Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1972

Vol. 263 No. 2

European Communities Bill, 1972: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Bruton

My main concern in addressing myself to this Bill is to ensure that there is the maximum participation in decision-making in the Community by directly elected democratic representatives. My main criticism of the EEC as it exists is the weakness of the democratic voice in its decision-making. There are a number of institutions through which a democratic voice can take effect. Some are weaker than others so far as their democratic content is concerned. The first one which was adverted to last night by Deputy de Valera was the Council of Ministers. He attached very great importance to preserving the present powers and functions of the Council of Ministers. He claimed it was directly responsible to the national Governments who were directly elected by the people.

I think his thesis was faulty in some respects. While I do not deny that there is a definite obvious democratic content in the fact that they are Government Ministers of the various countries sitting around a table, there is the difficulty that members of Parliament seeking to check the activities of their Ministers who are on the Council are at a significant disadvantage. This arises from the fact that one does not know what line the particular Minister has taken on a particular issue. One does not know what line he will take on any future issue. The discussions are confidential and therefore the degree of control which one can exercise through national Parliaments on Ministers in the Council is not very significant due to the secrecy of the discussions.

It is further attenuated by the fact that these discussions by the Council of Ministers can often be very lengthy. There are all-night decision-making sessions. It is quite clear from this that if the Council of Ministers are, as they are at the moment, effectively locked up in one room and told to take a decision and not to leave until they have done so, there is very little opportunity for referral back in the course of the decision-making to their own Cabinets, let alone to the national parliaments. Clearly the democratic voice which can be expressed through the Council of Ministers is not very strong due to the secrecy, and due to the fact that decisions must be taken at a single sitting. Simply to say that leaving the Council of Ministers as it is preserves a valuable democratic voice to my mind is not fair. We need other institutions.

The second existing institution which provides for a democratic voice in the Community is the European Parliament. I am not at all satisfied that this provides an effective democratic voice. It is important to recognise that the powers of the Community Parliament are essentially consultative. They are consulted on directives. There is no compulsion in any discussion on the Council of Ministers, who make the final decisions, to accept the views of the Parliament. Therefore, to a significant degree the debates are unreal. It is worth noting in passing that many people say, and Continental commentators say, that the most significant power of the European Parliament is that it can put Parliamentary Questions to the Commission and have them replied to.

It is worth noting the length of time it takes to get a reply. In normal circumstances in this House we can certainly get a written reply in four or five days. In the Community Parliament, so far as I know, it takes at least a month to get a reply to a Parliamentary Question. The Commission have the power to say unilaterally: "We cannot reply to that this month. We will put it off for another month." There could be delays of two, three or four months in getting answers to important questions. Quite clearly that greatly reduces the democratic potency of the Parliamentary Question in the European Parliament as distinct from the form it takes in this Parliament.

It is fair to say that the Members must be in Brussels, or wherever the Parliament or its committees are sitting, for one-third of the year or more. This time will probably be added to by the journeys to and fro. Plane connections may not be as suitable as they should be, with the result that about half of the year will be spent by members of the European Parliament away from their constituencies. This is more remarkable in this country than it is in Continental Europe because of the distance between here and wherever the Parliament is sitting. Therefore, those members will not be very close to their constituents and they will not be open to the sort of informal contact with their constituents which is, perhaps, the most effective way in which Deputies can learn about issues and bring them forward here. It is not through meeting formal delegations that democracy really has its effect; it is through a Deputy moving around his constituency and hearing people talking, very often hearing casual remarks, that he learns of an issue which is important and which may become of great concern.

If the members of the European Parliament have to spend half the year away from their constituencies, and perhaps the rest of the year sitting in this House trying to maintain their seats here by making some contribution in the National Parliament, their response to public opinion in their constituencies will be much less than the response of other Members of the House to the feelings of their constituents. Under our system of election, proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies, there is always the possibility that, if a man is elected to the European Parliament, another member of his own party will be working away in the constituency and he may be able to undermine his position by his greater presence in the constituency.

This will mean that members of the European Parliament will be at a significant disadvantage. They will be faced with the choice of either doing their job properly in Europe, which means being away for a good deal of the time, in which case they run the risk of losing their seats at the next election, or of not doing their job in Europe and staying at home and trying to hold their seats, in which case there is hardly any point in having them in the European Parliament. This is further aggravated in the case of Ireland because we are further away from where the European Parliament will meet. Therefore the democratic voice of Ireland expressed through the European Parliament will be greatly decreased. We must find some way around this. I will come to the ways in which we could do it later.

At this stage I am establishing the weakness of the Council of Ministers as a democratic voice, due to the secrecy of their deliberations, and due to the fact that very often decisions are taken at one sitting without the possibility of a referral back. I am also demonstrating the weakness of the European Parliament as a democratic voice: first, because it is consultative essentially; secondly because of the delay in getting repiles to Parliamentary Questions and, thirdly, because in the case of Ireland Members will be away from their constituencies for a long time, will lose contact and therefore will lose effective democratic representation.

In regard to Ireland more so than in regard to the other countries, there is a very strong case to be made for having Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann very closely involved in the Community legislative process, and able to influence as far as possible the decisions of the Irish member on the Council of Ministers, and able also, because of the fact that debates have taken place here, to put forward ideas to the Irish representatives in the European Parliament thereby giving them greater material on which to proceed. Clearly 144 minds are better than ten, and better than one in the case of the member of the Council of Ministers.

The important thing is to get as many minds as possible to concentrate on the EEC draft regulations and draft directives which are coming before us, so that the Irish Minister on the Council of Ministers, and the Irish members of the European Parliament, will be as well informed as possible on opinion in Ireland and will have the benefit of as many ideas as possible. It is important that we do not approach this matter as we approach many other legislative proposals, as a partisan issue. The Irish Minister will have much to gain from hearing the views of the Opposition on issues of this character. It will strengthen his position considerably if, in relation to a particular proposal, he is able to point not only to his own opinion that a particular aspect of it is undesirable but also to the opinion expressed by all parties here. He would then go to the Council of Ministers in a much stronger position to demonstrate the danger of any particular proposal from the Irish point of view.

It is vital that provision be made for consultation to the maximum degree with this House in relation to Community legislative proposals. The only provision in this Bill for such consultation is an extremely weak one. This is my strongest criticism of this measure. There is no need for the provision to be so weak and we could greatly strengthen the voice of this House in regard to EEC legislative proposals without in any way endangering our membership of the European Community. I am frankly surprised that the Government, who traditionally have claimed to be more concerned with sovereignty than the other parties in this House—a claim I dispute—should be the people to introduce safeguards for Parliament in regard to EEC legislative proposals significantly weaker even than those being taken in Britain and a great deal weaker than the safeguards possible.

I would have expected that the protection of the Oireachtas from the point of view of the EEC legislative proposals would have been much stronger than those in Britain because of the traditionally expressed views of the Government party. It is disconcerting, to say the least of it, that they should be so much weaker. I find this difficult to understand. The only provision here in regard to regulations is that they will take effect immediately but their effect will lapse unless they are confirmed by a decision of the Oireachtas within one year. This is a very weak position indeed. First of all, we will be asked to discuss a fait accompli. We will be given a list of regulations already in force in the country and asked to either approve or disapprove. There will really be no question of disapproving and the whole debate will, therefore, be quite unreal. To illustrate my point, there is a list of regulations here which, by this particular Bill we are putting through at the moment, we are making effective. How many of the contributions in the debate so far have been related to discussing Directive 69/77 of 4th March, 1969 amending the Council Directive of 7th July, 1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of activities of all self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC Groups 23-40? Not one speaker referred to it. There was no discussion on it. Why? Because it is a fait accompli and there would be no point in discussing it. Wherein lies the alleged safeguard then? The Government are proposing to give us an opportunity of discussing after the event EEC legislation which has already been put into effect in the form of a regulation by the Irish Minister. That will certainly not be worth very much. I am surprised that this Government, who claim they are the upholders of sovereignty and who have cavilled over phrases in order to demonstrate their minute concern with the preservation of sovereignty, should now be prepared to bring in a Bill here practically devoid of any safeguards. There should be written into this Bill provisions with regard to consultation with the democratically elected representatives of the people who sit in this House.

