I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the reports: Developments in the European Communities—Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight and Ninth Reports.
As Deputies will be aware these reports are required by section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972 which provides that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Communities.
When the Minister addressed the House in March, 1974 on the subject of the Second Report he said that he hoped that debates in both Houses on these reports would take place shortly after publication and certainly in the session during which a report is published. That this has not been possible —due to the very full parliamentary schedule which the Government have proceeded with since 1975—is a matter of profound regret to the Minister and he would like to take this opportunity to convey his apologies to the House through me.
A solution to our difficulties in this regard may however be in sight. I refer to the decision, taken with the agreement of the Opposition, that from now on reports should cover the period of a Presidency, that is from 1st January to 30th June and 1st July to 31st December in each year. Deputies will have noted that it was necessary to publish the Eighth and Ninth Reports according to a particular schedule in order to comply with the terms of the Act which requires that a report be published twice yearly. The Ninth Report was thus the first report for the year 1977. The Tenth Report will cover the period of the British Presidency and will be the second report for 1977. The Minister hopes that delays in preparation which we encountered with the Ninth Report in particular, can be avoided in future and that reports will be available within two months at most of the last day of their periods of review. With the reports thus being published on a more logical basis he would hope it would be possible for parliamentary time to be set aside for debates almost automatically twice a year.
The Government are also sympathetic to the idea that the reports of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities be taken in conjunction with the reports on developments. In this context I would like to place on record the Minister's appreciation of the very valuable service which the Joint Committee has performed to date. The large number of reports prepared by the Joint Committee have been taken into account by the Government and have been welcomed as adding a valuable democratic dimension to policy formulation. The Minister would like to say particularly that he has read with interest the committee's recent report on its functions and work based on the experience of the past three and a half years. In his opinion, the observations and recommendations contained therein will form a useful basis for discussion of the terms of reference of a reconstituted Joint Committee.
May I now turn to the reports themselves which are the subject of this motion. The period covered is 1st December, 1974, to 31st December, 1976. Deputies will have noticed certain changes in the ordering of material as compared with previous reports. These, in conjunction with the introduction of extensive footnotes and cross-references have, I think, represented significant improvements and much facilitated those working with the reports. Deputies may be assured that any further suggestions for improvement will be very welcome and will be incorporated in future reports whenever possible.
The inclusion of annexes has continued to be a feature of the reports. Some material which used to figure in the body of reports has now been removed to the annexes, so that annexes appear on a regular basis relating to ministerial regulations, summary of subsidies, meetings of the Council and sittings of the European Parliament and a list of the principal association and trade agreements between the Community and third countries. In recent reports, statements made by the Taoiseach to either Dáil or Seanad Éireann on meetings of the European Council have also been included. Reports have also contained annexes setting out documents or explanatory notes on aspects of the work of the Community which it was felt could usefully be drawn to the attention of Members of the Oireachtas and, through them, to the public at large. For example, Annex V of the Sixth Report contains a note on Community participation in the GATT multilateral trade negotiations and Annex V of the Eighth Report contains the text of the Decision and Act concerning the election of representatives to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage.
As I mentioned earlier, the reports with which we are concerned today cover the period from 1st December, 1974, to 31st December, 1976. On 1st January 1975, Ireland assumed responsibility for the Presidency both of the European Communities and of European Political Co-operation. The six-month period of our Presidency underlined the greatly expanded role which Ireland has come to play in international affairs as a direct result of membership of the Communities. Indeed the Presidency represented the first test of the extent to which our Administration had adapted to the demands and obligations placed upon it by membership. I am happy to say that, despite the exceptional strains imposed on our rather limited resources of personnel and experience, we overcame all the challenges presented to us. Indeed, it is a well-acknowledged fact that the Irish Presidency was eminently successful not only in the day-to-day organisation of the work of the Communities but also in its contribution to the formulation and advancement of Community policies.
