At our last meeting the Joint Committee suggested that the draft report they had before them on that occasion should go back to the general policy sub-committee and should there be re-drafted and that an endeavour should be made to incorporate into the report the views expressed at the meeting of the Joint Committee. The sub-committee have done that and have brought before you today what they hope will be the final draft of the report. It is proposed to proceed as follows: first, we will examine the final draft and adopt it with or without changes and then we can discuss the presentation of it to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Report on Regional Policy.
This committee have a special relationship with the Legislature. In a number of other member states of the EEC there are being made what I can describe as anti-European Community expressions. The committee is the only place where any vigilance can be exercised on the effect of Regulations, where a debate can take place. Whatever report emanates from this committee should contain not only the consensus viewpoint but also the minority viewpoint so that the Legislature would be in a position to have a full and clear debate on the report. People have suggested that the establishment of this committee has removed from the Dáil and Seanad the ability to have a vigorous scrutiny of the EEC. The only way in which we can present a report that will allow for a full debate is to present also minority opinion both from the sub-committee and the general opinion. I agree that the point is a procedural one but it is important.
I had hoped, and I had not envisaged otherwise, that the committee would present an agreed unanimous report to both Houses. It was the view of most of the members of both committees that the report would serve more as a basis for discussion in both Houses than that it would be an attempt to discuss the various issues. I had hoped that we might put forward a consensus view, that this view would be put in broad outline before both Houses and that thereafter both Houses would be able to discuss every aspect of this matter of the evolution of a regional policy.
I agree with the Chairman, but I must insist on my point. I differ from many members of the committee in so far as I have always been an opponent of Ireland's entry into the European Community. I continue to be more critical than most members of the committee of this country's membership. A consensus view, established by a simple majority, would not be a reflection of my view. I agree to co-operate with the procedures of the committee but I submit there are precedents for my suggestion.
For example, in the foundation of the State and the writing of the Free State Constitution there was provision for the minority viewpoint to be submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I believe we should have the fullest discussion possible in the Dáil and it was in an effort to create a full discussion that I put forward my viewpoint.
It seems that we are very much ad idem on this matter. At the last discussion we had we considered whether the report should be factual or very wide. I believe the consensus of opinion was that it should be factual so that we would not appear to be taking the discussion away from either House. In my view that is a fair interpretation of our wish and I believe it would meet the point raised by Senator Higgins. If there is an occasion for a minority opinion it can be met by a mention in the official report.
I had hoped that in relation to this matter we would be able to present a unanimous report. I would like to have had notice of Senator Higgins's question in order to ascertain whether this committee is as a matter of procedure is enabled to submit a minority report. Perhaps the Senator would agree to the committee proceeding now to examine the draft report. When we have concluded that examination it may be that the Senator will have no wish to submit a minority report.
I suggest this without in any way prejudicing the position in regard to the submission of any future minority reports. In the meantime I will look into the question of whether there is a procedure for the submission of a minority report.
I am grateful to the Chairman.
The draft report which the members have before them incorporates the various points of view put forward from time to time at meetings of this committee and of the sub-committee. This report incorporates our terms of reference, membership of the committee and so on. The first five pages deal with the background and have been agreed by the committee. Our opinion on the three documents begins on page 5.
We will deal with the draft from that page onwards, sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph and I invite the members to give their opinion on them. It was generally agreed at the last Joint Committee and sub-committee meeting that sub-paragraph (i), on page 5, should refer to the guiding principles outlined in our preamble and to the fact that they represent a radical departure from what until now has been universally accepted as fundamental community philosophy.
As there has been no comment from the members of the committee. I take it that we are adopting sub-paragraph (i). We will proceed to deal with sub-paragraph (ii).
I am still not satisfied with "less well developed" being substituted for "underdeveloped". We discussed this point on the last occasion. As I mentioned then, although Deputy Flanagan objected to it on a grammatical point, "less well developed" is not very much stronger than " underdeveloped ".
Not only is it weak but it does not bring across the point that Senator Ryan has spoken about: that there are undeveloped areas and underdeveloped areas. We should emphasise that the opinion of the committee is that Ireland is a particularly underdeveloped area.
This may emerge in some other form. There is certainly no objection to substituting " underdeveloped " for " less well developed."
Or possibly "least well developed."
I agree with Senator Boland that "underdeveloped " or " undeveloped " would be better than " less well developed ".