I would divide these safeguards into two stages. First of all, in regard to regulations and directives in draft form submitted by the Commission to the Council, it is essential that there should be full discussion of all proposals in advance of any decision being taken by the Council. There must be a discussion on the draft. That would be the most meaningful discussion of all because we would be expressing an opinion on something which has not yet been decided and our view would then be made known by our Minister to the Council. That is of paramount importance. There is no provision in this measure to give effect to that.

The second stage at which we should discuss is when a directive or a regulation has been decided on by the Council. Again, there should be an opportunity to discuss such regulation or directive, its implementation and the form of its implementation here. That will be important in regard to directives because it is only in regard to directives that there is no direct applicability of the Community regulation here and there is a possibility of the Irish Government interpreting the directive in a certain way when it comes to implementation. There is need for opportunity for discussion at that level, need for discussion on Government interpretation and implementation. The House must be brought in at that stage in relation to directives. At the earlier stage, when we are discussing drafts, there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss not only directives but also regulations which, once decided by the Council of Ministers, will become directly applicable here.

The practice adopted by the Government should be as follows: once a draft regulation or a draft directive is published it should immediately be laid before the House and attention drawn to it in the same way as attention is drawn to various Government orders. It should also be made available in an English translation. I have a criticism to make of the present draft regulations and directives. They are available in French only in the Journal Officiel in the Library. Some Members have a facility in French. I can read French; I cannot speak it very well, but the bulk of Members can neither read nor speak French, and it is not much use having material down in the Library which is available only in French. I know that if ever I wanted a particular directive I could go to a Government Department and they would probably provide me with an English translation of it. But that leaves it to me to discover that there is something of significance in it and then to go and get an English translation. That is not a great safeguard from the point of view of most Members of the House, because if they do not read French they will not know if there is anything of significance in it and, therefore, will not ask for a translation.

That is a very serious failing and if the Government are concerned about the preservation of the powers of this House in regard to legislation which is going on now and will continue to go on right up to the 1st January in the Community, and if they want their views, which are going to be expressed through the agreed procedures for interim consultation, to reflect the democratic voice in this House, they must make all those directives available in an English translation for Members of this House so that they can put forward their views in whatever way is open to them. What I have proposed is that any draft proposals should be laid before the House and placed in English translation in the Library. I would then propose that every month a day should be set aside in this House on which the Government would not seek the approval of the House on these directives but have a motion taking note of the proposals which have been introduced, and at that stage circulate prior to that debate an explanatory memorandum setting out broadly the proposals which have been made in the intervening period and giving Deputies an opportunity of expressing themselves on those matters.

In addition to this, there should be a committee of members which would, prior to that debate, also go into the provisions of those directives and publish an independent report on the draft directives and the draft regulations which would also be circulated to Deputies, so that Deputies would be able to discuss the draft directives and the draft regulations, first of all, with the possibility of going to read them in English translation in the Library; and, secondly, having before them the Government's interpretation of their effect; and, thirdly, having before them the interpretation of their effect as expressed by an independent committee of the House. In that way we could have a meaningful debate.

Quite clearly, at the end of that debate it could not and should not be possible for this House to tie the hands of the Irish Minister who was going to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers would cease to be effective if the council members could not take decisions on their own account. Therefore, the motion discussing these draft regulations should only be a "take note" resolution. However, the Ministers would have the benefit of a debate in which Deputies of all sides and of all backgrounds could contribute on one day each month. I do not think that one day each month is asking too much. We have been told that this is the most momentous decision for 40 years in this State. If it is all that momentous and if accession to the EEC is all that important to the community this facility should be made available so that this House would be able to express its view—and this is the important point—prior to any decision being actually taken.

Now we come to the question of matters which have already been decided and what is the best way of involving this House in deciding how a particular proposal which has already been adopted by the Community in the form of a directive will be implemented in this country and the Government's interpretation of this. Section 3 of the Bill proposes that this should be brought into effect by means of a regulation. It says nothing whatever about legislation. It says:

A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling section 2 of this Act to have full effect.

On page seven of the Taoiseach's speech he says:

Some are more important than others and it may be that it will be found desirable——

Nobody says by whom.

——in particular cases to implement by statute Community legislation which might not be directly applicable.

I suppose it would be possible to introduce legislation even though section 3 only makes provision for regulations. However, I would think it better if after the words "A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling section 2 of this Act to have full effect" section 3 went on to say: "or section 2 of this Act may have full effect by means of legislation." But that may not be necessary. I come to the more important point in the Taoiseach's speech in which he says that it may be that it will be found desirable to have legislation instead of just regulations. Who is going to decide? There is no provision here for a committee of the House or for the House to decide whether legislation will be necessary. The Government will decide. Everyone knows the Government want the minimum inconvenience. They do not want discussions at great length in this House. They want to shuffle everything through as quickly as possible. The civil servants do not want to be bothered coming in here to advise and getting involved in issues when everything is already tidied up and all that is needed is a regulation.

What is proposed here is that it be left to the Government, the very people who do not want debates in this House, to decide whether or not there shall be a debate. To my mind it is essential that the decision as to whether or not a particular directive will be implemented by legislation or by regulation should not be in the hands of the Government, at least it should be in the hands of a Dáil committee if we are not actually going to lay down precise criteria in this House whereby it would be decided. I said earlier I felt it was necessary that there should be a committee of the House which would present a report on all draft regulations and directives which have been published to facilitate an open debate here in the House one day each month. I think that same committee which, to my mind should have a majority of Opposition Members—but that is not essential—should be the body to decide whether or not a particular directive shall be implemented by means of regulation or by means of statute.

There is another point in regard to these regulations. Not only are the Government to arrogate to themselves the power to decide whether something shall be done by regulation or by statute but they are, in relation to these regulations, providing a more diminished power for this House to check the contents of these regulations than even exists with regard to regulations which are laid before us in the normal way at present and, of course, there is a great deal of complaint about delegated legislation and the fact that there is not, effectively, much opportunity for these documents to be discussed by the House. While a Member may get an hour to discuss a matter if he raises it within 21 days, the amount of reading involved and the problem of having to watch every regulation makes it difficult for any Member to avail of that power. That power is difficult enough to exercise but the check which the Government propose to introduce here is much less. It is not sufficient for one Member to "cop on" to what is in the regulation and get the matter raised. According to my interpretation of section 4 (2) it is necessary that the majority of Dáil Éireann decide that a particular regulation is defective and should be discussed. How, in God's name, would one get a majority of Dáil Éireann? The Dáil has, first of all, to be in recess for this to happen. Suppose I got an idea that a particular regulation contained something which was not very good and wanted to raise the matter. I would have to go on a pilgrimage around the country and try to get a majority of Deputies to sign a motion asking for the recall of the Dáil to discuss it. Most Deputies would not want to come back when the House was in recess; they would be quite happy doing work in their constituencies. Even if they agreed with me they would not want to come back to the Dáil to discuss some niggling point, as they saw it. It is just not practical. If an Opposition Deputy was going around he would have to get a number of Government Deputies to sign something which they would know would inconvenience their Minister and which would cast a reflection on his sense in making the regulation. The protection in section 4 (2) is laughably ineffective. I cannot understand how a party who have prided themselves on being the protectors of Irish sovereignty could bring such a ridiculous proposal before the House.

I believe that we should at least have the provision that a decision as to whether a particular directive will be implemented by means of regulation or of legislation shall be taken from the Government and handed over to a committee of the House who will decide whether a particular matter is sufficiently important to warrant legislation, which will allow for a complete full-dress debate, or merely for implementation by regulation. If it is decided that it is to be done by regulation the existing procedure should apply, whereby if any one Deputy wishes he can have the matter raised within 21 days and he is given an hour in which to have it discussed. Even that is inadequate because one has to be prepared to have the regulation annulled completely in order to have it raised. One must have a motion to the effect that it be annulled. It should be sufficient for a Deputy to be prepared to put down a motion seeking to amend a regulation in a particular respect to get him an open discussion on the regulation.

It is quite possible within the Community regulations and within the spirit of the EEC to have a much greater role for this House in the legislative process of the Community. I have made a number of proposals whereby this can be done. I hope the Government will listen to them. I cannot understand why the Government have sought to restrict debate on European legislation in this House to so great an extent.

