips to circulate this information.
I am not aware of that arrangement.
May I ask the Minister whether the taxable capacity of this country has entirely changed in relation to Great Britain considering that we are now to pay 4 per cent of the contribution of the United Kingdom to this organisation when the former Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party always argued that our taxable capacity was 1 per cent of the United Kingdom? Is the Minister too young to remember that?
Our contribution would be 0.6 of the gross national product.
That is not the point. I am comparing the figures which have been published on behalf of Britain as to their contribution with the figures which have been published about this country.
The actual figures should not give the Deputy any cause for grumbling at all. The actual amount of money involved?
Yes.
That should not bother the Deputy.
They are sometimes very accurate.
8.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent negotiations with the EEC Council of Ministers.
If the House wishes I shall read fully the answer which I had ready for Deputy FitzGerald but in an agreement already I agreed that I would not read these long answers. If the House wishes to have full information I shall read this one now.
I was not a party to this.
I was acting Whip and the Fianna Fáil Whip approached me and there was an agreement reached. I understood that the Labour Whip was also to be consulted.
I was not.
I cannot say, but it was mentioned in the House that day that the agreement was that if there was a question to which there would be a long answer, that answer would be handed out to Deputies in a written form and if they wished they could ask supplementaries.
I have no objection to written replies being given. In fact I originally suggested this should be done but I object to no reply being given.
Copies of this are being sent around.
Then there is no need to read it out.
It is an answer to the question but I shall not read all of it. It is a short answer to say what I shall do.
The Minister wants to read out what he wants us to hear, what he wants on the record.
Do I take it that what is being handed around is a written reply to Question No. 8? The Minister will not give an answer to Questions Nos. 6 or 7.
This contains all the information. I think I shall read out the answer in full.
Does the Minister intend to read something other than what is being circulated?
Just the first paragraph, to explain what we are doing.
And he will not elaborate in any way or say anything that is not in the written answer?
No. This is just to give Deputies an opportunity to ask supplementary questions. I was asked by an Opposition Deputy to say sufficient to provide an opportunity for supplementary questions and I am doing that.
I think it is a very dangerous practice. The Minister should either read the reply or leave it as a written reply.
This reply is so arranged that part of it could be given orally——
I do not suggest that the Minister would abuse it but this would be open to abuse.
Part of the reply to be given orally was to explain that the substance would be circulated and it is for the purpose of allowing Deputies to ask supplementary questions——
Answer the question, for God's sake.
But this is No. 8. What about Nos. 6 and 7? The statistics required are not given in what is circulated.
There will be full details next week.
I wanted them this week.
The Deputy will have them. There is no problem. I would welcome an exchange here. I have been doing this to try to oblige the House. The only way you can win a fight is to say nothing.
We have had two meetings with the Communities in recent weeks—one at Deputies' level on 29th June and a Ministerial meeting on 12th July. Substantial progress was made at these meetings on a number of important matters. I shall be making available to Deputies next week a detailed report on the progress of our negotiations to date. As arranged I propose to circulate a reply to the question summarising the main developments at these two meetings.
The following is the reply:
We have agreed to the proposals put to us by the Community in regard to our contributions to the financing of the Community up to and including the year 1979 after which the Community system of "own resources" will apply fully. Under the agreed proposals, we shall assume a share in the Community budget in the years up to 1979 equal to our share of the gross national produce of the enlarged Community, that is 0.6 per cent. Our share will, however, be paid up only to the extent of 45 per cent in 1973 rising to 92 per cent in 1977. Our actual contribution will depend on the size of the Community budget but can be estimated at about £4 million in 1973 rising to about £9 million in 1977 and to around £13 million in 1979.
We have also reached agreement with the Communities in regard to representation for Ireland on the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. We shall, of course, have a seat on the Council of Ministers; there will be a Commissionership for an Irish national, ten Irish representatives in the European Parliament and nine Irish representatives on the Economic and Social Committee. This representation will give us parity with Denmark and Norway and is quite satisfactory from our point of view. The agreed proposals cover also the system of weighted voting in the Council of Ministers to be used in the enlarged Communities in cases of decisions taken by qualified majority. Under this system, Ireland will have three votes, the same as for Denmark and Norway, and the qualified majority will be 43 out of a total vote of 61.
The arrangements agreed between Britain and the Communities in regard to New Zealand butter and cheese were put to us by the Communities. It is intended under these arrangements that the prices at which these products will be marketed in Britain should not endanger the market for the disposal of the products of the countries of the enlarged Communities and, in these circumstances, we were able to accept the arrangements.