We started with underdeveloped" and went back to "less well developed," but in my view neither emphasises what we want to say.
Would it do to insert " underdeveloped " as well?
I believe it would meet Senator Boland's plea if we included in the sub-paragraph " underdeveloped " and " undeveloped ".
I think we are splitting hairs here.
We are not splitting hairs.
Perhaps it should read, " from the developed regions of the Community to the least well-developed ones."
I totally disagree with that because it presumes a level of development throughout the Community. This is not accurate or useful.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that these matters were more appropriate to our discussions at the sub-committee. This matter was before us at a Joint Committee meeting, was referred to a sub-committee, and is now before us again in what I would hope is practically its final form. If we are now going to go into changes of a substantial nature, then we may well get into a process of a draft coming from the sub-committee to the Joint Committee, going back again to the sub-committee, returning to the Joint Committee and so on ad infinitum.
That is true and I will not suggest any more words. I must say, however, that the objection made at the last meeting has not been met by the sub-committee. They have not made the point that we are not satisfied with just transfer from developed to undeveloped. Our whole point is that the bulk of this fund must go to the parts of the Community which are seriously in need of money, such as parts of this country, and it is not enough to go from one part of the country to another part.
There are other clauses which would, I hope, meet that particular argument. Perhaps if we just leave that particular paragraph for a moment on the basis of changing "less well" to "underdeveloped " would that meet with general approval?
I must agree with Senator Ryan. I do not think it is meeting the point at all. The point of the original objection is not being met at all in doing that.
Not developed countries, but developed regions.
I think the point we were making was that, while the proposal was to designate a vast area of the Community as being underdeveloped, the feeling was that some areas were more underdeveloped than others and this ought to be brought out. That was the point in the first instance.
Mr. Chairman, you have my sympathy here. I think we should accept your views in the matter, otherwise we will be getting bogged down; and I would hope that today we would finalise the report.
I, also, would like to finalise the report today. I am conscious of Senator Boland's contribution, but the deletion of the words "less well developed" and the replacement of them by the words "underdeveloped and undeveloped" makes an important change and we may later have to discuss, for example, infra-structural grants and projects within the EEC and we are better protected by the use of phrases like " underdeveloped " and " undeveloped " rather than " less developed ".
That is agreed.
First of all, by the time this goes into translation the distinction between " less well developed " and " undeveloped " will be lost. Also—this is something those of us who are members of the European Parliament know—a definition of infrastructure has not yet been arrived at. That is a fact.
We should try to reach a consensus very quickly in regard to the totality of this. I can accept the draft as it now reads with the exception of this phrase. It is a sufficient key in relation to all the different points made. I could accept them in their entirety, but those who object to this definition "less well developed areas " have a very serious point because our major objection to the recent proposals from Europe is to the effect that they did not take into their account a great many areas less developed than other major centres and did not equate at all with the problem we have in this country. I think, therefore, it is important to change the phrasing from "less well" to some wording which will define precisely the level in this country. My suggestion is that it could possibly be done simply by changing the proposal to state " from the developed regions of the Community to the less well developed regions ". That embraces it precisely and simply. I merely make the suggestion.
If I were to adopt that suggestion I would be inclined to say " less developed ".
Right.
We have two schools of thought: one says " underdeveloped " and the other says " less developed ".
I suggest " less developed."
I would think so.
Yes.
Underdeveloped and undeveloped.
One is " less developed " as distinct from " undeveloped " and " underdeveloped."
I am personally happy with " less developed ". It shows an extreme, if you like.
I am taking it then that " less developed " is the general view.
I dissent.
I also dissent. It is too narrow a definition altogether.
I think we should not delay on the matter, but I would strongly suggest that, since Ireland has the lowest income per head in the Community, we are the less developed.
We are talking about an area—not a nation.
I think we have to take out the biggest insurance policy we can in relation to Ireland as a whole.
Deputies and Senators who are not too happy with it can make the point in the Dáil and Seanad respectively.
Using the words " least developed " do you cut out other shades of lesser development?
Are you thereby cutting out a region which needs development but does not necessarily need it as badly as the very worst areas? It would be tantamount to saying you cannot give food to anybody unless famine conditions prevail. These are not the very worst areas.
It is not exclusive at all. You are merely suggesting there should be a substantial transfer of resources to the less developed.
In the least developed you could have degrees.