Can the Minister tell me by what criteria it is decided at the Council of Ministers or at the Commission or wherever it is decided, whether a proposed measure will be implemented by a directive, which gives considerable leeway to the national Government in regard to implementation, or by a regulation which puts the matter directly into effect in the countries concerned? I understand, for instance, that the Community had before it last March four proposals in regard to farm reform; three of them were in the form of directives and the other one in the form of a regulation. The three in the form of directives were: one in regard to retirement pensions for farmers, one in regard to a farm modernisation scheme, which is similar to the small farm incentive bonus scheme, and one in regard to socioeconomic advice and training for farmers. The other proposal was in regard to producer groups. For some reason, the Community decided that the first three should be in the form of directives while the fourth one, which was equally important as far as I could see, should be merely in the form of a regulation which would be directly applicable and which Governments would not have an opportunity of varying or interpreting in regard to its implementation. What criteria are used in deciding whether particular proposals shall be implemented by means of a directive or by means of a regulation? Are there any fixed criteria of which this House could have knowledge or is it purely a matter of administrative convenience for the Commission? If it is, there is something at fault.

Is it possible for the Council of Ministers to make a decision on a particular matter without a draft proposal having been published in the Journal Officiel prior to that decision? Is there a provision whereby it must have been published in the Journal Officiel a certain reasonably long period prior to the decision being taken to give an opportunity for views to be expressed, or is it possible for the Council of Ministers simply to decide in the middle of a session that it is desirable that a decision should be made on an issue, that it can make that decision and that can become binding without a draft of the decision having been published in the Journal Officiel prior to the decision? It is essential that every decision taken by the Council of Ministers should be on the basis of and in relation to the subject matter of a proposal which has been published a reasonable time in advance in the Journal Officiel, thereby giving an opportunity to this Parliament and other Parliaments, and interested groups concerned, to express their views to the Ministers prior to the decision being taken. Perhaps this is an unreal difficulty; perhaps it never happens that decisions are taken other than by this procedure.

I think this is also important. I should like to know more in regard to what Deputy de Valera spoke about, the democratic voice expressed through the Council of Ministers. I can see that a decision by the Ministers on a proposal by the Commission has a significantly greater democratic content than a simple decision by the Commission itself without reference to the Ministers because the Commission are not elected by anybody, whereas the Council are Ministers of elected Governments. I should like to know by what criteria it is decided that a particular EEC regulation shall take effect by a unilateral regulation being made by the Commission without reference to the Council and in what circumstances is it necessary that that regulation should go through the procedure of being published in the Journal Officiel, be submitted to and decided by the Council thus giving an opportunity for discussion.

I know that draft directives and regulations are published in the Journal Officiel which affords an opportunity for their discussion but I am told that by the time a proposal is actually published the Commission have more or less made up their minds on it, that the matter has been examined in great depth, and that what has emerged is effectively very near to a compromise between the interests of the various states. Is there such a thing as a working document which could be published and which exists at a much earlier stage in the decision-making process at which stage, perhaps, the delicately-balanced compromise has not been reached which is finally expressed in the published document in the Journal Officiel? If that is the case and if there is a working document giving some inkling of what is proposed and if it is in any way published, that also should be laid before the House by means of the procedure to which I referred earlier so as to give the House an opportunity to express itself on the, shall we say, raw proposal and not on the finely-balanced compromise which emerges in the form of a published draft directive in the Journal Officiel. Clearly, if it is a finely-balanced proposal which is finally published it will be much more difficult to upset and, therefore, the discussion in this House will be much less meaningful than it would be if we were discussing a raw proposal where there was great possibility of change. I ask the Minister to ensure that when the debate for which I am hoping on draft regulations does take place in this House any working documents which might lead to draft directives should also be drawn to the attention of the House and Members given an opportunity to express themselves on those also.

In the Bill before us we have a long list of regulations, decisions and directives. I should like to know how these regulations will be brought into effect. Have the Government decided that the Bill in itself will do this? Section 2 states:

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing the European Communities and the acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.

Does that mean that everything we have here in this long explanatory memorandum with its lists of regulations shall be directly applicable in this State from the passage of this Bill? Or does it mean that when this Bill is passed the Government will have to make regulations implementing each one of these proposals? Or does it mean that the Government will not have to make regulations implementing what are described as regulations but that additional regulations will have to be laid before the House in the normal way implementing the directives? Have the Government decided that some of these directives shall, in fact, be again brought before the House even though they are in this explanatory memorandum in the form of actual legislation?

May I draw the Minister's attention to the proposals on farm modernisation which I have already mentioned? These are already the subject of great debate in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and people are not sure what they mean precisely. I think there is a case that these proposals should not become effective simply by passing section 2 of this Bill and that they should be again brought before the House in the form of legislation which would actually implement them. I should like an assurance from the Minister that these proposals will, as far as possible, again come before the House in some cases as regulations and in others as actual legislation so that they can be discussed in detail.

Clearly, we are not discussing all these proposals at present and yet, on the face of it, we appear to be putting them into effect. What we are discussing are the broad principles of Community decision-making but not detailed regulations. These detailed regulations require to be discussed and I think a separate opportunity must be provided for their discussion.

I am not a practising lawyer and do not know much about interpretation of statutes but it seems to me there will be a certain problem of interpretation. We have a list here of Irish Acts which will be affected by Community law. We are told in regard to the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts, 1953 and 1959—to take an example which may not, in fact, illustrate my point— that Community provisions will affect the following: provisions relating to the carrying out of investigations into practices which have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Will there be difficulty in interpreting precisely where the Community legislation stops in effect and where you must revert to Irish legislation to find what is the law on a particular subject? Unless each one of these statutes is specifically amended to delineate precisely the extent to which the Community law changes existing Irish statutes you will have the possibility of differences of opinion as to whether a Community provision applies in a particular area or whether it is just the Irish law.

Is it possible that this difficulty could be overcome by specifically amending these Acts to the extent that they are changed by Community regulations? Clearly, it will be very difficult for lawyers to decide, if you have two bodies of law both operative in the country at the same time, where one stops and the other begins. Again, I would emphasise that I am speaking as somebody not practising law and, perhaps, that is not a real difficulty. I suppose that if it is a difficulty it has been discovered already in the Community countries. I should like to know how the Minister proposes to get over that difficulty.

That is really all I want to say except to ask the Minister to find some very significant improvement on the provisions expressed in this Bill for consultation with the House in regard not only to existing EEC decisions but also, more importantly, in regard to draft EEC decisions. It will strengthen the hand of those Irish Ministers who are on the Council of Ministers to have the view of their own Parliament behind them, to hear aspects explored which they or their civil servants and advisers might not advert to but which Members of the House who are directly in touch with the people would advert to. I would ask the Minister to convey to the Government the need greatly to improve the provision for democratic participation through this House in Community decision-making.

Mr. Cooney

This is a two-pronged debate because the Taoiseach said in his speech yesterday that we are dealing with the European Communities Bill and also dealing with the motion for the Approval of the Treaty of Accession. I should like to make a few points in regard to both of these matters. I will take the Bill first because my remarks follow on what Deputy Bruton was saying. I share a lot of his concern about how this will work in practice.

Section 3 of the Bill gives extraordinarily wide powers to a Minister to make regulations and it gives stupendous effects to those regulations on our domestic law. Subsection (2) says:

Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister making the regulations to be proper for the purposes of the regulations (including provisions repealing, amending or applying, with or without modification, other law, exclusive of this Act).

It will be the Minister's subjective decision because there is no provision whatever for parliamentary debate or for the Minister to take advice from any objective source. By a subjective decision of the Minister our domestic law could be vastly changed. This is something which is contrary to the whole concept of parliamentary democracy. I appreciate the practical need for having some type of power to enable the Government to implement Community legislation as part of our domestic legislation. I respectfully suggest that what is proposed in section 3 and the powers contained in subsection (2) are completely wrong in that they go contrary to the whole traditions of our democracy and our traditional procedures.

As the Bill is drafted, the ministerial regulation could be used to achieve amendments unduly wide and not strictly applicable to the question of implementing a Community piece of law. One can answer that by saying that the Minister will not do it, that the Minister will use his powers strictly as intended by the Act, purely to implement EEC law, but how do we know that? It might suit a Minister to take advantage of the very wide power he has here to make regulations which contain such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister. It would be a grevious temptation for any Minister to have that power and to look at the body of legislation in effect under his Department and to see some particularly thorny piece that may be inhibiting his bureaucracy. It would be a tremendous temptation to draft the regulation to remove that particular thorn even though it might not directly or indirectly arise from the implementation of European law.

