I move:
That it is expedient to authorise any charges that may be made for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make provision with respect to membership of the State of the European Communities.
European Communities Bill, 1972: Financial Resolution.
You are aware, Sir, that Deputy Ryan and I tabled a motion which touches on the Bill we are now about to discuss. Under the procedure groomed by Standing Orders the motion would clearly be discussed separately. I thought, however, that on the Financial Resolution I might briefly refer to this matter for the purpose of getting an indication from the Minister of his and the Government's view on the idea enshrined in the motion.
During the course of the Second Stage debate and, indeed, I think on some other occasions, reference was made to the need for the establishment from the House, or as the motion we have tabled envisages, the establishment of a Select Committee representative of both Houses, to consider, advise on and examine the draft regulations, directives, decisions and other proposals and the Acts of the institutions of the European Community. In view of the very many regulations, directives and Acts which issue from the Community or are issued by the Community, it is considered desirable to have a Dáil committee or a committee of both Houses to consider these matters rather than to proceed as we do at present, the Minister or Minister's responsible answering to the House in discussions taking place on particular motions or during the course of Estimate debates.
It is quite obvious that the quantum of work will come from the European Economic Community is much greater than that of any similar body and in addition, this country will have ten representatives in the European Parliament. The various methods by which these regulations might be brought before the House are considerable, but having looked at the precedents and having endeavoured to draft a suitable amendment for Committee Stage, it was considered that the most practical way of doing it and the one most in accord with Dáil procedure was to table what is known as an expediency motion. Deputy Ryan and I are not by any means wedded to the particular phraseology of this motion which has been circulated in White Paper form, but I raise the matter now because I would like to get from the Minister an indication of the Government's view on this and what I believe would be the reaction of the House and probably also of the Seanad, although we cannot speak for the Seanad, to a proposal for the establishment of a committee of both Houses for the purpose of considering these matters.
I think also it may well be necessary to establish a special secretariat, with technical and other assistance. This will be a continuing committee. We have, I think, only two or three committees, two of them meeting frequently and one appointed to deal with particular work each year, the Public Accounts Committee. Other than these, we have no permanent committees here and the staff of the House provide the necessary secretarial assistance for the public accounts and other committees. The work which this committee will have to do will be entirely different and the type of regulations, directives and other Acts which issue from or are the subject of consideration by the Committees, as well as the matters which will arise in the European Parliament, are obviously in many cases of a highly technical and specialised nature. It will, therefore, be essential to have technical assistance of a specialised kind and for that reason it may well be that a new procedure in that regard will have to be adopted.
I do not want to prolong this matter at this stage further than to say that we have tabled this resolution and the remarks I am making now are directed to the Financial Resolution because this is the appropriate occasion on which we can consider the matters in the European Communities Bill and unless time were set aside specially to consider the motion at some fairly proximate date, it might well be that the accession of this country to the EEC would have come and gone before it was considered. In any event, I believe that there is a general view that a committee should be established and I would naturally be anxious to ensure that whatever proposal is made is one which commends itself to the House. For that reason we mention it now to get the reaction of the Government, as well as any other views that may be expressed, in order to ensure that the committee, which is established, will meet the needs of the particular circumstances and also reflect adequately the views of this House and, if necessary, the Seanad.
I should like to point out that the Chair has allowed Deputy Cosgrave's remarks in this Committee on Finance for the reason that the whole tax field and public expenditure field is affected by the Bill.
On Second Reading of this Bill, I, on behalf of the Labour Party, supported the committee idea and other speakers from the party agreed that this seems to be the sensible approach. Everything that Deputy Cosgrave has said is obvious to us. If we are going to do the job properly, we must have some way of dealing with it and it cannot be dealt with in the way in which at the present time it is proposed to deal with it. The Minister may have made a decision on this already. I am surprised that some proposal has not come forward from the Government but, perhaps, it is as well that it should come in this way because by coming in this way it ensures that it has the unanimous support of the House if the Government agreed to it.
There is one thing which worries me about it more than anything else and it is that it does mean a necessity to have staff to help in the running of this committee. The tendency has been to draw on already overworked staff without replacement. We have had in this House for some time a situation in which people are doing a job and are fully taxed in doing it, and when extra work comes along, it is put on to them also and the result is that without producing replacements, we seem to be attempting to carry on with the ordinary work and a certain type of work of the House has fallen very much behind. I would ask the Minister, if he is going to agree to the suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave, with which we agree, that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that there is proper staffing for it without reducing the number of staff doing other work already or attempting to do it.
