A delegation of the Committee visited Brussels on 3/4 October, 1979 and perhaps a member who went on that visit would like to say something about that experience, what was learned and the view formed about the European situation.
Visit to Brussels.
It was the most effective visit to date from my point of view because I knew more about the topic and what I wanted to ask as distinct from simply listening. However, we tried to put too much into the one day. If we had reduced the topics by 25 to 30 per cent and given ourselves more time on some of the other areas it could have been more productive. In the first session on agriculture it seemed that we were talking to the wrong person. Other than that it was very effective and two items on the agenda arise directly from that mission.
I agree with the Deputy on that aspect. I suggest that future visits be more informal, that the groups be smaller and that we deal with specific items rather than, as Deputy Quinn said, having too much included in the one day.
Is there any reason why we could not have sub-divided into three separate groups?
That might be something for the various sub-Committees to discuss.
I support that. The most frustrating session we had was the first one about the whole question of the dairy sector. That was partly because we were talking to the wrong person and also because we were not able to talk to a succession of people dealing with various aspects of it. It would be a good idea for the various sub-Committees to consider the possibility, when they are examining a proposal that has important implications for Ireland and on which further information would be sought of going out to Brussels or for a meeting to be arranged which would involve separate sessions by various sub-Committees on their special areas of responsibility. I understand we still have financial provision for possible further visits. What is the position?
Nearly all the money has been spent. There is £1,700 approximately left.
Would that be for the current year?
I support the idea of a smaller group going to a succession of people on a particular subject and getting all the relevant views. The Committee should consider the possibility of going to examine what the Danish Committee does in performing the same function that we try to perform. The first Joint Committee had very useful discussions with the House of Lords and the House of Commons Committees. We saw their teething troubles, their approach, the way they organise their work, and their administrative set-up. The Danish Committee is of relevance to us because it is strong where we are weak. It has a strong political impact in Denmark but it does not have a separate staff, as I understand it, so that it is weaker on the secretarial side. It would be very important to have an opportunity of examining how they discharge their responsibilities. That is important because from now on some of the matters coming up at Community level will be very politically acute and as a Committee we should be thinking about how we can improve our own political impact. I am not thinking primarily of a divided political impact, but rather of an impact as a Committee examining Community proposals and their implications for us. Although we can divide at times on specific issues our impact over all as a Committee has not been sufficiently political. We should consider a visit to the Danish Committee to learn from their approach and experience and to see what implications it would have for our work.
Having listened to Senator Robinson, how would the Committee feel about going to the Danish Committee? Have they got any money left unspent to come to us, or Brussels? Would anybody like to add anything to what has been said. If not, we could proceed to the next item which really follows, from, as Senator Robinson has said—
I believe that the schedule was completely overloaded. We did not have adequate time. In fact, some of us did not get to speak at all on issues that were vital to our constituents. Therefore, I feel that in any future arrangements with regard to delegations to any of the European countries we will have to arrange a schedule so that we can all get the information we feel is necessary in order to help us to solve some of the difficulties confronting people from day-to-day. While we did get some information, some of us were not completely satisfied. We felt that we were not allowed adequate time to get a full airing of the significance of the problems. I would be inclined to ask the Committee to endeavour to have a smaller agenda, an agenda with fewer items, which could be fully discussed.
I was just thinking that, if funds are limited at present, then obviously it is not possible to mount a fully-paid expedition to either Brussels or Copenhagen. We might consider asking the secretariat to get the figures for costing this for us and then something might be done by way of a subsidised trip for those who would be interested in going, stretching what funds we have as far as possible and, if members are interested, they could make-up the balance of the cost.
We would have to refer that to the Financial Affairs sub-Committee.
I was not on the visit. Perhaps we could hear a little more of the feelings of the delegates who went. For example, what is the thinking in Brussels at present, say, in the dairy sector in regard to the Regional Fund, because these were the issues which were of concern to the members before leaving? We have heard of the difficulties the members have had, but we have not heard very much detail of what actually transpired at the meeting.
Could we ask Deputy Smith to tell you what was the feeling in Brussels on that?