The Minister's powers enable him to repeal, amend and apply, with or without modification, other law. The Minister, by regulation, could completely upset the whole legislative structure of his Department without recourse to this House at all. The Taoiseach in his speech indicates some worry on this aspect of this Bill. On page 7 of the circulated text he used the expression:

....our courts will be the ultimate safeguard against any attempted use of the section in excess of the powers conferred.

When we consider the powers conferred it would not be possible to exceed them because they are already excessive. Consequently, I fail to see how the courts can be a safeguard. If a ministerial regulation is brought before the courts on the grounds that it exceeds subsection (2) of section 3 it will be a judge with a very analytical mind, indeed, who could find something in subsection (2) that did not permit the Minister to do what he had done, when we consider that subsection (2) says that the Minister may make regulations containing incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister and that the regulations may include provisions repealing, amending or applying with or without modification, other law, exclusive of this Act. I presume "other law" means European law at that stage. It is futile to say that the courts will be the ultimate safeguard against any attempted use of the section in excess of the powers conferred because the courts, having regard to the wording of the section, in my opinion, will be unable to find it has been exceeded, it is so excessive in the way it is drafted.

It is altogether wrong and quite contrary to the whole tradition of Parliament that the Executive in the person of the Minister should be given such wide powers. I concede that the very entry into Europe means some blunting of the sovereignty of Parliament but I do not think it was intended that it should be blunted to the extent provided in the section. We must have some regard to the traditions of Parliament and to the idea of Parliament being master of its own affairs in drafting legislation and the way to do that is to consult Parliament in the implementation of European legislation, consult Parliament through a committee. This is what Deputy Bruton was suggesting and I would support him fully on this. There will have to be some parliamentary procedure devised so as to take away from the Executive the vast power that this section gives. This is essential and it is vital that this should be done. The Bill as drafted, as far as I am concerned, is completely unacceptable because an unconscionable Executive could run riot with it. We have no guarantee that the men who will occupy such posts in the country in future will be men of conscience, men of awareness of the demands of parliamentary democracy.

Section 4 purports, I think, to be a safeguard in the sense that it requires regulations to be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas. Otherwise they would cease to have effect. But, this confirmation is to be made not later than the end of the year following that in which the regulations are made. So, we could have a situation that regulations made by the Minister in January, say, of 1973 would stand until they were confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas in December, 1974. They would have had two full years of operation and if they were unjust or harsh or suffered from any other defects, nevertheless, they would have been part of our law for two years and presumably anything done under them would remain legal. The confirming Act of the Oireachtas would have to have an indemnifying clause in it. If an Act of the Oireachtas is not passed, the regulations will fall. Nevertheless, they would have had two years of life and, having regard to how wide they could be, these two years could be fatal. The regulations fall unless they are confirmed by Act but that Act may take two years to pass or unless the regulations merely revoke wholly regulations previously made. The wording used makes one think that the revoking of regulations is not important but regulations which have the effect of wholly revoking earlier regulations could, in themselves, have tremendous consequences.

The provision in section 4, if it is meant to be a safeguard against abuse by the Executive of its powers under section 3, is not a proper safeguard. The only safeguard is the light of day and the only way the light of day can be thrown on ministerial activities in this context is via a parliamentary committee.

Deputy Bruton raised the point regarding the certainty and availability of the law. For practitioners and litigants alike it is essential that the law be available and that it would be obviously certain to practitioners of law. If we have a situation where our domestic law is changed, if it is amended by semi-secret Ministerial regulation, it will make life extremely difficult for practitioners and it will lead to an unjust situation for litigants and citizens. In addition, it will run completely contrary to our legal tradition. This could be cured if there were some kind of parliamentary committee where these things could see the light of day and where their exact implications and effects could be spelled out in documents and debate which would be available to the legal profession and the general public.

In the memorandum which was issued, it is stated in connection with the Road Transport Acts that there are Community provisions affecting the Acts. They are provisions regarding the liberalisation of licensing requirements for certain types of transport. This is a subject which has been a thorny one in the Irish context having regard to the monopoly of CIE. In enforcing that monopoly CIE have waged war on private transport operators but here we have Community legislation which it appears will affect our transport system. I am not sure about this because, as Deputy Bruton has pointed out, if I want to be quite sure I should have to read French and I might misinterpret because my French might not be good enough. We have no way of knowing how, in this instance, this piece of Community legislation will affect us.

The Government owe it to this Parliament and to the country to ensure that whatever system is devised it will mean that the law at all times, even if it is amended by European requirements, will be certain and will be available easily to the public. It is a basic principle of our legal system that ignorance of the law is no excuse, that every man is expected to know the law. That might be a commendable enough principle at the moment when the law is available and people know that this is so, but if we are going to get into this massive administrative law this principle could be the cause of tremendous hardship. As drafted, the Bill does not ensure that the law will be easily available and certain. To my mind, it is a Bill which has a great capacity to do harm and until it is amended by including within it some provision for Parliament as a watchdog I should not like to see it being adopted by the Dáil.

We are also being asked to approve our accession into Europe. In his opening speech the Taoiseach indicated that the referendum vote indicated an overwhelming endorsement by the people of the Government's decision that Ireland should join the EEC and, at the end of that sentence, he added, "and their approval also of the terms of accession which had been negotiated by the Government." The people had no choice if they wanted to enter Europe and, although we showed by our votes that we did want to enter the Community, it does not follow that we approved completely the Government's terms of accession. However, they are the terms that were negotiated and we have to live with them.

Personally I am very pleased that the decision to enter Europe was taken by such an overwhelming majority because I think that in our future life within Europe we can find cures for many of the ills that beset us politically and, I suppose, to some extent economically. The chief ill that has beset this nation—it was also an ill which effected Europe for many years —is an excess of nationalism. Nationalism as pursued in Europe led to world wars of an outrageous magnitude and, as pursued in this country, has led to a fantastic and horrifying amount of hatred and suffering. As a political doctrine it must be abandoned.

In this country it has been equated with republicanism but I think there is a vast distinction to be made between them. Nationalism has been pursued here for its own end, not as a political philosophy that would grant us independence and give us the means to improve our lot. People have forgotten that political doctrines should have some end and they are now being pursued for their own sake. That is what has happened here. That is not to say that in going into Europe we must abandon our nationality and I should like to draw a distinction between nationalism and nationality.

I consider our nationality to be our separateness, our particular identity— our Irishness, if that does not grate. I see no reason why we should abandon that or be forced to abandon it or why the environment of Europe should cause any lessening of it. The nationality of a nation, its characteristics, language, mode of dress, its customs and cultures, very often are formed by the physical environment of the nation. Because our physical environment is so distinctive in relation to Europe I think we will always remain a distinctive people and our essential nationality will not be blunted. I do not fear anything on that score when we enter Europe.

Within countries one can see distinct regional differences. For instance, the Scot is a different person from the Cockney, the Donegal farmer on 20 acres differs from the man in Kilkenny who has a few hundred acres but they are members of the same country and have not lost their nationality. I do not see why Irish people should lose their individuality because they enter Europe. If the uncontrolled chase of narrow sectarian nationalism from which we have suffered for so many years can be ended by going into Europe, to my mind that is a definite benefit.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooney

One way in which this archaic, violent and disgusting political doctrine of nationalism can be ended is via the regionalism which is proposed as part of the European concept. I was very pleased that the communiqué issued after the recent summit conference indicated that the pursuit of the regional policy was to have a high priority and that funds were to be made available to put it into effect. I am disappointed that our Government are not ready as of this moment to take advantage of the Community's leaning in the direction of regionalism.

We have known for a long time now that one of the attractions of membership was the help we could obtain in bringing up the less favoured parts of our country to a higher standard, but there has been no central direction to produce an overall plan and to say to the European Community: "This is our problem. This is how we want it solved. You give us the help." There has been no overall guidance to produce that plan. We have the IFA concerned with the small farmers in the west. Macra na Tuatha have made many studies of the problem. The Agricultural Institute is aware of the problem. All the county councils have development teams working on it. There are regional industrial areas with half-formulated plans for their areas. We have the Scully Report. All these activities are all vaguely groping towards the same end, that is, to produce a coherent policy to save the west. "To save the west" is a hackneyed phrase but that is what they are after.