Some of the highlights of the Irish Presidency included the organisation in Dublin of the first meeting of the European Council; the development of the practice of the Community's speaking with one voice at major international meetings through a representative of the Presidency and a representative of the Commission; the introduction of the practice of a meeting between the Presidency of the Council and the Commission to discuss the Presidency's work programme; the establishment of a new and much closer relationship between the Presidency and the European Parliament including the initiation of the process of answering parliamentary questions on political co-operation in accordance with a decision of the December, 1974, Paris Summit; and the movement towards the greater use of majority voting in the Council.
In the field of the Community's external relations the Irish Presidency played a leading role in bringing to a successful conclusion the negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which culminated in the Lomé Convention on trade and development co-operation. The success achieved in advancing the difficult negotiations in the context of the EuroArab dialogue marked the beginning of a new step forward in relations between Europe and the Arab world. The Irish Presidency played a key role in ensuring that the outcome of the first preparatory meeting for the Conference on International Economic Co-operation would be such as to leave open the possibility of maximising further opportunities to get this conference off the ground. It also contributed to the successful completion of the renegotiation of the British membership of the Community, the Community's response to developments in Portugal and the significant improvement in relations between the Community and the United States.
I have mentioned that the first meeting of the European Council was held in Dublin in March, 1975. The European Council represented an important new development in the Community and its meetings have now become a regular feature of Community activity. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure the development and overall cohesion of the activities of the Communities and the work of political co-operation or foreign policy co-ordination which is, of course, carried on separately from the ordinary business of the Communities under the Treaties. This concentration in a single forum of two matters subject to separate procedures carries with it one danger— that it could tend to veer the Community in the direction of inter-governmental co-operation at the expense of its supranational character, the protection of which is of course of vital interest to this country. Indeed, the Taoiseach in a memorandum presented for discussion at the Rome European Council in December, 1975 —the text of this memorandum is at Annex IV of the Sixth Report— stressed that discussions at the European Council on Community matters leading to decisions or orientations of decisions to be taken formally at a later stage in the Council at ministerial level, should take place in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down by the Treaties, including the provisions relating to the right of initiative of the Commission. This remains the cornerstone of our approach to the European Council.
Another significant event which took place during the Irish Presidency was the reopening of the whole question of direct elections to the European Parliament. Negotiations have since culminated in the signing of the Council Decision on 20th September, 1976, which has finally cleared the way at Community level for the holding of these direct elections. It only remains now for the various member states to take the appropriate legislative action at a national level to enable the elections to take place as envisaged in May or June, 1978. The necessary legislation is currently being prepared in the member states and, so far as Ireland is concerned, the Government intend to introduce the draft Bill on direct elections in the very near future when the House will have a full opportunity to discuss the matter in detail.
In the meantime therefore I will confine my remarks to reiterating the importance which the Government attach to the holding of direct elections, which they believe will have a most significant and positive effect on the future development of the Community most especially by reinforcing and extending the democratic legitimacy of the Community's institutional machinery. It would be premature for me at this stage to seek to forecast how direct elections will affect the future role of the Parliament in the Community and, in any event, this is something which must to a large extent be determined by the Parliament itself in agreement with the Council. However, so far as Ireland is concerned, the Government favour the Parliament having a much more effective role in the running of the Community and in deciding on Community policies and we will consider sympathetically any proposals aimed at achieving this objective.
I should like to say something now about activity in the field of European political co-operation. European political co-operation is animated by the belief that co-operation among the Nine in the field of foreign policy should be such as to enable Europe to make a contribution to international stability. In accordance with the inter-governmental procedures established for this co-operation, the Nine continued throughout the period under review to meet regularly at ministerial and official level to consult on and as far as possible to co-ordinate their foreign policy positions.
Topics under discussion in the period included the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, United Nations affairs, developments in the Mediterranean area, Southern Africa, the Middle East and the EuroArab Dialogue. The Minister would like to make some comments on a few of these matters. Co-operation among the Nine in international forums continues to be an important element in affirming the reality of the European identity. The ability of the Nine to pursue a common policy at the CSCE conferred authority and weight on their role at the conference. Consultations are continuing with a view to co-ordinating the Nine position at the forthcoming CSCE follow-up meeting, to be held later this year in Belgrade. This meeting is to review the implementation of the Helsinki final act.