With regard to Deputy Kavanagh's and my disagreement on the term " less developed ", " less developed " has a tremendous amount of assumptions contained in it and, as you rightly said, Mr. Chairman, Deputy Kavanagh will have an opportunity in the Dáil and I will have an opportunity in the Seanad of pointing out why we wanted " underdeveloped " and " undeveloped " included. I am very anxious to facilitate procedure, but we are not just quibbling about words but about dreadful mental concepts.
Question: That in sub-paragraph (ii) " least developed " be substituted for " less well developed ", put and agreed.
Sup-paragraph (ii), as amended, agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (iii) agreed to.
On sub-paragraph (iv) this and sub-paragraph (viii) seem to combine. Both deal with expenditure and rates of expenditure. I would have thought the two could be combined actually.
There is a different point made in each sub-paragraph. Sub-paragraph (viii) deals with the specific level of aid to be given for any particular project whereas sub-paragraph (iv) is seeking to make the point——
But it can only be given at these rates. The level of contribution is fixed to these rates.
Sub-paragraph (iv) attacks the principle of all aid from the fund being confined to being complementary to local aid. The fact that it will only be complementary to local aid ignores the relative strengths of the different economies.
The percentages are also tied into local aid.
They are two quite different points. The first point is the general criticism that the whole system of regional aid is complementary to national resources and that it does not take into account that national resources are different in each member state. A quite different point is the actual percentage of the Community's addition to the national investment, either in industry or in infrastructure. They are quite separate points.
Maybe it would be better to put them side-by-side.
Am I correct in saying that the original proposals of 3rd May did pay respect to the disparity of natural resources in a way not done by later proposals?
Yes, that is why the original proposals were going to retain part of the fund because certain countries would not have adequate national resources.
Sub-paragraph (v) would be a logical follow on of sub-paragraph (iv).
May I make a point on sub-paragraph (v)? I think we are up against a difficulty here. I am sorry to come in at a relatively late stage in this discussion but I am out of the country for much of the time. Despite any rumours to the contrary about disagreements between Senator Lenihan and myself, here I am speaking for Senator Lenihan as much as for myself.
Neither Senator Lenihan nor myself is a member of the Regional Committee, although Deputy Herbert, who is not here, is a member. The Senator and I asked to be suppléants on the Regional Committee and were so made. This issue came up and provoked a very intense and important argument of principle in which strong positions were taken. Senator Lenihan and I are seeking to be suppléants again. Either Deputy Kavanagh or myself is head of the queue of the Socialist group as suppléant and similarly Senator Lenihan is head of the queue of the Progressive Democrat group.
This paragraph may be a little out-of-date or perhaps I am obtuse. When we presented the argument—Senator Lenihan and I worked as one on this in support of his amendment that portion of the fund should be retained—the argument we met from certain sources, both on the Commission and the Committee, which were hostile to Irish interests, to put it mildly, was that if a portion of the fund was so retained it would inevitably be administered on a quota basis. Senator Lenihan and I were sitting on opposite sides of the table and we found ourselves rather cleverly outflanked: we did not know whether to press the amendment or to withdraw it and put it in more specific terms. We could have carried it but did not think it wise to do so on the basis that the majority would be determined by three Irishmen, two of whom were only suppléants to the Committee. Therefore, we withdrew it in order to make it more specific.
We are up against the argument here that if a proportion is retained it will be administered on a quota basis, based on population. I know this is a public hearing and I am choosing my words very carefully, but my personal opinion is that the Commission, and particularly the Commissioner, Mr. Thomson, are taking the view that this is such a hot political potato the Council of Ministers should decide it one way or another. Signor Ruggiero, a subordinate of the Commissioner, in effect said to Senator Lenihan that what we were doing was arguing for a quota application. Senator Lenihan and myself backed off in reverse at a fast rate.
We had both Senator Lenihan and Deputy Herbert at our sub-committee meeting and they gave an outline of that discussion. Nevertheless, both agreed this paragraph should go in.
All right as long as you understand the difficulties here. I was going to suggest you might add something like " on the basis of need " which were the words used by Senator Lenihan, rather than " on the basis of the quota system ". However, if you are sure we are covered I am happy to accept the paragraph but I hope you realise the minefield waiting for us here.
We are aware of that. We are all enamoured even in retrospect at the prospect of yourself and Senator Lenihan moving forward and in retreat together.
Sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) agreed to.
Perhaps we might now discuss paragraph (vi).
I suggest that we leave in the proposal that only areas where the gross domestic product per head is substantially below the Community average qualify.