Agreement has also been reached with the Community in regard to Ireland's subscription to the capital of the European Investment Bank, a contribution to the bank's reserves and representation on the organs of the bank. Ireland's share in the bank's capital will be 15 million dollars, 20 per cent of which will be paid up. This paid up portion will be paid over a period of 2½ years after accession. We have also agreed to contribute to the reserves and to the reserve-type funds of the bank. As regards representation on the organs of the bank, we shall have a seat on the Board of Governors and a seat on the Board of Directors. The proposals put to us by the Community do not, however, provide for any representation for Ireland or for Denmark and Norway on the bank's management committee. We have, therefore, proposed that representation on the management committee, which under the Community proposals will consist of a President and four Vice-Presidents, should be supplemented by a further Vice-President and that this Vice-President should rotate as between a number of the smaller countries.
As regards fisheries I have kept the House fully informed in reply to questions about recent developments. At our Ministerial meeting on the 12th July the Community informed us that the matter was still under consideration and that they were not in a position to put proposals to us. The Community have in fact set up an expert group to make recommendations. I made a statement to the Communities in which I again emphasised the problems which common access to our fishery waters would create for our fishing industry and I urged them to give full consideration to the proposal which I made on the 9th June. Deputies will have no doubt noted from press reports that Britain has now put forward proposals similar to the Irish proposals.
We have now submitted to the Communities a detailed memorandum on the question of regional policy and I made a statement at the meeting on 12th July introducing this memorandum. The text of the statement is being made available to Deputies.
In an initial reaction to our case, the Communities have formally recognised the special position of Ireland in regard to regional development. This statement by the Communities is of major significance to us.
The development in the negotiations of the greatest importance is, of course, the agreement in regard to the motor car assembly industry which I concluded with the Communities at our meeting on 12th July. The outcome on this major issue in our negotiations is highly satisfactory from our point of view. The Communities have agreed, in response to the case which I made, that the scheme at present in operation for the assembly and importation of motor vehicles in Ireland should be maintained after our accession to the Communities until 1985. There are other details in the agreement of a rather technical nature and these will be set out in the progress report to be circulated to Deputies next week.
My whole concern in negotiations on this issue with the Communities was to protect the employment of our workers in the motor car assembly industry. This has been achieved in the agreement reached with the Communities which will also provide a fair opportunity to the motor car assembly industry to adapt themselves to the new situation which will be created by Ireland's membership to the Communities.
Could the Minister say in respect of the Ministerial meeting on 12th July in connection with fisheries what Ministers attended? Will he state if there are negotiations on any industry other than the motor car assembly industry? Would he now be able to elaborate on the very short paragraph in regard to regional development?
There was a meeting of the Ministers of the Six, the Community as they already exist, and that meeting was confidential. Whatever went on at it, no proposal was made to me. I gathered that the Community were not in a position to put a proposal. They were not able to arrive at an agreed proposal at their meeting.
Before the Minister goes further, the reply says "at our Ministerial meeting". What is meant by "our"?
The Deputy wants to know what Ministers were present? What is the Deputy's question?
The Minister was present at a meeting?
I was.
Who else was there?
There was a meeting at which the Ministers of the Six met me and we had a provisional agenda. Fisheries was on the agenda but because they had been unable to find an agreed position among themselves in the morning they were unable to put proposals to me. The chairman told me that. Notwithstanding that, I made a statement about our position.
Were any of the Ministers of the other applicant countries present?
No.
Did they meet on the 12th?
They had meetings but they were not at our meeting and they did not have any offer on fisheries at their own meetings. The negotiators for Denmark and Britain both had meetings with the Community that day but in neither case was an offer from the Community made on fisheries because the Community had been unable among themselves to find an agreed position. Perhaps Ministers and other negotiators did as I did and made their own statements, but there was no negotiation on fisheries.
Does the Minister know whether there were negotiations by the Six with the Norwegian Foreign Minister?
He was not there.
Is it suggested that there will be a different agreement for Norway?
This is still mooted— what we talked about last week—in the newspapers and if you like in the corridors where things like this are rumoured. I should tell the House that I have made it quite clear that I think that any solution on fisheries should be equitable in itself and among the applicants and I still think my proposal is the best one to provide a solution.
We shall be as good as Norway, anyway?
There should be no discrimination against any applicant.
Could the Minister say if the timetable for the negotiations is being adhered to?
To date, yes. There has not been a graded timetable but the date for finishing negotiations and signing was given as 1st January, 1972, with one year for ratification and there is no reason to think that will not be met.
Is it expected to conclude the negotiations before January?
Yes.
Arising from the two paragraphs in the reply about regional policy, while we would regard it as a step in the right direction that the Community should formally recognise the special position of Ireland in regard to regional development, would the Minister not agree that 12th July was rather late to make the submissions described here and that if, as was urged by members of this party much earlier, the question of regional policy and Ireland's special position in relation to it had been raised much earlier, then Ireland would now be in a better position than that in which in fact it finds itself? The Minister was slow to wake up.
I have already told the House that I raised the problems which we saw in membership at the very beginning. I was the first to raise the problem of the fisheries policy and first to raise the problem of regional policy——
Before the Norwegians?