In line with the statement issued by the heads of Government at their meeting on 16th and 17th July, 1975, that the Community should act with all the weight of its responsibilities to ensure dialogue and conciliation at the United Nations, during the 30th and 31st General Assemblies the Nine have intensified their co-operation and continued their practice of seeking to concert positions on the issues discussed and to vote together wherever practicable. To an increasing degree, common positions have been expressed in the Assembly through common statements in the name of the Nine delivered by the Presidency. Of particular interest during the last UNGA was the adoption by consensus of a resolution introduced by the German Federal Republic and co-sponsored by the other member states setting up a committee to draft an international convention on the taking of hostages.
As an indication of their grave concern at the evolution of events in Southern Africa, the Nine Foreign Ministers issued a statement in February, 1976, setting out the basic positions of the Nine—rejection of action by any State attempting to establish a zone of influence in Africa, respect for the independence of all African states and their right to define national policies without outside interference, support for the Organisation of African Unity to promote African co-operation, recognition of the right of self-determination and independence for the Rhodesian and Namibian peoples and condemnation of the policy of apartheid of South Africa. Subsequent statements by the Nine on Southern Africa, including that made last Monday, together with agreed references by the Presidency in UN general debates have defined clearly the principles advocated by the Nine.
The Nine hold frequent exchanges of views on the Middle East and maintain the view that the principles contained in their statement of 6th November, 1973, must govern a settlement of this very difficult question. The situation in Cyprus is also followed closely by the Nine in view of the association agreements linking Greece, Turkey and Cyprus to the Community. The Nine have continually expressed their interest in and expectation of a successful outcome to the intercommunal talks taking place in Vienna.
The question of Europe's role in the world both in the wider political context and the development of strictly Community policies was dealt with in a report on European union drawn up by Mr. Leo Tindemans, the Prime Minister of Belgium at the request of the Heads of Government, meeting in Paris in December, 1974. The report was examined by the Foreign Ministers in the period under review. Unhappily, the Ministers' discussions showed that the level of agreement and willingness to move forward on the lines suggested by Mr. Tindemans was relatively low. Nevertheless, the Ministers prepared a report for the meeting of the European Council last December in The Hague expressing the view that some progress could be made. The European Council made a statement in which it laid down the framework for practical progress in realising European Union and it agreed to review the situation each year on the basis of reports to be submitted by the Foreign Ministers and the Commission.
The question of further enlargement of the Communities arose during the period covered by these reports. In particular, an application for membership by Greece was accepted by the Council in February, 1976, and detailed negotiations leading to the accession of that country are now in progress. Deputies will be aware that Portugal recently submitted its application which is now being studied by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties. The Spanish Government has also indicated its intention to apply for membership although an application from that country will have to await the restoration of democratic government.
Ireland supports the enlargement of the Communities: the principle that any European State may apply for membership is, after all, enshrined in the Treaties. But we believe that the process of enlargement and the consequences thereof must be well considered lest the capacity of the Community to develop to its full potential be irreparably damaged.
We voiced our concern on this matter in the context of the Greek application and, indeed, set as preconditions to the negotiation of Greek membership the following two commitments on enlargement, namely,
—that prior to the negotiations starting there must be a commitment to the principle that the consequences—in particular the financial consequences—of an enlargement must not be detrimental to the common projects and policies of the Community or to those which it intends to carry out in the future: that enlargement must help strengthen a Community dynamic in its aspirations and not weaken or reduce in effectiveness its institutional structures and possibilities for action.
—that prior to the conclusion of the negotiations Community decision making structures be strengthened to cope with the problems of an enlarged Community.
We envisage the latter point being achieved by eliminating the abuse of the unanimity voting procedure in cases where no vital national interest exists. Under no circumstances would we agree to any changes that would weaken the role of smaller member States in decision making or would give any privileged position to larger countries in a directory type system. Any further enlargement should, of course, be governed also by these principles.