Quite. Here we are giving it as our opinion that only areas where the gross domestic product is substantially below the Community average should qualify. As the criteria are framed at the moment, in Article 3 of the Regulation establishing the fund they would admit areas where the gross domestic product need be just barely below the Community level.
It does not read very clearly.
Perhaps inserting " that " after " and " in the third line might help?
That would help but the one long sentence is still rather cumbersome.
Yes, but we want to get all these points in.
I propose that the words from " unacceptable " in line 7 to " are " in line 9 be deleted for the reasons mentioned on the last occasion. That point is inconsistent with the remainder. The point we should make is that the measure is too loosely framed. On the one hand we are asking that migration within the confines of member states be included, and on the other hand we are saying it is too loosely framed. We are being inconsistent. What we want to emphasise is that too many regions and areas are being included in the scheme.
We were of the opinion that they are not necessarily inconsistent, that it is not inconsistent for us to say that the criteria do not have any regard for migration inside member states and also that they are in general at fault in that they admit one half of the whole Community.
I am not pressing the point but there is an inconsistency here.
I suggest that instead of the word "areas" we use " regions."
I am always amenable to making changes of that sort.
This is in reference to Article 3 of the proposals to set up a fund in which the words " regions " and " areas " are used. We must be careful here. The word " areas " is being used in the broader sense.
" I would prefer the retention of the word "areas" because what is meant is an area defined as a region. It would be better to retain the word " areas." It might be clearer also if the word " substantially " were in italics or were emphasised in some such way.
I would support Senator Robinson here. One of the problems is that basically we are talking of nations and trying not to indulge in a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland use of the English language. On the whole we are safer in the context of areas than of regions.
In sub-paragraph (vi) there should be a reference to part (2) of Article 3 because this is a proposal contained in Article 2. In fairness to Deputy Kavanagh, Article 3 refers specifically to regions and areas. Perhaps it might be dressed up somewhat more effectively.
I am prepared to go along with the words "regions and areas” and if it is the general view to put the word “substantially” in inverted commas.
At least to emphasise it.
And to put in "that" after " and."
Amendments put and agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (vi), as amended agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (vii) agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (viii) is the one where we attack the actual percentage rates.
I thought we should have a clear statement on the level of contribution for industry and infrastructural projects. The level is too low.
We discussed this in sub-committee and the opinion was that we should not go into too much detail; rather, that we would leave it all open. We considered the use of the words " restrictive " and " unsuitable " as giving us sufficient ambit under which we could discuss this matter in either House of the Oireachtas.
The only reservation I have in relation to the paragraph is in regard to the choice of the word "likely". We are letting them off the hook unnecessarily there in the sense that, if we believe the rate of 15 per cent for industry and that of 30 per cent for infrastructure to be unsuitable and if we believe that the rates are unsuitable in Irish circumstances, then a simple statement is stronger than saying that it is likely. The word "likely" suggests that the point is a mute one and one for discussion.
I support Deputy Staunton in this. Instead of the word "likely "we should use" will ".
The word " will " is better.
Amendment agreed to.
Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas could elaborate adequately on the words " restrictive " and " unsuitable ".
Sub-paragraph (viii), as amended, agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (ix) suggests that the amounts proposed are unrealistic.
There is an obligation on us to put forward very strong views to both Houses on this matter. I would suggest that we might strengthen it by saying in the third line of the paragraph that the sums are so unrealistic, having regard to the size of Ireland's regional problems alone, as to be of marginal impact on the social and economical development of Ireland. Irrespective of what any country might get, they would regard it as being unrealistic but we in Ireland are in such a unique position that we must say the sums are so unrealistic as to be marginal.
Perhaps it is a piece of pedantry on my part but either something is unrealistic or it is not. I suggest something on the lines that having regard to the size of Ireland's regional problems alone apart altogether from those of other countries, the sums are such as would not make any impact.
No significant impact.
Yes.
Perhaps I could lend my European experience here. Deputy Desmond is right. If this document ever goes to the Dáil and reaches the end of the tunnel, so to speak, by the time it has been translated 23 times the wording will have been rendered so opaque that it will not have any impact on anyone. Deputy Desmond is correct in indicating that we must make a very strong case.
We might add something on the lines suggested.
One of the few things known at the moment is the size of the Fund and it does not look as if there is to be any change in the extent of it. We should be stronger in relation to concentration.