Yet, at the top there has been no person of imagination or initiative prepared to co-ordinate all this effort into a coherent overall plan. Consequently we will lose valuable time in taking advantage of the opportunity in Europe to improve our regions. It is a pity but, at the same time, there might be a benefit if we could look anew at this question of regional policy. Bearing in mind that one of the aims of the EEC is to blunt this idea of nationalism, if at this stage we were to produce a regional policy which would deal not merely with the western part of the Republic but would take in the entire province of Connacht, the counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh and produce a regional policy for that area, which is homogeneous in the sense that it is poor country, we would be doing a tremendous amount towards implementing in our own country the European spirit which wants to disregard national boundaries.

We would be presenting a packet to Europe which would have within it the possibility of ending the Northern conflict and a packet with that possibility in it must at this stage be most acceptable to Europe. To produce such a packet, to produce a regional plan covering parts of Northern Ireland and parts of the Republic, will require an imagination and an energy and an initiative which I think our Government are not capable of producing. This is a glorious opportunity to solve what seems at the moment to be an intractable problem. I should dearly love to see the solution coming on those lines because the solution to the North is to be found in terms of bread and butter.

If the quality of life and the standard of living—they are two different things—can be improved over an entire region of Ireland, the national boundary, and the actual physical boundary of a customs post, and having to get out and present yourself to a customs officer will disappear, and to drive from Monaghan to Clones will be the same as to drive from Monaghan to Armagh. If we can achieve a situation where there is no actual customs boundary we will have gone a very long way towards achieving the end of Partition. I use that in the sense of the end of Partition, I suppose, in a nationalistic sense. If it can be ended peacefully through economic means our entry into Europe will be well worth while.

There is an opportunity now which would be eagerly accepted in Europe, and in which Britain would be anxious to co-operate, an opportunity of a type that could lead to untold beneficial results. As I say, it will require a lot of imagination and energy and I do not know if our Government are prepared to provide the lead to achieve that end. The basics are there with all these voluntary organisations and local authority organisations, and a certain amount of Government effort so far has gone into analysing and studying the problems of the west. This could be expanded and a coherent overall plan produced to embrace not merely the west but parts of Northern Ireland which lie naturally with it and which have the same problem. Then we could anticipate a time when Partition would have disappeared through force of economic circumstances. The real meaning of Europe would then begin to be felt in this country.

I do not know whether the Government have any plans at all for taking advantage of the move in the Community towards implementing a regional policy. Having regard to the personality of Europe it is not enough to parade ourselves as the weak man of Europe, the sick man of Europe, and adopt this attitude of deontas or the poor mouth which one meets so frequently in this country. My experience of the continental European personality is that, while selfish might be too strong a word to use in relation to it, there is nothing to be got for nothing. One must make a case for oneself and the tougher one can make that case the more respect one will achieve. This opportunity was lost in our address to the summit conference.

There are certain aspects of the European Community which affect us more than others: the regional end of it and the democratisation of institutions. As a small country it would suit us to have these institutions, and particularly a European Parliament, elected by direct suffrage. We are marking time on that and that is a pity. We should have identified ourselves with the Dutch viewpoint and looked for early universal suffrage in Europe. Again, it would be an advantage to us having regard to our internal problems. What we want to see is the diminution of this doctrine of nationalism for the sake of nationalism, without in any way lessening our national identity. One way of achieving that would be direct elections to the European Parliament.

If we want to put forward a point of view I venture to suggest that it must be put forward vigorously and energetically. Likewise with our views on regional policy, we want to get in there and claim our share of it. We must go in, not looking for it because we are a poor country on the western edge of Europe and cannot help ourselves, but demanding it as Europeans and as equal partners in the European Community. We must demand it with the backing of a coherent and imaginative plan which will catch the imagination of the Community. A plan which crosses the Border in this country is one which I venture to suggest would be guaranteed to do that and, indeed, would be received with a sigh of relief and would get every encouragement towards early implementation.

In conclusion, may I repeat that the Bill, as drafted, gives outrageously wide powers to the Executive to change our domestic law and the only way to meet that situation is to provide for a parliamentary committee to sit and survey ministerial action taken here to implement European law. I welcome the accession of this country to Europe in the hope that that accession will rid us of the many political ills from which we have suffered as a result of a blind pursuit of nationalism for nationalism's sake. I have no fear that our accession will have any adverse effects on our nationality. That is a distinction I want to make and it is on that note I conclude.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This Bill sees us on the first stage of entry into Europe following on the referendum. Previous speakers have made clear the approach of the Labour Party and our attitude to this Bill. We made clear after the referendum that our position would be one of constructive contribution and, while this Government remained in control, we would criticise where criticism was deemed necessary and attempt to get the best possible deal we could in the situation of EEC membership.

As has been pointed out, this Bill poses a number of dangers to what has traditionally been accepted as the sovereignty of this Parliament. Regulations and edicts emanating from without this country will be operative here and superficially there appears to be an abridgement of the powers of this Parliament in that new situation. It is possible that the electorate at the time of the referendum appreciated the reality of the situation, appreciated that power has been slipping imperceptibly away over the years, slipping away to London and to other large countries, where vital decisions affectting the future of the politically free part of this island were taken, outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament. With that viewpoint, this Bill might appear to give a formal gloss to a situation which has been developing over many years. There is a loss of independence and this may well have been one of the underlying feelings of the electorate at the time of the referendum and this may have been one of the reasons for the large vote in favour of entry. There may have been a desire to end the kind of sham existence which suggested that we had conditions of full freedom here when, in fact, the economic pillars of that political freedom were daily crumbling away.

We could take two views of this particular Bill, neither mutually exclusive. We should, of course, look for institutions in the EEC sensitive to the needs and demands of ordinary people and our policy as a member must be to develop such institutions. We must bring an end to institutions which simply suit the bureaucrats and the officials. Any large organisation inevitably tends to foster institutions which suit the managers and the administrative cadres. We must take on the more difficult task of developing democratic institutions which reflect the needs of ordinary men and women in the countries constituting the Community. If the Dutch have played a great part up to now in the struggle for democracy within the Community it will also be our especial task to ensure that in future the institutions of the Community are made more democratic because that is in the vital interest of every small country and particularly of our country.

The Community must be made answerable to the needs of the ordinary people. If we do not succeed in this development, if the European Parliament is just another replica of the Strasbourg Council of Europe, useful though that may have been, we shall be faced with failure. We do not want the European Parliament to become just another venue for periodic meetings of "Old Boy" parliamentarians from the various Parliaments in Europe. We want an effective European Parliament, one with a say in the decision-making of the Commission, one truly in the position of a legislature working with the executive, one with that kind of a relationship with the Council of Ministers.

It is of vital importance that the European Parliament should so develop. There is little evidence—this Government do not give much evidence of thinking—of a really thoughtful approach to what this Government described as the challenge of the EEC. I would like to see evidence of greater seriousness in regard to the importance of developing a real European Parliament and part of that seriousness will be exemplified in the way in which we fill the positions in the European Parliament. It must not be somewhere one can get away from it all. We will know the outcome when we see the various groups, the quality of the people selected.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The Minister is smiling.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He may already know his nominees.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. Hillery)

The Deputy is talking as if he had no nominations.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister is leaving all this behind him and so, perhaps, he can smile. More of us could smile, perhaps, if we were leaving this unhappy country for four years. Those of us who must remain behind are anxious that this Government should be very seriously concerned indeed about the proper development of the European Parliament, very anxious to ensure that it flourishes and develops because it will be the basis upon which to build the other democratic institutions. If these changes are not made then the big cartels, the big companies which control and are such a decisive element in the Community, will continue to exercise the real power. They have their methods of communication. They have no need of institutions. They do not need a democratically developing Parliament and democratic institutions. Their phones are in good working order. Their board-rooms know exactly what they wish to do and they desire no development in the Community as such. There is a very real possibility—and it would be foolish to ignore it—that the EEC, in the years ahead, may prove to be simply a way of easing or rationalising the work of these large companies in the European countries, to be a means of easing the work of American companies, that all the talk of a Europe which would give a new political life to the various peoples of Europe may have been mere froth, the reality being something quite different.

If we do not get these institutions based on a democratic suffrage sensitive to the needs of ordinary people, I doubt if we shall get a regional policy. I see an intimate connection between the development of democratic institutions and the development of a regional policy which will in turn serve the smaller countries, which will serve human needs in the smaller countries with their underdeveloped regions. This is something that our various delegations, all parties in this House, must be concerned about. The idea of democratising these institutions is not something airy-fairy or academic. It is concerned with the vital needs of this country in the EEC. If the Community fails to develop in these directions, then it follows that some of the essential needs of this country will not be served by membership of the EEC.