At an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers which is to be held in May these and other implications of enlargement will be fully discussed.
I have been dealing so far with matters relating to the overall development of the Community as a whole. I would like to turn now to a consideration of some external and internal aspects of Community policy.
An important development in the period under review was the conclusion of negotiations for agreements with Israel, Malta, the Maghreb and the Machrek countries, excluding Lebanon, in the context of the Community's global Mediterranean policy. In addition to trade provisions, these agreements provide for technical and financial co-operation. In the same period emergency aid was given to Portugal, following the Minister's visit to that country as President of the Council of Ministers in June, 1975, a measure which was consolidated in September, 1976, by the signing of protocols extending the free trade area agreement of 1972 to the areas of industrial, technological and financial co-operation. Also, following the collapse of the military regime in Greece, the Community reactivated and subsequently extended the association agreement of 1962 with that country.
In the context of the achievements of the Irish Presidency I referred briefly earlier on to the Lomé Convention which was signed in February, 1975. This convention extended the network of the Community's relations with developing countries to include 46 independent development countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific: the number of signatories has now increased to 52. The significance of the convention lies in its comprehensive scope and innovatory features, notably the provisions for the stabilisation of export earnings and for industrial co-operation between partners at different stages of development.
Apart from the Lomé Convention and the Mediterranean policy, Community development aid activity during the period under review concerned itself in large measure with the Community's response to the United Nations emergency operation launched in support of developing countries which were hardest hit by the oil crisis and with the implementation of two important resolutions which had been adopted by the Council on Development Co-operation in July, 1974. These resolutions dealt with Community financial and technical aid to non-associated developing countries, that is, non-Lomé countries, and with the harmonisation and co-ordination of member states, co-operation policies.
In the food aid sector the main activity concerned the further renewal for two years, from June, 1976, of the food aid convention and the adoption by the Council of the principle of medium term planning. However, a Commission proposal for increases in Community food aid, based on the results of the 1974 world food conference did not find general acceptance. Along with some other member states, Ireland has supported an increased Community food aid programme and hopes that this will be agreed in the near future.
I would also like to mention specifically a novel scheme which to my mind has great potential, particularly in its capacity to stimulate public interest in the development process. This is the scheme to enable the Commission to co-finance the activities of non-governmental organisations in developing countries. A number of Irish voluntary agencies have played a prominent part in this scheme and it is the Minister's hope that they will continue to do so in future programmes which will, of course, command our strong support in the Council.
The contractual relationships with developing countries to which I have referred were entered into during a period in which the relationship between developed and developing countries became a major aspect of international economic relations. The manner in which the oil producers improved their terms of trade in 1973 highlighted the urgency of finding an equitable balance between the need of the developing countries for stable and remunerative arrangements for their raw materials and the need of the developed countries for security of supply of raw materials. Against this background two special sessions of the UN General Assembly were devoted to development questions, a Conference on International Economic Co-operation was inaugurated in Paris in December, 1975, and the fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development took place in May, 1976.
The outcome of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, a new recruit to the labyrinth of initials, which is to conclude with a ministerial conference in Paris on the 30th May and 1st June will be of importance not only in regard to the maintenance of the security of oil supplies, because, as Deputies will be aware, this north/south dialogue which began as an energy conference is now concerned also with raw materials, development and financial affairs. I am happy to say that throughout this conference the Community has spoken with one voice through the Presidency and the Commission and the Minister is confident that the Community will make a positive contribution to the final ministerial conference, the outcome of which should be of lasting significance to the world economic order.
I would like to say something now about the co-operation agreements which Ireland has negotiated with the USSR and Poland.
As a consequence of membership of the EEC, trade relations between this country and third countries are regulated at Community level. However, certain competences in the field of inter-governmental economic activity are retained at national level subject to compliance with Community consultation procedures. In this context, in December last, the Minister signed an agreement in Moscow for Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technological Co-operation between Ireland and the USSR. A similar agreement has been negotiated with Poland and is due to be signed later this year.