I do not think the Committee members were too heartened by our first meeting in the morning, which dealt in the main with the proposed restrictions in the dairy sector. It seemed to us that the thinking in Brussels was that the question of surpluses of dairy products could be handled only by increasing the co-responsibility levy fairly significantly, in other words, treating a problem, which undoubtedly affects the Community, by a global proposal without taking into account the regional inequalities which beset various areas of the Community. We tried, I think without very much success, to impress on them our point of view. But, as Deputy Noonan said earlier, I do not think we met the personnel who would have enabled us to penetrate a little more deeply in regard to what is the Irish thinking on this whole problem. Certainly, from our previous experience I would prefer in the future to meet somebody like Dr. O'Dwyer in relation to dairying matters because we did have a satisfactory meeting with him two years ago. However, we were disappointed that when we brought to their notice matters in relation to Germany, for instance, where there are big importers of meal grain, absolutely no consideration seemed to be given to these problems. I think this meeting, of all the ones that took place, was the one fraught with the most danger for this country, because there did not appear to be an understanding of what our problems were: the fact that the majority of our farmers, 60 per cent, have under 50 acres and that their only real possibility of getting any sort of a reasonable income was through dairying. If we are to discuss that matter again we will have to be somewhat more selective. I do not know what control the Committee has over who would be appointed to meet us. I do not know how far we can go on it. But certainly we should go a little more deeply into the personnel that we are meeting, ensuring that we meet people who have direct responsibility, who are in a position to interpret national problems to a far greater extent than seemed to be apparent in this case.
I wonder would Deputy Smith disagree there with the view that probably that sector with which you were particularly concerned was one that was worst served and that in a way we were well served by all of the other people who met us?
I would agree completely. In fact, in discussions we had subsequently on the European Monetary System, we could not possibly have succeeded in getting a better hearing, having explained to the Committee what was involved in a very intricate and difficult subject; that was terrific. But in relation to agriculture,—such a crunch problem for our country as a whole—we were very badly served. I would not like to see a repeat of that performance for any sub-Committee.
I am sure that view will be particularly noted. But we were told at more than one of the meetings of the budgetary situation to which much more publicity has been given since, in a sense we were a bit ahead of the pack in being told that by the spring of the coming year the ceiling would be hit and that the Community would run out of cash in terms of its own resources. If I remember correctly I think that has been said since by Commissioner Gundelach. I think that was reported yesterday. But we did hear that a few weeks ago, which perhaps is an appropriate moment to lead on to the next item which relates directly to it.
Before leaving that item, I was not one of the people who went to Brussels for the meeting. I did not know the trip was on, for reasons which I went into with the previous Chairman. I understand that there will be some machinery for informing people who miss meetings when these trips will take place.
Might I suggest that it would be very useful, if those of us who were not present, indeed even those who were, could have a report of the visit circulated, indicating who was met and what were the main points arising from each discussion. I would find that very useful.
Deputy Leonard
I agree with Senator Hussey on that, that when representatives of this Committee go to Brussels we should have a report on the discussions, also a report on whom they met—it has not been indicated here specifically—the name and/or standing of any of the people they met in Brussels.
These are very useful contributions which the secretariat will note.
I have one observation to make. Senator Hussey touched on it very briefly. I refer to the statement, as published in the papers, attributed to Commissioner Gundelach, in connection with the Community's financial structure and position. I should like to know if any of the national committees dealing with Community affairs have been circulated with an accurate copy of that script so that we may know what he said. Each Member State is entitled to know the financial situation of the Community. For that reason we should make more detailed inquiries into the position because the statement published in the newspapers has had a very disturbing effect, not alone on everyone connected with agriculture but on those who were expecting substantial funds from the regional fund and other sources. The situation is farcical if the Community have no money and if, as was attributed to Commissioner Gundelach, it is on the threshold of bankruptcy. That is a serious situation and I should like to know if we can be supplied with a copy of Commissioner Gundelach's script on the financial situation of the Community.
The point has been well made. The terms of reference of the present Committee are somewhat different from the terms of reference of the first Committee. As a result of suggestions by the first Committee the terms of reference of the present Committee were extended to include something which was not included among the duties of the first Committee, the duty of examining such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action. That is our remit and is, perhaps, our constraint also with regard to this. Deputy Flanagan's words are apt. Everything that has been said will be duly noted and considered. This leads us into the next item, which relates directly to what Deputy Flanagan has said with regard to the budgetary position. It is a motion by Senator Robinson.