If the fund is inadequate we should state so. I am sure the matter is still a flexible one.
On the map that has been produced half the area of Europe has been taken into account. In those circumstances the money is ridiculous. We should advert to the fact that under proposals at the moment for regional policy in respect of half of Europe the fund is totally inadequate. The fund is inadequate no matter what area it applies to.
This is a very important point, because, no matter what Commissioner Thomson said at his last press conference, a report of which Deputy Esmonde has given to me, the principle of Juste retouro is being applied publicly without it being admitted that this is so. This is to Ireland’s disadvantage and it could mean the obliteration of the Irish economy. This is vitally important. I go along completely with Deputy Desmond who made the point that the allotment in the entire fund is inadequate. However, Deputy Kavanagh correctly made the point that, since it is too late to change the entire allotment, our fraction of it is inadequate.
The fund could be ten times greater and it would be still too small if half of Europe is to be taken into account. On the other hand if Ireland and Italy were only to be taken into account the fund would pay a bigger dividend to us.
We have already made the point that the area to be admitted is too big. Now we are making the point that the size of the fund is too small, so small that, even in Ireland's case, it will not make any real impact.
I have deliberately left it broad because we have to strengthen the hands of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, in a general sense.
We can incorporate something to cover that.
I suggest that we add something to the effect that this will restrict the Commission's ability to deal with regional imbalance.
Yes, that is the same point put differently. We will try to cover that point in the amended Report.
Sub-paragraph (ix), as amended, agreed to.
Sub-paragraph (x) deals with the decision by the Council on the creation of a Committee for Regional Policy. In relation to Article 3 of this we feel that it should be broadened to include representation of the social partners on the Committee and we also suggest some form of liaison, as distinct from mere consultation, with the Economic and Social Committee. Article 5 of the draft decision refers to the taking of evidence from trade unions and industrialists and we want this widened to include farming organisations.
Sub-paragraph (x) agreed to.
Paragraph (xi) adverts to the fact that in most matters up to this point in time the Commission could act on a firm basis of a particular provision of the Treaty of Rome or some extension of it. In regard to regional policy the Commission will have to act under the general authority of Article 235. We are endeavouring to draw attention to that fact and to the corrollary that in these circumstances the Commission must have entire freedom of action and not be subjected in any way to political pressures by any member state.
Sub-paragraph (xi) agreed to.
I agree with the spirit of that but in my view it is hardly strong enough. I suggest we consider an additional paragraph. It could be worded as follows.
That such general departures from the terms of protocol to the Treaty of Accession adverted to in the foregoing paragraphs and such departures from the basic provisions of the Treaty of Rome warrants a re-evaluation by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the future participation of Ireland within the European Community and the development of such procedures as are necessary to defend the resources of this country.
I am suggesting this additional paragraph because I believe that what we need to do is to present a report to both Houses of the Oireachtas that will allow the fullest debate. Such a strong paragraph would ensure that a full debate takes place.
The Senator is suggesting the inclusion of a paragraph of fundamental importance. This is something of which we would have needed to have notice of so that we could deal with it adequately. However, I would welcome the views of the other members of the committee on this suggestion.
I would not like to see that paragraph being included because it would be tantamount to a statement from the committee that we are gravely dissatisfied with matters as they are.
I know of the strong feelings of Senator Higgins on this point but I suggest that his paragraph is premature in that it presupposes that a decision has already been taken at Council level. We are considering these proposals while they are in draft. We are part of the whole legislative process and we are trying to influence our Minister for Foreign Affairs to, as far as he can, influence the Council of Ministers as to how they should approach the problem. Senator Higgins' point would arise if the Council of Ministers took a very rigid line and refused to concede any of the very strong arguments made. This proposal would distort and to some extent weaken our report if it was included now.
People, if they felt like it, could make that statement in either or both Houses of the Oireachtas. For the committee to do so would be, in my view, going outside their terms of reference.
Deputy Dockrell has hit on the essence. If Members of the Oireachtas feel disposed to articulate these sentiments they have an excellent opportunity when the House meets to express their strong viewpoints. It seems to me that the statement read by Senator Higgins is too broad in the sense that, notwithstanding the great dissatisfaction in this country relative to the regional policy, there is a measure of acceptance of what has occurred involving this county in the EC and the area of Common Agricultural Policy and general philosophy. This suggestion that this committee should talk about re-evaluation by the Houses of the Oireachtas in regard to a total participation in the EC is broadening and probably going beyond the committee's function. I suggest that what we have done is fine and it should be left at that.