These agreements are a relatively new but significant development in the field of economic relations between states and their essential function is to provide an inter-governmental framework to facilitate the development of co-operative projects between economic, commercial and other interests in the two countries concerned. For example, the agreements negotiated with the USSR and with Poland provide that the Irish Government on the one hand and the Soviet or Polish Government on the other will encourage and facilitate the development of economic, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation between organisations and enterprises in their respective countries.
The types of co-operation covered by agreements of this kind include joint production and marketing of goods; mutual deliveries of machinery, equipment and tools; joint research and development of new technological processes and the exchange of scientific and technological documentation and information; purchase and sale of patents and licences; the exchanges of specialists and the sending of experts from one country to the other for rendering technical services and for training.
An important aspect of the agreements is the provision they make for the establishment of inter-governmental joint commissions. These will be composed of government officials and will include among their tasks the encouragement of the development of economic, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation between the two countries, the drawing up of recommendations for the further development of such co-operation and the identification of new fields for co-operation.
Other countries' experience has shown that the meetings of these joint commissions provide a useful forum for discussion of the whole range of bilateral economic relations and for stimulating economic co-operation between the business sectors in the two countries involved. The Government will seek to avail of the opportunities presented by the annual meetings of the joint commissions to provide support at the official level for Irish exporters and other economic operators with an active involvement or interest in doing business with the countries concerned.
In the case of State-trading countries, such as Poland and the Soviet Union, where most aspects of economic activity are regulated by the State, the provision of a Government-to-Government framework for the further development of economic relations is seen as an important step. In the case of other countries where a substantial foreign earnings potential is seen to exist and it appears evident that the conclusion of government-to-government agreements could facilitate the Irish business community in seeking business, the Government are prepared to consider the conclusion of such agreements as an instrument of economic policy.
The beginning of the period under discussion saw the implementation in March, 1975, of the decision of the Paris Summit on the setting up of a European Regional Development Fund. Ireland has never been happy with either the size of the fund, which was set at 1,300 million units of account, or £542 million to be distributed over a three year period. Despite the substantial increase in our quota secured during the course of the negotiations, our share of the fund will not exceed a grand total of £35 million over the three year period or less than an average of £12 million a year. Sums of this magnitude can obviously do very little even to help our economy to grow at the same rate as the better-off regions of the EEC not to mention catch up with the latter in terms of standards of living.
In addition, the very appreciable devaluation of the pound sterling eroded the real value of our share in terms of the major European currencies in the time since the fund was set up. This can be seen when the position about the unit of account is examined. The resources of the fund and the shares of the individual member states are expressed in terms of units of account. The rate of exchange for the unit of account has not changed in recent years and was and still is converted into Irish pounds at the rate of £1 equals 2.4 ua. However, the Commission have recently devised what is known as the European unit of account which is linked to the present value of European currencies. The rate of conversion of the EUA is £1 equal 1.5 EUA. If this rate of conversion had been used our 1977 commitment allocation alone would have increased from £13.5 million to £21.5 million. In other words, if the fund remains the same size but EUAs were used instead of uas our share in terms of sterling would go up by more than 50 per cent. In other words, our share will have to increase by at least that figure to stand still in terms of European currencies. This point will be borne in mind when the size of the fund for 1978 is being considered.
Inadequate as the amount was, however, in the period covered by these reports we applied for and obtained commitments in respect of 166 different projects. In fact we were the first country to present an actual claim under the fund.
The regulations governing the present fund are under review at the moment by the commission. It can be taken for granted that Ireland will continue to press not only for a greatly increased fund but for real regional policy which will provide for the regional problems not only of the west of Ireland but of the country as a whole.