There is one other thing about which I feel very strongly. Perhaps it was a catty remark, but I commented during Second Reading that while we were prepared to pay £7,000 a year on top of the initial £4,000 for this provision of the box up there to translate any word of Irish that might be spoken for our benefit through earphones—may I say that I think it must be a very hard thing to sit in that box up there throughout the entire sitting, a job none of us would relish—no effort seems to have been made to translate these documents.
I can foresee our having EEC directives which will have the force of law here but which will not have been translated into the English language, the language most used here. May I ask that if we are to have a committee set up, the first thing that committee should require is to have all Community documents translated? I appreciate that English will become one of the EEC languages in 1973 and that the problem will not then be as bad, but if we do not do what Deputy Cosgrave suggested today and what we suggested on Second Stage, we will become bogged down in this House with EEC business.
Deputy Cosgrave has indicated that he would like the views of the House on the proposal that a select committee be established. I should like at this stage to say briefly that I agree with all that has been said about the necessity to devise some legislation or machinery to keep the House and the people of the country in touch with the flow of directives, Acts, recommendations and so on that will come from the EEC. I think that is very important because, as has been said by a number of Deputies who spoke here on Second Stage, it is essential that the general public be kept as fully informed as possible of the legislation that will become so important to us as a community.
It is also important, of course, from the point of view of the people whose interests will be vitally affected by these Acts and directives, that no impression should be created among the people that Brussels is a very remote place in which all sorts of things are happening and being promulgated about which they know very little, thus alienating them from the source of authority and power which will reside in Brussels.
Therefore, there is a necessity to have some machinery in the Oireachtas to enable us as Members and the general public and the people whose special interests will be vitally affected to keep in touch with this new legislation. I do not, however, agree with the idea of a select committee. I have some experience of select committees and I have never found them very satisfactory. They suffer certain disadvantages which a committee of the whole House do not suffer from. There is a certain behind-closed-doors, a closed shop, thing about a select committee whose membership, of course, is restricted.
This would become very important in this context—this restriction of membership of a select committee— because I doubt if there is any Deputy in the House the vital interests of whose constituents will not from time to time become affected by regulations of the EEC, and if a Deputy is not a member of the select committee and some regulation comes forward which vitally affects the interests of his constituents, he will be at a severe disadvantage. In my experience it has always been much more desirable that the business of this House should be conducted by a committee of the whole House in full public view, as it were, with the right of public attendance. I do not mean to suggest there would not be the right of public attendance at a select committee, but they would not have the same accessibility as a committee of the whole House sitting here in this Chamber.
I realise that the idea of a select committee is put forward to deal with this situation and I have tried to see if there is some alternative to a select committee. I would put forward tentatively a proposal that this House meet as a committee of the whole House on a Friday, perhaps every second Friday or on a Friday once a month, for a fixed time, say from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. or something of that order, and that that special sitting of the House would be devoted to EEC legislation. I realise there are certain disadvantages in that proposal but I think they could be overcome.
It would be important, first of all, that the quorum of that special sitting of the House would be relatively small so that it would not be particularly onerous on the House to provide a quorum for such special Friday sittings. It would have the advantage that any Deputy who was particularly interested in a particular piece of legislation, or the interests of whose constituents would be vitally affected by such legislation, could attend that committee of the whole House at that Friday sitting. As I have said, I put that proposal very tentatively—I hope it will be considered—because I dislike the idea of a select committee, particularly because such a committee would not be open to any particular Deputy who might have a vital interest in a particular matter but who would not be a member of that committee.
Deputy Cosgrave and the Fine Gael Party are grateful for the way their suggestion has been met but I should like to emphasise to the House, and Deputy Haughey in particular, that the resolution, as drafted, provides that the committee would have a right to co-opt five Members of this House and two of the Seanad, because, quite clearly, there might be Members who might have an interest in agriculture but not an interest in legal matters and so on, who would like to be present when the committee were making a decision.
Accepting all the criticism of a select committee, it seems to us we must have a select committee because it would be asking too much of all Members of the House to involve themselves in EEC affairs. At a Friday sitting there might be a loose, flabby debate which would never be able to get to some of the directives, regulations, et cetera. There would be a more intimate discussion and exchange of views at a select committee meeting than at a committee of the whole House. It must be remembered that a special committee is required by the resolutions Deputy Cosgrave and I have tabled. While sympathising with what Deputy Haughey has said, I think we can attain the best of both worlds by having a select committee doing the hard work and by requiring that committee to report to the House. It could report to the House monthly or even more frequently, if thought desirable, and the House could then in general committee debate it if that were considered to be desirable.