I realise the chairman has been very lenient with me and I undertake to give him a greater notice of any fundamental changes which I propose. I must stick by my proposal in this instance. I am very influenced by the opinion of Senator Robinson who suggests that perhaps my comments are premature. However, I would disagree with her. Members will notice that sub-paragraph (i) ends by a reference to the Article which I have mentioned: that which covers the terms of protocol. The paragraph I have suggested mentions the Articles of the Treaty of Rome.
In proposing this paragraph I was cognisant of the statement attributed to President Pompidou in today's paper. The President suggested, for example, that the Community must at any cost have some policy on the Middle East. I am saying that, if we want to be realistic about our concern, we cannot express that concern strongly enough. My paragraph is a reminder to those who went around the country suggesting that the Treaty of Rome represented a humanist, socialist philosophy for Europe and it is a reminder to the people who affixed their signatures to the protocol that the protocol is real and, for those reasons, form proposals additional to this document.
I think this amendment, or this extra paragraph, presupposes there is nothing which can be done with these proposals which would enable them to comply with what we think would be fair and reasonable whereas, in fact, if the amendments which we suggest were adopted by the Council, most people on this committee would be satisfied and, for that reason, to add a paragraph which suggests that nothing can be done to improve the situation is premature.
It is not the intention of my paragraph to say and neither is there contained in it any suggestion, that nothing can be done, but it is contained within the condition, I suggest, and the reminder of the philosophy contained in the Treaty of Rome and all the conditions which have not been agreed concerning the protocol to the Treaty of Accession. It is not a pessimistic paragraph. I do not agree it is. It is simply a reminder of (a) philosophy as propounded by different groups in this country and (b) of specific paragraphs which form the Protocol to the Treaty of Accession which governs the relationship between Ireland and the Community.
The Senator is perfectly entitled to put forward a proposal. I think however the general view of the committee would be against him. Whether or not he may wish to press it to a vote at this stage is a matter which I hope he will consider. With regard to the two last points made about the philosophy of the Community, I would have thought they were reasonably adequately covered in the paragraphs already included in the draft report. Paragraph (1) specifically refers to the philosophy and the guiding principles and to the radical departure from them.
If one accepts that for the sake of argument one should see no great objection, with respect, to the summary in my final paragraph. On the issue as to whether I want to press it to a vote, I do. It is a decision of importance.
Before the Senator presses anything, I think he should read out, first of all, what he is pressing.
I have already read it three times.
Personally, I should like to hear it again.
My proposal is to insert as paragraph (xii) the following:
That such general departures from the terms of the Protocol of the Treaty of Accession adverted to in the previous paragraphs and such general departures from sections of the Treaty of Rome warrant a revaluation by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the continued participation of Ireland within the European Community and the development of such procedures as are necessary to defend the resources of this country.
I want to explain why I am going to vote against my colleague's, Senator Higgins', amendment. I, too, think it is premature. I do not want to introduce any kind of partisan discussion into this meeting, but the day may come when the kind of argument put forward by Senator Higgins, with which I perfectly agree, will have to be debated; but I do not think we are doing the cause of the country any good at this point in time, as Deputy Desmond would say. There is no doubt as to what we all feel to be an inadequate allocation not merely of the regional policy but of the Social Fund and of the possibility of the non-improvement of the common agricultural policy, at this juncture, contemplating an impossible situation, namely, the withdrawal of this country from the European Economic Community—this is, I think, what Senator Higgins is propounding—and as someone who campaigned with complete sincerity against membership of the Community, I want to place on record that I am going to vote against what Senator Higgins proposes for the reasons I have just given.
I agree with Deputy Thornley. I do not think we should discuss this particular point because I think it would be fatal. We should just take a vote on it.
My own view is that if a member of the committee has massive reservations, such as those expressed by Senator Higgins, the committee should strive for unanimity and I think the Senator will agree that it would be in the best interests of the country as a whole that this committee should present a unanimous report of both Houses of the Oireachtas. We have been unanimous up to now and I share Senator Higgins's view that there has been a general departure from many of the first assumptions we have been working on since Ireland entered into the Community. I would suggest to him that he might be wise and, indeed, might gain very considerable future sympathy from the members of the committee if he kept his heavy ammunition for, I would suggest, a future report of the committee. This is the first report. In many ways it is an interim report and should it so come about that the final decision of the Council would be so disadvantageous to this country, then I think this committee, with due notice, will have a very sharp and effective second report. I do not regard us as having had our final say at all on the question of regional policy and I would strongly suggest to Senator Higgins that, in the best interests of getting a unanimous report for the Dáil and Seanad—I have no doubt in the Seanad he will make the points he has outlined in the suggested preamble to the report—he should now accept the collective wisdom of the committee and keep the heavy ammunition until what one might call a critical situation comes about.