The Social Fund is also under review at the moment. One of the suggested reforms is that the maximum intervention rates for projects sited in less developed areas should be increased from the present 50 per cent to 65 per cent. Should this suggestion be accepted it would represent a major improvement in the fund's regulation as far as Ireland is concerned. Since acceding to the Community we have been submitting applications for assistance and amounts approved have increased from £4.6 million in 1973 to £12.9 million in 1975. These figures represent approximately 6 per cent of the total moneys available under the fund.
A major difficulty encountered in the period under review concerned the implementation of the equal pay directive. It will be recalled that on 10th February, 1975, the Council adopted a directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the implementation of the Articles in the Rome Treaty which provides for the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. In this country the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act became law on 1st July, 1974. This provided for the full application of equal pay for men and women on 31st December, 1975.
However, because of a worsening economic situation we sought on 5th February, 1976, a deferment of the application of the directive in Ireland for a limited period in the case of undertakings which could not demonstrably fulfil its requirements without dismissing employees. This was rejected by the Commission which had sent a fact-finding mission to Ireland beforehand.
We submitted certain proposals to the Commission to help alleviate the distress of unemployment resulting from the implementation of the directive. As a result of this the Commission agreed to make some increases in the amount of aid to Ireland and to speed up disbursement to us in respect of certain claims we had made.
Irish agriculture continues to benefit considerably from our membership of the European Community and the common agricultural policy of the Community has in general operated to Ireland's advantage. Difficulties in certain areas have of course arisen, particularly with regard to monetary compensatory amounts on Irish agricultural exports and the failure of the Community to arrive at a common organisation of the market for sheepmeat. The Commission's proposals for the achievement of balance in the dairy sector are also of major importance to Ireland because of our considerable investment in this area. I should like to elaborate on each of these matters.
The major problem which has faced us over the last few years has been the level of our monetary compensatory amount. As Deputies are no doubt aware, MCAs are a device to offset the effects which currency fluctuations would otherwise have on the common price system of the common agricultural policy. Ireland, because of its depreciated currency, must charge MCAs on exports or grant MCAs subsidies on imports in trade in agricultural products.
Because of the national importance of agricultural exports to us, payment of any sizable MCA for any length of time is a very heavy penalty on the Irish economy. It undermines the competitiveness of our agricultural industry and involves a wholly disproportionate transfer of funds from this country to the Community budget.
Because of the relatively frequent adjustments in the Irish green £, the level of Irish MCA had been kept in reasonable check up to the middle of last year. The very sharp depreciation of the pound last year however, caused the MCA to rise enormously: it reached 29 per cent at one point last autumn. Such a level of MCA would be an intolerable burden on the Irish economy and the Government therefore pressed the Community to take urgent action.
The Minister for Agriculture succeeded in getting the agreement of the Council of Ministers to adjustments in the Irish green £ in October last year and in January and April this year which resulted in the level of Irish MCA falling to the relatively insignificant level of 3.4 per cent. The benefit to the Irish farming community of the most recent reduction in the Irish green £ is likely to be of the order of £40 million in the current year, and the impact on the balance of payments should be of the order of £20-25 million in the current year.
The exclusion of a number of processed agricultural products, notably biscuits, from the MCA system put Irish manufacturers of these products at a serious disadvantage compared with British manufacturers as they were obliged to pay more for their raw materials than their British counterparts. This led to problems in competition both on the home market and on the British market, the main export outlet for the Irish manufacturers.
In view of the distortion in trade which arose the Government applied to the Commission for authorisation to take measures to eliminate this distortion. Following the Government's request, the Commission agreed in late March to allow Ireland to apply an MCA system on trade with the United Kingdom in these products. The effect of the application of this system has been to allow the Government to impose a levy on imports and to offer a subsidy on exports and thereby to remove a serious distortion in trade which otherwise would have had serious consequences for the Irish confectionery industry and particularly for the Irish biscuit manufacturers. It is expected that the Commission will introduce a Community wide MCA system to apply to these products within the next few weeks.
