asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the precise dates of his visits to each of the Foreign Ministers of the EEC countries for discussions on the Regional Fund.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Regional Policy.
105.
During my recent visits to the capitals of the Community for the purpose of discussing the Commission's proposals on Community Regional Policy, I met with representatives of the governments of each of the other member states of the Community as follows:
His Excellency, Signor Aldo Moro, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy, in Rome on 12th September, 1973,
His Excellency, M. Gaston Thorn, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, in Luxembourg on 14th September, 1973,
His Excellency, Herr Walter Scheel, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, in Bonn on 14th September, 1973,
His Excellency, Mr. John Davies, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in London on 18th September, 1973,
His Excellency, Mr. Horst Brinkhorst, State Secretary for European Affairs of the Netherlands in The Hague on 18th September, 1973,
His Excellency, M. Michel Jobert, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, in Paris on 19th September, 1973,
His Excellency, M. Renaat Van Eslande, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, in Brussels on 20th September, 1973,
His Excellency, Mr. Ivar Norgaard, both in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Economic Affairs of Denmark and as President of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, in Brussels on 20th September, 1973.
Is the Minister aware that there is a widely held view that the outcome of these discussions proposed no effective advantage to Ireland in regard to regional policy and that, in other words, his trip was unsuccessful?
I certainly would not agree with that. Any judgment at this stage would be premature and, perhaps, one should not say too much about it but in fact, a significant evolution in the Commission's attitude became evident at and after the last Council of Ministers' meeting and in inter-Government discussions some of the points on which we were seeking support have secured the support of other Governments. But it is premature at this stage to assess the outcome which will not be known for about two months.
Between the date of the publication of the guidelines in May and the Commission's proposals, his visits took place. Would the Minister not agree that having regard to what was in the proposals of the Commission his visit proved ineffective?
No. There is some misunderstanding——
The Minister was visiting foreign Ministers in various countries and I think there is every reason to suspect that it is the very foreign Ministers he visited——
The Deputy knows that at Question Time he cannot enter into what might be the substance of argument.
There may be some confusion about this. The guidelines were put forward in May and the general lines of these were acceptable to us. The Commission subsequently in July produced draft directives——
Question No. 106.
May I just ask——
The position is that we are entering at Question Time on what may be the subject of argument.
I am trying to clarify the dates by relating them to the matter in the question. I think perhaps that should be done to make the matter clear. This was in July and in early September. My meetings took place in the light of these regulations and their failure to reflect the spirit of the preamble to the Rome Treaty and the Irish protocol and, indeed, the spirit and letter also of the Commission's proposals issued in May. I was seeking to gain support for changes in the Commission's draft regulations and that is what we are engaged on at present.
Might I ask the Minister if in the light of the proposals made in October he is satisfied that his visits had any effect?
What proposals made in October?
The proposals that came before the European Parliament in October.
As I understand it, the draft regulations which were proposed by the Commission in July, and some in September, were what came before the European Parliament. It was in the light of the publication of these and their failure to correspond with the other documents I mentioned that I made these visits with a view to ensuring that they were not adopted by member Governments in the form proposed by the Commission. The decision of member Governments on that will be made over the next few months but more particularly about the end of the year.
One further point —having regard to what——
The Chair will not permit any further questions on this matter because the scope of the subject-matter of the question has been exceeded at the present time.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate that this is a very complex matter and one of great importance to the country. Having regard to the proposals for the size of the fund and, indeed, the allocation——
The Deputy asked a question in regard to precise dates on which the Minister made visits.
And the purpose of the Minister's visits. Is it not quite clear these visits were ineffective and unsuccessful?
That is not clear because we are only at the stage when countries are beginning to indicate their first attitudes towards our proposals and the decisions of countries which will show conclusively the extent——
The Minister will appreciate that we are getting into the field of argument. Would the Minister get on to Question No. 106?
I will indeed.
106.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he is taking to publicise the unique position of Ireland, in respect of EEC regional policy, as set out in the EEC Commission document of 3rd May, 1973.
The Deputy is referring to the Commission report on regional problems in the enlarged Community, commonly known as the Thomson Report, which was considered at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 14th May, 1973. At that meeting I welcomed the report as it reflected accurately the nature and extent of the regional problems facing the Community.
I have referred repeatedly to the report in the course of my public statements, most particularly in my lengthy intervention on regional policy at the Council meeting of 15th/16th October, copies of which I have arranged to be placed in the Dáil Library. At that Council I referred to the fact that the whole of the State had been identified by the Commission as being an area with regional problems requiring assistance. In our case, there is thus no wealthy area upon which to draw for domestic resources to finance regional development.
Commissioner Thomson, in the recent debate on regional policy in the European Parliament on 18th October, took up this point when he said, and I quote: "The Irish problem has unique characteristics—unique from Italy—in the sense that alone among the countries of the Community it has no industrialised regions from which to transfer resources and it was this which was given juridicial expression in the Protocol (on Ireland appended to the Treaty of Accession)." In all the public statements I have made in recent months I have referred repeatedly to this matter and will continue to do so in the future.
Deputy Thornley uses the expression "the unique position". Would I be correct in stating that Deputy Thornley and Deputy Kavanagh of the Labour Party are members of the socialist group and the socialists in Europe, as I understand it, do not support the common agricultural policy?
Question No. 107. Statements are not in order at Question Time.
May I ask the Minister would that be true?
That is a separate Question.
It is a very important question.
On a point of order—this point came up before and I think I would ask the Chair to consider the question of Minister's being asked to comment on what Deputies have said in the European Parliament. I am not sure that we should do so. There are questions of Parliamentary privilege and I would prefer not to comment. I think this is a matter on which we would need a ruling from the Chair.
The Minister will appreciate that in regard to matters like this the Chair is guided by Standing Orders and there is a Committee on Procedure and Privileges to which this matter might be referred.