There is grave danger that one may, in pursuing a certain course, raise up so many hares in this proposition that the need for a massive regional fund, with a proper allocation to this country, could be lost sight of in the in-fighting subsequently chasing the different hares. I make that suggestion strongly to my colleague and I think too that, if he so wishes, we could include the fact that it appears to the committee there seems to be a pretty substantial departure and the committee will have to examine the matter again. At this stage, to suggest that what has happened warrants a re-evaluation of Ireland's continued membership of the EEC would, I think, be more premature. It would be dangerous and it would not be in the best interests of the committee and so, until negotiations have finished and we know precisely what we are going to get in 1974, 1975 and 1976, then we can present our second report to the Dáil and Seanad, a report which will be a very critical analysis of what we are getting. I do not think we should spancel either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or ourselves as a committee until that kind of critical situation develops. I suggest that as a matter of strategy to Senator Higgins.
I would like to substantiate something that was said earlier, namely, that in the preamble to this document we have referred to the Protocol and the basic points made by Deputy Higgins are covered in that preamble, and this is done very gracefully, and in the sort of phraseology that should be used at the point in time when one is tackling this question. To my mind the question of re-evaluating the continued participation of this country in the Community is entirely radical.
In a pragmatic sense, it could be dangerous to agree to this kind of language because should we not get what we seek our bluff is called. From listening to Members who have spoken it seems to me there is a consensus that this should not be pursued. May I urge my colleague and friend, Senator Higgins, in view of what seems to be the viewpoint within the committee, that it would be the better part of valour not to push this issue to the point where a vote would be taken? Possibly the suggestion might be withdrawn at this stage in the interests of the committee.
I want a speedy end to this matter. I repeat my formal proposal: I want a vote on this. I want a vote for the reason that there is no point in locking the stable door when the horse has bolted. We need to be as strong as possible before we go to the Council of Ministers. I do not agree that the paragraph I proposed in any way is spancelling either the tactics or the relations the Minister for Foreign Affairs may have with other Foreign Ministers in the Community.
I know what Deputy Staunton has in mind but the very words he used prompt me to insist on a vote. He said: " We have graciously pointed out the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and the terms of the Protocol ". I do not believe the national interest is served by graciously, and in somewhat disparate fashion through different sections, pointing out either the European philosophy or the terms of the protocol. It should be spelled out in terms of cold steel. I agree with the Deputy that the implications of what I am suggesting may be radical. I was aware of that when I made the proposals a paragraph and I am also well aware of and quite willing to free the consequences arising from the very unlikely adoption of my proposals by the committee.
Senator Higgins is endeavouring to introduce a dimension into this discussion that is not required and has not been requested. On the Order of Business we were asked to discuss three different proposals under heading No. 1 but the Senator is trying to introduce a discussion on the whole aspect of our entry into the EEC. That is not on today. Perhaps it is something he should put down for debate at the next Parliamentary Labour Party meeting if he wishes. It would be more appropriate at that level. We should confine ourselves to discussing what we have been asked to discuss and not go beyond that.
I do not share with the rest of my colleagues this intense desire to achieve consensus. There is room for different points of view. This point has been allowed to arise in a discussion in the committee. I differ from Deputy Kavanagh here—it is before us and we should consider it. Senator Higgins has put forward a proposal. I do not believe he has much support in the committee but I should prefer to have a healthy vote on the proposal. He has the right to maintain his point of view. The committee in general do not agree with it but we should have a vote and that would be the end of the matter.
As I pointed out before, it is premature because it presupposes that what we are asking would not be granted to us. It is outside our terms of reference.