This Dáil itself must develop its regulatory powers. In its work and in its procedures it must not remain stagnant as at present. It must so develop its work that we can, as a Parliament, efficiently supervise the multifarious regulations and orders that will be coming here in the future. It is doubtful if our present method of working here can be continued if this Parliament is to function properly in the new situation. Can we as a Parliament, on our number of sitting days, hope to get through the amount of work properly and efficiently, or will we become a mere county council in the sense that all of these edicts will pass over our heads to be endorsed by the Executive? That is another fate that could befall this Parliament. It need not necessarily happen but it could happen.

We have shown very little sense of desiring to see this Parliament improve its working. The late Seán Dunne and a few more of us in the Labour Party three or four years ago sat down and looked at the working of this Parliament. We passed on the results of our work to the Government and they suffered the usual fate: a committee was set up. That is the procedure in this House for muffling constructive suggestions, to set up a committee. Once a committee is set up the solution evades everybody.

There is a committee sitting, as we know, and it has certain proposals to make. I hope there will be the political will on the part of the Government to see that some changes are made either by development of the committee system or in some other way, but in any case to ensure that this Dáil will be able to expand its activities, so to arrange its work that it can play a responsible part in looking over the various items that come from the Commission.

However much the Government may in domestic politics, in by-elections or in the various constituencies, suggest that there was something particularly disloyal, something particularly heinous, in the attitude of the Labour Party in the recent referendum campaign, we would reply at all times that the role we played in that campaign was important for the future of Irish democracy. What a comment it would have been on our parliamentary life, on our democratic institutions, if the only opposition to be mounted against our entry into the EEC was the opposition of the various underground organisations, or organisations with no representation in Parliament! What a commentary that would have been! How would the citizens have felt outside who held genuine misgivings about membership, who genuinely thought the Community would develop in a direction which would not be in the interests of this country, as, indeed, the Community may develop? It would be a very rash man indeed, who would say that benefits must automatically accrue to this country from membership.

Our approach of saying that we did not believe that the negotiations had truly given us the best bargain, that a better bargain could have been struck, was one that at least provoked people to think, and let me say that provoking people to think in that referendum campaign was an audacious endeavour but an important one nevertheless. We made it abundantly clear from the start that once the people had decided, the Labour Party would loyally abide by that decision of the sovereign people in the referendum. And we have abided by their decision as we do now in regard to this Bill. We still voice our misgivings— who would not with our Government? —and hope that the Government will ensure that we exploit membership of the EEC to the full advantage of this country, but we will not in any way obstruct the passage of this Bill by voting against it—we will be voting for it—because we accept the will of the people.

Therefore it is dishonest and deceitful of the Government to suggest that because we raised a question mark, queried the advisability of entering the EEC during the referendum campaign, that forever afterwards a mark of disloyalty, a mark of unreliability, should be attached to the Labour Party on the whole matter of the EEC. We shall play a full part in defence of our people's interests in the EEC. If this party is ever in partnership with any other group in a Government we shall work the institutions of the EEC fully for the benefit of the people. It is dishonest political huckstering to suggest that a coalition Government or an inter-party Government, including Labour, would in the future be somehow unreliable on the EEC issue. That may have been good enough for spokesmen of the Government party in the past. I hope it will not be in the future. I hope we shall hear no more of that kind of ridiculous charge. The Minister is leaving this country later on for the wider, more sophisticated pastures of the European mainland, and I am sure in summing up the debate he will, in anticipation of that more mature role which he hopes to fill, dispel the foul rumour from some members of his own bench that the Labour Party would be anything other than excellent servants of the people in ensuring that the possible gains of EEC membership flow back to the people.

Mr. Sherwin

On a point of order. I did not want to interrupt Deputy O'Leary while he was making some peculiar remarks. During his concluding remarks he said that, in the absence of the Labour Party's opposition during the campaign in relation to EEC membership, the only other bodies that would be anti-Common Market would be underground organisations. I do not think it is fair that Deputy O'Leary should refer to organisations such as the Common Market Defence Committee as an underground organisation, and would he withdraw the remark?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. M. O'Leary

However, I readily withdraw it. I did not intend my remarks to be taken literally, or to designate citizen groups like the Common Market Defence Committee as underground. I meant that it would have been ridiculous if the whole Opposition had gone to the people outside this Parliament and as a parliamentary group we were fulfilling our service to democracy by giving people who——

Mr. Sherwin

Surely the term "underground organisation" should not have been used?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There was no pejorative meaning intended for those who opposed EEC entry on the merits of the case.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This is, of necessity, a very technical Bill and possibly many people were disappointed by the Taoiseach's opening speech in which he dealt with practically nothing but technicalities, but we must remember that in the original set-up of the EEC there were a great many technicalities to be circumvented. These institutions are now in existence; whether for the good or ill of this country is something on which there is a variation of opinion, but it is essential that we should adopt all these existing institutions. We are stepping on to a moving bus and we must move with it.

Our Minister for Foreign Affairs will shortly be leaving the political life of Ireland and taking up a very important post in the EEC. He will, I am sure, accept the fact that he will then become an international civil servant. It would be a mistake for Deputies, or the people of this country generally, to imagine that he will be able to flog the Irish question and nothing else. He will be an international civil servant and my experience of Europe is that international bureaucracy is stronger than national bureaucracy. It will be a help to our members of the European Parliament, however, to have there an Irishman who has been a parliamentarian and who has had to wade through the red tape of bureaucracy in the negotiations which he conducted. In my opinion he conducted them well. He had to wade through the red tape of international bureaucracy to establish the case for his own country. I would ask him, knowing that he will be an international bureaucrat, not to forget this little island. I am sure he will not. Coming from the wilds of Clare, I am sure he will always have a weak spot particularly for the problems of rural Ireland.

The EEC when it was set up was a bureaucratic institution. It had to be, because there were so many amending laws to be made to bring each country into alignment and to establish the system as it exists. The impression has been created, and perhaps there is a certain foundation for it, that the European Parliament itself has very little say. That may or may not be. Quite a number of the members were Members of Parliament and quite a few of them were in Foreign Offices. I want to stress to the Minister that there is always the risk when one gets into a bureaucratic group and takes the advice of bureaucrats that one will stop thinking politically. Although the Minister is becoming an international civil servant I would request him still to think politically as far as possible.

We are a small country. The drafting of the voting system in Europe enables the smaller countries to have a big say and to be in the position that they cannot be entirely out-voted by the big countries. Therefore, I think it is unfortunate that Norway has taken the decision it has taken. It was a free and open plebiscite and the people were entitled to take that decision but it has, to a certain extent, weakened the arm of the smaller countries. There is one smaller country less in the group. My experience is that you achieve everything in Europe by pressure groups, by organisation and by discussion behind the scenes. Although we may not have a great number of votes from the point of view of elected representatives at the European Parliament, at the same time we are in a position to discuss things with other countries. I have had considerable experience of the Council of Europe over a period of 12 years. I have always found that to achieve something you must get a big power to back you. You always find that there is a divergence of opinion between the big powers and by acting as a small pressure group you can establish your point by assuring one or other of the big powers that you will support them in whatever they may require. Therein lies the power of the European Parliament. The Commission are not entirely in control. They are governed by the over-riding legal bodies and also by the fact that whatever matter is being discussed it is the Ministers from the countries concerned who are there and it is the function of those who go to the European Parliament to stress the point of view to the Minister concerned. They should be in a position to brief the Minister on the thinking going on within the Community. I make these remarks to show that we are not a small country that will be over-run by the bigger powers. We are in just as strong a position as any other country and we are in a position to make our case fully to the last letter of the law.

It seems to me that it has been in recent years only that the European Parliament have been given any authority or have been listened to at all. So much legislation had to be got through, so many institutions set up, so many countries blended into a homogeneous unit, that the European Parliament have not been in a position to force their views, as they should be, as they are the elected representatives of the many countries concerned, on the EEC as a whole. That day is passing now. The establishment the EEC has set up is on firm ground in spite of the fact that economists predict from time to time that the EEC is going "bust" and that other people predict there is no longer unity of thought in the EEC. Actually the EEC has been a vital force not only in European politics but in world politics. I would hazard a guess that in the rather disturbed defence situation in the world the EEC, consisting of nine countries, will be a very powerful force, a force that will play a very large part in the continuity of peace. In other words, instead of the situation in which what will happen in remote parts of the world rests entirely between America on one hand and Russia on the other with China gradually butting in now from the background, the EEC with 280 million population rising in the not too distant future to 300 million, will have a vital say and must be considered in any major decision by the great powers.