I entirely agree that we must have the fullest discussion of European affairs if European affairs are to be meaningful to the general public. The way in which the Government have presented the European Communities Bill shows two very dangerous trends, first, their utter contempt for democracy and, secondly, their total lack of preparedness for the obligations of the European Community.
The Chair would point out at this stage that it is because taxation is involved by this Financial Resolution that the suggestion of a committee to watch over inter alia financial matters would be in order. Therefore, what the Chair would suggest to Deputies is that they would keep close to the taxation implications of the resolution and not widen the scope to a general discussion of the proposed committee per se which would anticipate discussion on the motion which has been put down. We cannot anticipate discussion on that motion.
Very well, Sir. Accepting the limitations of the Financial Resolution, I want to point out that the secondary legislation of the European Communities already fills more than 44 thick volumes and there is not even one of these volumes in the Library of this House and yet we are required to pass a Financial Resolution and a Bill on information which is not even available to Members of this House in any language of the world, not even in French, the language of the Communities as the Communities stand at the moment.
It is making a farce of this House, it is making a farce of democracy in this country, to be asking that this House and the other House and the country in general would approve of legislation which governs so many vital things that even the headings of these vital things as contained in the appendix to the Government's explanatory memorandum shows that there are the best part of 2,000 different regulations and these are not yet available. This clearly indicates the need to pass this Financial Resolution so that if it be the Government's excuse that they had not the authority to spend the money on these things to date, at least they will have the authority, and the sooner they have it the better, so that we can have this vital information available to us.
My information is that a basic library on community legislation and law and interpretation of the legislation and the treaties would cost £13,000 and would require annually £1,800 in order to keep it up to date. Here we are, eight weeks from entry to the European Community and none of this essential material has yet been made available to Members of the House and through us to the people of the country. We are now being asked to adjudicate upon a Bill which is supposed to deal with these matters of legislation which in volume is now as great as the total legislation passed by Oireachtas Éireann since the foundation of the State.
This is an appalling state of affairs. As discussion has been allowed on the resolution seeking the establishment of the committee, I would like briefly to make this comment: we are now less than eight weeks away from membership of the European Community and in about nine weeks' time 10 Members of this House and, possibly, the Seanad will have to go to the European Parliament and we have not yet got any kind of committee selected, official or unofficial, considering this problem. Was ever any country so unprepared for the vital part which it has to play in international affairs? It is a downright disgrace. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. We would not be even as far as we are today in discussing the form of committee work if the Opposition had not tabled this resolution and the amendment that Deputy Bruton has tabled to the Bill. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They have shown contempt for democracy and contempt for all the people of the country.
Perhaps I should ask now if we could deal with facts? It shows what will happen if people like Deputy Ryan take the floor in any committee of the Dáil that is selected. There are 43 volumes on legislation in translation in the Library.
I take it the Minister is not concluding on this now? Other Deputies are offering.
No. It is not quite right to let this go off into a rambling thing when it is not necessary. We all intend to do what is proper for the country. There are 43 volumes in the Library, in English. That is the first thing. The second thing is that there has been a referendum and the people have made a decision that we join the Community and the act of joining makes us accept regulations of the Community in direct application here and decisions and directives of the Community implemented by our own legislation. So, to say what he has said is to confuse people as much as he is confused himself about the Bill.
No, I told the truth.
I should like to say, with reference to what the Minister has just said, that what is important from the point of view of this House is not so much the fact that there is a translation of existing, agreed, Community legislation in the Library but the fact that there is not in existence an English translation of Community draft legislation which may come into effect by decision of the Council of Ministers. That is what is politically important to us in this House. The drafts are available only in French. Therefore, it is difficult for Members of the House who do not have a facility in French, but are interested in regard to the future position of the Government under the proposal which is before the House.
The Chair must remind the Deputy again that we must keep to the financial implications of what is before the House at the moment. The Chair has already said that we must not anticipate the debate either on the motion or on amendments.
I agree, but it is fair to say that the provision of English translations of Community draft regulations would involve a charge on the Exchequer and in my view their provision would be a desirable charge on the Exchequer. I would feel, therefore, that it is relevant to the Money Resolution as it is a direct consequence of the provisions of the Bill. The Minister was not fair in reply to Deputy Ryan in drawing attention to the fact that we have English translations of existing EEC law. What is important is future EEC law and draft directives and regulations which can affect the Irish Minister's future position.
I support the attitude adopted by the leader of my party in regard to this matter. It is essential that we have a committee. As some of these matters will be of a highly technical nature, of a much more technical nature than much of the legislation which has come before the House, it will be necessary to have very elaborate research facilities available to members of the committee and as this would involve a charge on the Exchequer it is relevant on the Money Resolution.