There is a very important point here. I agree with Senator Robinson that there should be a vote and the views of the committee clearly recorded. On a major matter such as this it is better not to have a consensus appearing in the report when obviously there is not a consensus as Senator Higgins is holding a minority point of view. What we are doing is providing for our colleagues in the two Houses of the Oireachtas a review of the philosophy and thinking behind the Community and our interpretation of the effects which the Community proposals on regional policy would have if implemented in their present form. It would be quite wrong for the committee to suggest political moves of a major kind. The committee are supposed to be a Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and it is quite outside our scope and terms of reference to issue in our first report a suggestion to our colleagues in the House of the Oireachtas that we should review our entire situation in the Community. This would be out of order because it is completely outside our scope and terms of reference. It is important to discuss it on this basis because this may happen again and we should know where we stand.
Although I do not like to do so. I am inclined to propose that the suggestion of Senator Higgins is irrelevant to the work we are doing here. I may inadvertently have sparked this off by not choosing my words correctly at the last public meeting. At column 152 of the report of the committee I said we might have to take the view of rejecting the proposals out of hand. I did not go so far as to say we would have to resign from our position under the Treaty which is quite a different matter. Senator Higgins's proposals go the distance of letting us re-assess our entire position under the Treaty of Rome.
We have a job to do, namely, to consider the proposals and this is what we have done. We have considered them in the hope that we can make a better job of them. Our function is to be constructive so far as we can and, as Senator Boland said, to try to assist our colleagues in the Houses of the Oireachtas by providing a report on which they can discuss these proposals. We have had two sub-committee meetings on regional policy and this is the second, if not the third, full committee meeting dealing with this matter. To go into the question whether we should stay within the Community does not make sense. We are trying to provide a report on the basis of being as constructive as we can. I said at a previous meeting that we might well have to take the attitude of rejecting completely these proposals but we have been dealing with them on the basis of trying to make them work.
We should bear in mind that these are only proposals from the Commission at the instance of a kind of summit meeting. Ultimately they will have to go before the Council in Europe. We have a right of veto, a right to say something at that stage. I should imagine that with proposals to set up a regional fund and a regional policy the matter would have to be unanimous at the level of the Council of Ministers. What we are trying to do is to provide the Irish viewpoint on this particular aspect of European policy. It is hardly our function here to consider the wider aspect of Ireland's membership to date of the EEC. I suggest that the proper course for Senator Higgins to adopt is to table a motion for the committee in which case we would have to consider whether discussion of that was even relevant within our terms of reference.
This is a matter of procedure but I am happy to have a vote on the proposal.
Question put and declared negatived.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.
It is now a matter of securing the permission of both Houses of the Oireachtas to have the report printed. I hope that this matter can be put on the Order Paper of the Dáil for Wednesday next and as chairman of the committee, I shall move that it be laid before the Dáil and that it be printed.
Proposed and agreed that Senator Robinson should seek the permission of the Seanad to have the report printed and laid before that House.
In these days of the comings and and goings of helicopters, perhaps we could ask the chairman to use his good offices to endeavour to have the report discussed at a time when the ten delegates to the European Parliament are in their native land.
I will endeavour to do that.
Would it be possible to have the debate concluded on the day it begins?
The ordering of business is a matter for the Government, but I will put the point to them. Another matter is that of securing an agreement from both Houses whereby in future we would not have to seek specific permission in respect of each report. I am advised that there are two ways of doing this. One is that we table a motion to that effect for each House and the other is that we go through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Is this on the matter of printing?
Yes.
It is customary for a committee that is sitting regularly to have general authority of this kind. Perhaps we could approach the matter by way of simple motion in both Houses. If we refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges it may not be taken until after Christmas.
That would not be so because that committee will be sitting within the next three weeks at the latest. Essentially this is a procedural matter, but if we deal with it by way of a motion before each House, there would be time spent debating it. I would be prepared to propose it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
That is a very generous offer.
I wonder if we are adopting the right approach here. This committee is a statutory one and, therefore, we should hesitate before throwing away the right to the throne, as it were.
It is hardly necessary to refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges since it involves a clear-cut request to either House which they either grant or refuse us.
This might involve delay because motions must go initially to the Cabinet and may remain on the agenda for a number of weeks, whereas a letter from the chairman to the Ceann Comhairle asking that the matter be put on the agenda for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would probably mean that printing could begin on the day after the meeting of that committee.
There is a point of principle at stake here. We should not go through another committee.
The matter is not quite like that. The Dáil established a Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deal with procedural matters of this sort and I could visualise the Dáil if we were to go before it passing our motion to that committee.
If Deputy Desmond stands by his undertaking in this regard, perhaps we could leave the matter at that.