There may be people in Ireland who feel that by joining the EEC we shall be rushed into a world war. I cannot accept that. By joining the EEC we shall be entirely free to take a national decision and only this Parliament can decide whether we become involved in hostilities anywhere. But at least we shall belong to this strong group and be absolutely privy to discussions going on in relation to disputes and upheavals in different parts of the world.

On the matter of financial alignment with the EEC, I understand that the Government, on the grounds that we are joining the EEC, intend to introduce the value-added tax forthwith. I should like to point out that Italy was 11 years in the EEC before she opted for VAT and that Britain, which we seem slavishly to follow in everything they do, are not introducing VAT in the immediate future. It is difficult to know when they will introduce it; I do not think they have made up their minds yet as to when they will do so. Also, when we enter the EEC we want to be sure that we are fully competitive with all the other countries. By that I mean that we can export on a comparable basis with them and that our costs of production will not be higher than theirs.

We have an enormous tourist potential totally unrealised so far and traffic should increase by about 100 per cent in the first couple of years of membership because of what we have to offer. But if we put a tax around our necks which will raise the cost of living and increase the prices of those things the tourists will expect to get, if not cheaper, at least at prices comparable with prices in their own countries, the effect will be serious. One must advise the Government to have second thoughts on value-added tax. Our petrol prices at present are very nearly the highest in Europe. In my early days here we had the lowest prices in Europe. I think we are now third in Europe as regards the cost of petrol. The prices of such things as alcohol and tobacco which previously were lower than in other countries have now reached a high level. By introducing VAT when it is not obligatory to do so—we could go into the EEC with our turnover tax which is bad enough and our wholesale tax and nobody would say a word to us—we are following an entirely mistaken policy on the part of the Government. It will alter the whole complexion of the country.

Perhaps the attraction for tourists here is that in a sense we are different from any other country. We are entirely personal; we have small farmers and shopkeepers and people living on moderate means and a way of life quite different from that in other countries in the western world. We shall wreck that, in my opinion, by introducing VAT. We shall drive out of existence the country store and the small shopkeeper even in this city will disappear and we shall present a different image which will not help us in any way.

I welcome the Bill and I was glad to hear from Deputy O'Leary on behalf of the Labour Party that they fully accept the implications of the EEC. I have a very strong suspicion that their spokesman on Foreign Affairs was always in favour of affiliation with Europe. I may be mistaken but that is my impression gathered from his speech. The benefits that will accrue to this country are enormous. Fundamentally, we are an agricultural country and the benefits fundamentally will come to agriculture. If our agricultural industry is strong and completely solvent, if stable markets are guaranteed this country will prosper and progress. The great curse of Irish agriculture in the past 50 years or more was that we had only one market and we had appalling fluctuations in prices of as much as £20 for a beast. This will end. Although the major part of our agricultural exports in the EEC will still go to the United Kingdom we shall have alternative markets and that very fact means that we are not dependent now on British buyers.

If we go into Europe we must be fully European. I have always found that there is a tendency for British parliamentarians, with whom we have numerous ties either by relationship in some cases or in trade and so on, to attempt to say that Ireland and the UK should think alike. They will tell you that this is something common to both countries and that we should think and work alike on it. I am a descendant of parliamentarians—we were not disbarred by Catholic emancipation—and all of my predecessors served in the public life of this country and long experience has taught me that a British parliamentarian never approaches an Irish parliamentarian unless he wants something for his own country's good but this is not always for the good of Ireland.

We have many friends and wellwishers in Europe but they will not hand us everything on a plate. We can play a full part there. I believe a new era is opening for this country and I think, small though it is it will be able to play a vital part not only in Europe but in the political history of the world.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. Hillery)

The debate has been useful and practical. Perhaps on Committee Stage we may be better able to argue how the Bill meets the needs of the situation and the problems raised by legislation which must be implemented and the amount of that legislation, at the same time giving control to this Parliament to an adequate and appropriate extent over measures taken here. I say " to an appropriate extent " because Deputy Ryan based all his arguments against the facts of the situation that a Government with a majority in this Parliament, whatever Government it may be, can get through Parliament any measure it wants.

This is true of any legislation and not just true of ministerial orders which may be adopted each year. So that the legislation before the House now does not change in any way our system of majority rule in the Parliament and I do not think it would be desirable that it should do so.

As I say, it was a practical debate and the first point I take from Deputy O'Leary is that the Labour Party have through their spokesman here very clearly indicated that their present position dates from 11th May, the decision of the people, and that there is absolutely no looking back or no hesitation about their total commitment to making our structures here function in the context of European membership. The public decision would seem to make it unnecessary for us to argue the pros and cons of membership of Europe. Deputy Oliver Flanagan said last night that we are not hearing about the benefits now. It is my experience in Government for about 13 years that once a decision is made all the arguments for it disappear and you have to deal with the arguments against it that persist. But, all the arguments for membership of Europe still stand up and the alternatives which faced the public last May are so clearly different—the alternatives of being outside Europe or being a member. The advantages and disadvantages can easily be listed again. There is no change in them. I am not going to go into them but it would be doing a disservice to the public for any representative to suggest that the decision made by the public was the wrong one. Once the public make it, it is the right one anyway. I am as fully convinced as ever I was—now I have less anxiety because the decision is made—that the future of this country lies in membership of the European Communities.

The Bill before the House is to deal with European legislation and how it is to be applied here. The discussion gave rise, naturally, to how the European initiators of legislation can be influenced by this Parliament. If I could take the matters to be dealt with by the Bill first, we should have definitions. A regulation of the European Community is one which applies to the whole Community; it is not for decision by any of the national Parliaments whether to apply it or not. Last year about 90 per cent of the regulations were to do with the day to day running of the common agricultural policy. The vast majority of them would have little interest for most Members if they were being passed in this country. So that these regulations are not to be influenced by discussions in the Parliaments. The directives of the Community are to be applied in the member States by whatever method the national governments or Parliaments choose to adopt and it is these directives which are concerned in the ministerial regulations which will be made under the Bill.

I might go further and say that many of the directives can be implemented by administrative action alone, require no consultation here in any case, and many others will, I expect, be able to be implemented by the Minister under existing legislation here under powers already given to the Minister by the Oireachtas. And in some cases, as the Taoiseach has indicated, we will wish to implement directives of the Community here by Statute that will go to the House in the normal way of decision-making here.

I could not forecast how many ministerial regulations will be required in any one future year. These are regulations to implement what is left after we have excluded all I have spoken of. It will depend on the volume of proposals coming from the European institutions and the number of these proposals on which the Council of Ministers make decisions. We feel that the number of ministerial regulations needed to be made in the near future will be about 70, that is, to give effect here to existing legislation in the Community.

Mr. Tully

Sorry. I would not like to interrupt the Minister but could he say if the regulations will be translated into English before they become law in this country?

Dr. Hillery

Yes. I think that up to now 1971 regulations are in English. Once English becomes an official language of the Community, of course, the regulations will be available in English. The Deputy will appreciate that up to now the English language was not in use in the Community. Now, with the enlargement of the Community, it becomes a language of the Community. The Deputy understands that.

Mr. Tully

There were English translations up to the end of 1971 and English translations for 1972. They have always been translated into English.

Dr. Hillery

They were not official translations.

Mr. Tully

We got translations. We cannot get them now.

Dr. Hillery

They will be available.

Mr. Tully

Before they become law?

Dr. Hillery

I may say this number of about 70 regulations to be made by Ministers, the Government here, is an exceptional number because we are catching up with a backlog in joining. After we become a member the number of ministerial regulations might be about 20 in a year.

Mr. Tully

Again, I do not want to interrupt.

Dr. Hillery

If the Deputy does not want to interrupt he is making a very good effort.

Mr. Tully

In view of the fact that the Minister is saying something which he must know cannot be correct, I feel I should point out that there were nearly 2,000 last year. Let us be fair about it.