Since Ireland acceded to the Community, the Government have constantly sought to secure agreement among the member states on a common organisation of the market for sheepmeat. Our main concern has been the action of the French Government in regularly and unpredictably closing the French market to exports of Irish lamb. The question of a common organisation of the market for sheepmeat has been discussed regularly by the Council and discussions have also taken place between the three member states mainly concerned—Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. So far it has not proved possible to arrive at a solution.
We have indicated our willingness to consider any reasonable proposal that will have improved access to the French market for Irish exports of mutton and lamb. We fully appreciate France's concern lest the opening of her frontiers to imports from the new member states of the Community should lead to unduly large imports but we cannot accept a situation where the French market is continually opening and closing to Irish exports. The import charges which France levies on imports of lamb have effectively halved our exports of lamb to France in recent years.
Our position with regard to lamb differs substantially from that of Britain. Britain imports very large quantities of lamb from third countries, particularly New Zealand. These relatively low-cost imports have the effect of holding down the market price for lamb in the United Kingdom.
Discussions have taken place on a Commission proposal for an interim arrangement for sheepmeat which would operate up to the end of 1977 and which would provide for levies on imports into France from Ireland and the United Kingdom, instead of the present French restrictions. We have asked that the levy on our exports to France should be lower than that applied to exports from the United Kingdom because Irish market prices are higher. In addition, we must contend with higher transport costs for sheepmeat exported to France. While the United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to agree to a small differential in any such levy, its aim seems to be that this should be very small and, indeed, at a level that would be of little or no benefit to our trade with France.
France, on 5th April, 1977, announced a further increase in its threshold price for imports of sheepmeat—the new rate amounts to 17.50 francs per kilo or 92.8p per lb. The increased protection of the French market must be regarded as a step in the wrong direction, and the Government have decided to pursue the matter at the European Court of Justice in an effort to arrive at a solution.
In the dairy sector the Commission has proposed a programme of action for the years 1977-1980 with a view to achieving a balance in the Community's milk market. The main proposals made by the Commission are (a) the introduction of a levy on producers for milk deliveries (b) a scheme for the payment of premiums to farmers who cease milk production and (c) a three year ban on national investment aids in the dairy sector.
While we agree that some action is necessary to prevent the recurring surpluses of skim milk powder and butter in the Community the Government are not convinced that this is the most suitable time to take decisions on the Commission's package and although Ireland would have no objection to other member states implementing a scheme for the non-marketing of milk, we are opposed to such implementation being mandatory in all member states.
The question of a revised common fisheries policy has been a matter of grave concern for some time. The ninth report includes an account of developments up to February, 1977, but I would like to take this opportunity of setting out the background to the situation and bringing matters up to date.
The review of the common fisheries policy has been taking place in the context of the general move by North Atlantic coastal states to create exclusive national fishing limits extending to 200 miles from their baselines.
The existing fisheries policy of the Community is laid down in Council Regulation 2141 of 1970. This regulation provides, inter alia, for the principle of equal conditions of access to and use of the maritime waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of member states.
The Treaty under which Ireland acceded to the Community provided for a temporary derogation from the common access provisions of the Community regulations enacted in 1970. This derogation extended to 1982, by which time a review was to take place based on a study of the situation. There was no guarantee that this review would necessarily maintain the derogation and certainly no indication that it would provide additional protection for coastal fishermen.
The position thus established has been radically altered as a result of the chain-reaction effect of declarations of 200 mile limits by countries around the North Atlantic, following the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference at several sessions to agree on such provisions. Declarations of 200 mile limits have been made by the United States, Canada, Norway, Iceland and the Soviet Union, among others. The extension of fishing limits by other countries has the dual effect of threatening the livelihood of Community fishermen who had traditionally fished in their waters and of threatening to concentrate the efforts of non-Community fishermen from other States into the waters around Community coasts. As a result, the member states of the Community have extended their fishing limits to 200 miles.
The extension of Community waters to 200 miles, and I would emphasise this, has not changed the legal position under the Rome Treaty with respect to the right of access. Based as it is, on a regulation of 1970 which speaks of "maritime waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of member states", these access provisions apply automatically to the enlarged 200-mile zones of each Community member state. This is the legal view of the Council Secretariat and Commission. It is also the legal view as interpreted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General, and this opinion is shared also by legal advisers of other Governments.