The House is discussing a Financial Resolution.
It is relevant to the Financial Resolution. Perhaps Deputy Cosgrave's resolution does not provide for a sufficiently large membership of the committee. I think it will be necessary to set up sub-committees of this committee dealing with agriculture, industry, political affairs and other matters. Perhaps a 12-member committee would not be large enough. The possibility of extending the membership for certain purposes may cover that point but it would be difficult to anticipate the need to extend the committee for a particular purpose because a small committee, possibly not competent in relation to a particular directive, will have to take the decision in the first place on whether or not it would be wise to extend the committee. If you had a large committee in existence already, you would have a sufficient number of specialists on the committee to examine this matter. It is important in establishing such a committee, or in adopting any procedures, that we do not diminish the effectiveness——
The Deputy seems to be anticipating the discussion on the motion about a committee and is not keeping to the financial business involved in the motion before the House.
I should like to seek guidance from the Chair. If what I am saying is irrelevant I cannot understand how anything anybody else has been saying was relevant.
The discussion was allowed because as, I think, was pointed out at the time, the whole field of Irish taxation and Irish Government expenditure was affected by this Financial Resolution. The suggestion that a committee should be set up to inter alia look after this was held to be in order at that stage. The Chair does not wish that there should be a discussion on the committee per se.
Would I be correct in believing that it is important to establish the effectiveness of procedures to cover the propriety of expenditure and that I am in order in commenting on the lack of effectiveness of proposed procedures? It would be impossible to discuss the issue of governing expenditure without discussing at the same time the effectiveness of proposed methods of governing it.
What we are concerned with at the moment is the question of taxation and expenditure. The Deputy seems to be dealing with the committee or sub-committees of the committee.
I am dealing with the effectiveness of proposed methods for supervising expenditure. I think that is relevant if we are talking about expenditure, because we are talking about a number of future situations and future expenditure over a period. We must establish institutions to supervise that expenditure. If we are to discuss the methods of control, I feel that I am in order in discussing whether proposed methods of control are effective or otherwise.
If there is an understanding at this stage that we are discussing both the Financial Resolution and the Money Resolution together and that there will not be a further discussion on the second motion.
On what motion?
On the Money Resolution.
I really do not know what the difference between the two resolutions is.
The Financial Resolution deals with taxation and the Money Resolution deals with expenditure.
I will not be speaking again on this resolution.
The Chair is concerned to ensure that everybody else——
On a point of order, if the resolution we are concerned with deals with taxation, is it not the case that this Bill will bring into Irish law provisions of the European Community law which involve Irish Exchequer revenue being directly applied to the Community and that any decisions which are subsequently taken can vary the amount of that without control by us? Therefore, are we not in order in discussing anything that will control subsequent Community decisions which, by their implementation, would affect the amount of taxation to be levied by the Community directly here through the common external tariff import levies and the 1 per cent value-added tax?
The Chair has already pointed out that we have the Financial Resolution which deals with taxation, and the Money Resolution which deals with the expenditure of what has been raised by way of taxation. If we are to discuss both of them together, it should be agreed to take both together——
The position is that taxation is affected by this Bill because, by passing this Bill, we join a Community which has a system of legislation under which it can levy taxation here directly by collecting all our customs duties, all our import levies, and up to 1 per cent value-added tax. The decisions the Community take, and which will be applied here under this Bill, will affect the amount of that taxation. Therefore, if we are discussing the question of the effect on taxation, we must be able to discuss the control of Community decisions which will affect and vary the amount of taxation the Community can levy here.
The point is that the Financial Resolution deals with the imposition of taxation and the Money Resolution deals with expenditure of public money in so far as it is provided for by this measure. If it is agreed, we can have a discussion on both together.
On a point of order, I understood that Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Ryan mentioned the question of setting up a committee and this was permitted because it dealt, as you said, with the entire financial aspect. This was to be before the discussions took place on the Bill itself, I understood, and we were expecting the Minister to give us some indication as to what the Government proposed to do. Perhaps I was wrong.
That was the original purpose of the ruling. This was a watchdog committee which was being set up to watch inter alia both taxation and expenditure. For that reason it was allowed, but the House now seems to be branching forth into a discussion in anticipation of the motion.
If it is a watchdog committee which will keep an eye on legislation which could influence taxation here, surely we are entitled to discuss any aspect of watchdog activities, whether by the committee or anything else, which would affect taxation. If we relate our remarks directly at each point to the possible effect on Irish taxation of a decision taken consequent on the passage of this Bill, surely we are being relevant.