Dr. Hillery

I am talking about ministerial regulations which will need to be made by Ministers here. Before the Deputy got in I was making definitions. One of the problems about the matter Deputy Cruise-O'Brien raised was how do you get the Parliament involved. The very first question for somebody who has sat through the whole debate is, how do you get individual Deputies knowing what we are talking about to each other and the definition I made at the beginning was of a regulation of the Community as distinct from a regulation made by a Minister here to implement Community directives. The trouble is with the definitions. I will start again.

Mr. Tully

Not for my benefit because I know perfectly well.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy said I was inaccurate. It is because the Deputy did not know the definition—it is not my definition.

Mr. Tully

I do.

Dr. Hillery

Call what the Minister does here an order, if you like, but he will be making regulations so as to implement the directives of the Community. The Community regulations themselves have direct application in the whole Community without the action of any Minister. I say that last year there were 2,900 regulations in the Community and there were 410 directives. These 2,900 regulations have direct application in the six countries of the Community. If we were a member they would have direct application here. Of the 410 directives, these have to be translated into law in the individual countries. Some are administrative and can be done without any ministerial regulation or order. Others could be done under existing laws because the Minister has the power under existing laws. In the case of others, we might decide to make a Statute here to implement them and the rest would be for ministerial regulation. This is where the word "Regulation" comes in the second time. Our estimate is, without fixing it because it is something we know we do not know, that once you get over the number of regulations a Minister requires now for the period of entry, an average year would see about 20 ministerial regulations brought to this House. It is a fairly small number of regulations. I have a figure of statutory instruments under existing legislation. In 1971, there were 350 instruments of that nature brought through here. So, we will have 20 extra in relation to the Communities.

On the safeguards, the section which provides that the ministerial regulations will cease to have effect unless they are confirmed by Acts of the Oireachtas not later than the end of the year following the one in which they were made gives a very strong safeguard because it means the ministerial regulations will lapse if the Oireachtas does not pass them. It allows for debate but, as Deputy Ryan has pointed out, there will have to be a majority decision situation.

Mr. Tully

They will be in operation for 12 months before the debate takes place?

Dr. Hillery

They will. The directive is to implement a certain legislative matter, choosing one's own way in doing it. The Deputies are afraid the Minister may choose a way that is undesirable. It was on that point that the Taoiseach said that there would be access to the Courts to challenge if the Minister took powers he should not take. However, we will have an opportunity on the other stages of the Bill to argue this matter.

It is accepted by the House that the work that would be involved, in addition to what the House is doing already, would create a situation which would prevent the House from functioning if we tried to do it through the normal procedures. It has been suggested that we might have a committee and the matter was mentioned by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach referred to a committee in Germany which was set up for the purpose of vetting Community legislation. However, there was such an enormous volume that even that committee has become incapable of sorting it out.

I should like to point out that the number of Community documents which have a political content is small. They mostly deal with administrative, day-to-day functions. For example, 90 per cent of such documents last year dealt with the common agricultural policy. We must try to ensure some way of ascertaining the items that have a political content. I might mention that the Taoiseach has invited the heads of the other parties and whoever they might wish to have with them to sit with him and try to find a way of getting this House in a position to deal with these matters. It is not a matter of not wishing the House to be in on the picture but to devise a method whereby the House might deal with these matters without bringing the business of the House to a halt. I do not know what will be the outcome of the meeting. We are entering it with an open mind seeking a solution of the problem but in the meantime, as has been pointed out, Question Time, Questions on the Adjournment, Private Members' Motions and the normal procedures of the House are available in addition to the debate every two years.

I think when Deputies spoke about methods of dealing with these matters and of the restructuring of the House they were thinking of the Community regulations which are directly applicable and in which this House would have no decision. At the present time in theory Members sent to the European Parliament would be involved in this matter but it is possible that the stage of development of the European Parliament and its powers are not sufficiently developed to make people here satisfied that there is adequate democratic control over regulations.

It is desirable that people who go from here should be well acquainted with these matters and give their attention to the European Parliament and this requires that in some way they be protected in their home constituencies. The proportional representation form of elections here doubles the risks for any man who may leave his constituency for a considerable length of time even though he may be doing valuable work in Europe. This would be an inhibiting factor in the minds of many Deputies who would be capable and willing to take up the role of having as big an influence as possible from the democratic base on the decisions made in Europe.

The initiatives for regulations and other legislation comes from the Commission and the Commission is now being formed. The appointment of each member will be by the European governments and there will not be any conflict with regard to his interest in his own country. He will have to keep in close contact with the Government of his own country and I expect that the political appointments in the Commission will bring a new element of political consideration into the initiating process.

The decision-making will be by the Council of Ministers. Like every other country we will have one representative in that Council. The present method of decision making by the Council is that they do not take any decision that is contrary to the vital interests of a member country. Having regard to the present stage of development of the powers of the Parliament and our experience of it and since all our energies will be taken up with adjustment, from our point of view a most satisfactory arrangement at the present time is to have the powers with the Council of Ministers in which will be one member of the Government here who will be responsible to this Parliament while he is Foreign Minister.

It is an interim situation. Along the way we can see the development of the European Parliament in which the Commission would be subject to the democratic process at some stage but we must travel that road first and create interim structures. The interim arrangement which exists is adequate and suits the position of this small country. In the long run, the development of the institutions in the Community are much more important for a small country than for a large one. The Taoiseach's support of this development and the strengthening of Parliament at the summit reflects our policy in this regard.

I do not know if the other parties have given any thought to the setting up of structures. From speeches that have been made here one would think it is entirely up to the Government. Members of the Dáil and Seanad must do a great deal more reading than has been done up to now. Sometimes when people say Ireland will have to work harder they think it applies only to manual workers. Everyone in the country will have to give more thought and do much more reading and studying of all these matters than they have done up to now. What the Government can do to help in this regard is to make documentation available to Deputies. We hope that in time we will be better acquainted with definitions of directives and regulations, and where the process can be influenced whether through the Government in this Parliament, through the Foreign Minister or the Irish Members of the European Parliament. We will require individual Deputies to study in greater detail all these documents. Having said that I should like to say that for the past three years I have had a committee in the Fianna Fáil Party helping me in my work as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is an EEC committee really. I do not know if the other parties have done that.

Mr. Creed

We have done it anyway.

Dr. Hillery

From our point of view it is a very effective basis on which we could extend the consideration of the political implications of membership of the European Communities. If the other parties want any lessons on this, I am sure the chairman of our party committee would be able to give advice.

Having said that I think the parties should set up structures of their own. I want to repeat that the Taoiseach wants to meet the leaders of the other parties to get down to dealing adequately with this problem. I was glad to hear Deputy Cruise-O'Brien saying he saw the necessity for the Executive decision-making process not to be interfered with. This is a problem too. We have to so adjust ourselves as to make it possible to make decisions and sustain action while bringing Parliament into full consultation.

That is the practical part of what I have to deal with. I did not intend to make a speech about Europe. What is quite clear from this seat now is that some Members here are going into Europe with the idea that it is an unchangeable bureaucracy which will be making decisions and against which we will be battering our heads. We will, of course, like the British, the French, the Germans and all the others, have to accept rules of general application within the area confined by the treaties signed in the Communities. Perhaps more than others, with so much new in our own country, in our own State, we should be considering what new structures could be set up in the world in this evolution of Europe.

The Summit shifted from the economic bureaucratic idea to a Europe of people, a Europe built for the benefit of its citizens. Entering into Europe we should be thinking in a more positive way of how we can so structure it as to preserve to the fullest extent liberties and individual rights while improving the standard of living. Again, all these are aims set out in the Treaty of Rome. We can have a very special role to play in making sure that Europe, as it develops, will be something new in the world and something worth working for.

At present it is hard to raise enthusiasm for a loyalty to Brussels. There is no conflict in my mind between our national loyalties, our parish loyalties, the loyalties we understand, and our well-being within the European Communities. It is for us to find for our people, and for other people, reasons why individual people should feel a loyalty to Europe as a concept. This requires a great deal of imaginative thinking and a great deal of dedication to finding a role for Europe in the world and finding a personality for Europe which will please the individual citizens of the nine countries now involved. We might be specially placed to contribute there.

To get back to the Bill, I hope that on Committee Stage we will be able to find a way to bring the democratic process of this Dáil into consideration in the decision making which has to be done by this country in consequence of the decision of the people to join Europe. Perhaps before the taking of Committee Stage the leaders of the two other parties may have made their contact with the Taoiseach and have had their first meeting about how later consultations in relation to European legislation can be held.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 2nd November, 1972.