The extension of fishing limits to 200 miles has provided the Irish Government and the British Government with an opportunity to renegotiate the access provisions—an opportunity which would not have existed if the Government had not joined with its Community partners in this extension. Had we failed to take this action, as the Opposition have in the past suggested, we should not alone have left our waters beyond six or 12 miles wide open to continued despoliation by Eastern European, and, indeed, Community vessels, but would also have deprived ourselves of a valuable bargaining counter in the negotiations.
As is well-known, the Commission in September, 1976, introduced proposals for a revised common fisheries policy. These were rejected by the Government as being inadequate to guarantee the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry. At a meeting on 30th October Ireland's special position was recognised and agreement was reached on a development of the Irish coastal fishing industry on the basis of the Government's programme which proposes a doubling of the catch between 1975 and 1979 as a preliminary to further expansion. In contrast all other member states are to reduce their catches for conservation reasons. Agreement was also reached at this meeting on the principle of an equitable sharing of fishery protection costs in the Irish 200-mile zone. Successive meetings of the Council failed, however, to arrive at any agreement on a interim internal fisheries regime for the Community, pending the adoption of a permanent regime which must so far as our waters are concerned be based on the 30th October provisions.
The Foreign Ministers of the Community at their meeting in The Hague on 30th October, 1976, agreed that if no agreement were reached on Community conservation measures "member states could then adopt, as an interim measure and in a form which avoids discrimination, appropriate measures to ensure the protection of resources situated in the fishing zones off their coasts". Following the failure of the Council to agree on an interim fisheries regime for 1977, the Minister for Fisheries made orders under the Fisheries Acts, the effect of which has been to prohibit fishing by all vessels exceeding 33 metres registered length or 1,100 brake horsepower in a designated area of our coast counted by 56º 30' north latitude 12º west longtitude and 50º 30' north latitude. Enforcement of the unilateral Irish conservation measures was postponed twice in the hope that the Council would agree on conservation measures. The proposals finally came into force at midnight on 10th April, 1977.
When deciding to enforce the unilateral Irish measures, the Government also invited member states of the Community to submit fishing plans to the Irish Government for approval with a view to the introduction later of a scheme by the Government on the lines recently proposed as the basis of a Community measure by the Commission. The scheme envisaged in the Commission proposals, provided that member states fishing in the extended Irish fisheries zone would submit, in advance, a fishing plan to the Commission for approval. The Commission proposal for fishing plans involves member states adjusting the volume of their fishing activities in Irish waters to the size of quotas which would be allocated to them by the Commission —quotas which, together with cutbacks imposed by the Community on third countries fishing off our coasts, would cut total catches by about 40 per cent. These fishing plans, to conform to the Commission's proposals and to be acceptable to the Government, would have to be spelt out in sufficient detail—number, size and registration numbers of boats and fishing periods—as to make them enforceable by our Naval Service. Pending receipt of satisfactory fishing plans from member states seeking to fish in our waters, the existing unilateral restrictions based on size of boat will remain in force.
It has been and continues to be the Government's policy to pursue our claim to an exclusive fishing zone of up to 50 miles around our coasts. At no stage has this policy been departed from. The Government have made clear to our partners in the Community that we consider agreement on the coastal belt issue to be a precondition to the adoption of new directives by the Council for substantive agreements with third countries on the reciprocal fishing rights which would be designed to follow on the conclusion of framework agreements and of such interim arrangements as may be required before substantive agreements on quotas and zones can be put into effect. Some of these substantive agreements are likely to come to the Council for decision within the next couple of months, more or less simultaneously with the Commission's proposals for a permanent internal regime and it is at this point that the vitally important coastal band issue will fall to be settled.
I trust that this outline of some of the main issues covered by these reports will afford a satisfactory introduction to this important debate.