Yes. The Deputy has denied this before. The day after the introduction of the regulations on fisheries we had a meeting ahead of the Norwegians and so I was, according to the mechanics, the first. If they had had a meeting before me they might have raised it first. I raised regional policy at this early date also and I have repeatedly raised different aspects of it so as to convince the Community of our real interest in it.
On a point of order, in regard to Question No. 8, the Ceann Comhairle is aware that this is a four-page typed reply to a general question. It was agreed that the Minister should introduce it on the basis that he would read the first paragraph. It is a lengthy statement dealing with extremely important issues and, in those circumstances, the Chair should allow us to ask supplementary questions which arise on parts of the text the Minister did not read—which he was permitted not to read in order to save time. There are some pertinent supplementary questions that arise in connection with the Minister's statement.
The Chair has allowed a considerable number of supplementaries.
Some of the topics in the statement have not been touched at all. I wish to ask a supplementary about a matter which has not been referred to in any supplementary question.
Instead of a Deputy putting down a question he asked me to make a statement, not specifying the areas he wants me to cover. Now that Deputies have a statement they have a basis regarding the questions they wish to put down. If they put down questions they will be answered next week.
The Minister had questions and he did not answer them today.
We accept what the Minister has said, but there is a difficulty in that we cannot know what questions to put down until the Minister tells us what he has been talking about.
The Deputy has the statement now. Regional policy has been raised on many occasions. This time I raised it in the context of putting in a detailed memorandum and I got a response from the Community. However, this does not mean that this was the first time I raised it—I raised it frequently before.
Can the Minister state if we have asked for a special protocol on regional development?
I think the Deputy would have to await the timing. Having recognised we have special needs, the Community now will try to find in what way these needs can be met. As I said on an earlier date, this would be a way of doing it.
Has the Minister suggested to the Community that this would be a way of doing it?
We have not reached the stage of across-the-table talking about the method yet but the Community are aware that I think this is a method of doing it.
Surely it would be wiser to indicate it?
It is not an indication —the Community are well aware that I think this is a method of doing it.
They are aware of it but the Minister has not told them?
I have told them but not at a negotiating point. They have not yet reached a negotiating position. This is the first time we got into negotiation and they responded and said: "Yes, you have special needs." The next time—in October—I hope to be in a position of negotiating on these special needs and how they will be dealt with. In the meantime, I intend that all our diplomatic and other resources will be extended in explaining our needs so that when we come to a meeting in October we will be able to come to decisive arrangements.
Did I understand the Minister to say that the day after the agreement he was the first person to raise the matter?
There was no agreement. The day after the production of the Community regulation on fisheries.
Can the Minister tell me the date?
I told the Deputy the date before when he denied it. It was in September.
It was in September, 1970. Would the Minister not agree that the Norwegians had been making protests of a sufficient intensity to have reached the newspapers of Britain before the Community's regulations were published in September and certainly in the month of May last? Would the Minister not agree that representations on our position in regard to fisheries were made by Deputies of this party in the debate of June of last year—well before September?
I can understand the Deputy trying to score a point——
The Minister has chosen the arbitrary date, namely the day on which the agreement was published——
It was not an agreement.
It was an agreement between the Six Ministers of the Community.
It was a regulation.
Call it what you like—an agreement or a regulation.
It was published in September and protests were made from the applicants as early as May —and before May.
If the Deputies want to go back to the point where we mentioned fisheries and the problems involved, they will find that they go well beyond that date. When the fisheries regulations became an actuality, I was the first to raise the matter at the negotiating table. We had raised it before that time in another form. I do not think the House need worry about that. I have read what the Deputy is claiming for himself about fisheries and he is quite wrong. He has a propaganda campaign going for himself but someone will catch up with him in his own constituency.
Regarding tax free exports, has the Minister any idea what will be the cost to the country if the Community do not agree to the continuation of this?
The first cost—it will be a very big cost—is the damage to the attractiveness of our incentives for new industries and the promotion of exports by other industries. I am telling the Community that these tax incentives, from our point of view, have been very successful and they should be continued. I think the Community will have to see that, having regard to our stage of development and the rate of growth we require, if these tax incentives are not permitted something very substantial which will compensate —and even more than compensate— will have to be done with the help of the Community. I have no doubt about this.
Has the Minister considered the cost to meet our existing obligations?
The Deputy will have to be more precise in his questions.
Can the Minister state in respect of what other industry, apart from the motor car assembly industry, we are negotiating?
It was a broad negotiation on a transitional period. At the beginning there were two industries, but the only industry that was submitted to me as not being capable of meeting the requirements of the normal transitional period was the motor car industry. At the beginning of the negotiations I put down a marker about it and last week I negotiated successfully about it.
The Minister said that only one submission was made to him in regard to the motor car industry. Who made it?
We consulted with the industry and we have resources here to find out.
I am calling Question No. 9.
Why has the Minister thought it necessary——
I have called Question No. 9. The Deputy may not ignore the Chair. Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