I submit that you cannot narrow the debate in view of the fact that this Bill authorises the direct levying of taxation here, the amount of which will be determined by decisions taken under legislation, direct or indirect, or derived from this Bill. As long as what we are talking about is the control of that, we are in order and, indeed, we would be in order in discussing the question of control by the European Parliament of the amount of taxation just as much as we are in order in discussing control by a committee of this House or by the whole House.
When financial business was undertaken in the House since the establishment of the State to date we had the annual budget on which there could be a full dress debate on all financial matters concerning the activities of the State. In addition we had the annual financial review of all our estimates. This gave reasonable liberty to Deputies to probe reasonably well into the financial administration of the country. It was a fair exercise in democracy.
In relation to the EEC if we are now debating the Money Resolution I think I am correct in addressing an inquiry to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to expenditure, or is the Chair dealing with taxation first, or are taxation and expenditure being taken as one? I am in a great cloud of ignorance as to where we stand exactly and what we are doing.
We must get that on the record.
Am I right?
The Deputy is right. He is surrounded by it.
The Deputy is not entirely alone.
It is because I am in a cloud of ignorance that I stand up in the House to elicit information. I cannot elicit information on orders and regulations and decisions in connection with the EEC if we are to have committees established to deal with finances, either by way of expenditure or taxation. That is why I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition to be as liberal as possible and not to restrict membership of such committees because, if we are to have a committee to deal with the financial implications and the acceptance of the Financial Resolutions——
The Deputy is anticipating discussion on a motion.
Would the Chair please make it clear what we are dealing with at the moment? I appeal to the Chair to assist me out of the extraordinary state of ignorance in which I find myself.
I had not completed my remarks but I yielded on a point of order.
Were we discussing No. 7 or No. 8, or both?
We are discussing Nos. 7 and 8 and both will be passed together, after discussion.
We have not completed discussion on No. 7. There is confusion here. As far as taxation imposed by the EEC is concerned, are we discussing a watchdog committee or are we discussing the implication of such a committee on decisions to be taken?
I do not know whether I am still in possession.
I yielded possession.
I do not understand what is before the House. If it is a watchdog committee I want to contribute; if it is the question of expenditure I want to contribute, and if it is the question of taxation I want to contribute. Will the Chair please indicate what we are discussing?
If I may make a modest suggestion—I did not think any remarks of mine would have created such confusion—if the Minister could indicate generally the Government's point of view on a committee, whether select or special or a committee of the whole House, and then discusses the Financial Resolution vis-à-vis taxation and other matters, it might help to clarify the position.
The discussion was allowed originally because under this Financial Resolution taxation is involved and the proposed committee would inter alia deal with this. It was pointed out then that the Chair did not want the motion in regard to the proposed committee to be discussed. It would be too wide to allow on a Financial Resolution.
Would it not be better if the Minister indicated his views at this stage?
Is Deputy Cosgrave's suggestion in order? May we discuss the Money Resolution and make certain observations on the proposed committee in relation to their possible control over expenditure? I do not know where we are.
The Chair asked the Deputy to keep to the Financial Resolution and not to anticipate discussion on the motion.
May we discuss the desirability of the committee?
We may discuss the question of taxation on the Financial Resolution and we may discuss expenditure on the Money Resolution.
May we discuss certain suggestions about the advisability of having a committee?
Only in so far as they are relevant to taxation or expenditure. We may not anticipate discussion on the motion put down by Deputy Cosgrave.
Have both these resolutions been moved?
Has either?
I moved the Financial Resolution.
Am I right in assuming that the Financial Resolution is before the House?
Yes, but the House has gone on to discuss the Money Resolution. I said that if Deputies were agreeable we could discuss them both together.
Could we please get back to discussion of the Financial Resolution?
We must keep to the Financial Resolution.
Would I be correct in believing that we are in order in discussing the efficacy of existing procedure for supervising expenditure which would come from the EEC and the possibility that other procedures might be necessary?
The Deputy is talking about expenditure which comes under a different heading —the Money Resolution.
Would we be entitled to speak about the efficacy of the present system in regard to taxation?
Only in relation to taxation as imposed by the EEC.
I am completely confused but I am willing to defer my remarks until later to assist the business of the House.
A suggestion was made by Deputy Cosgrave and I am not sure we have reached a decision on it. He suggested that the Minister might make a contribution at this stage.
The Minister will be contributing when he is concluding. The Chair remarked earlier when the Minister intervened that he was not yet concluding—that he was intervening to answer a point.
Some people got away with things earlier on.
I heard nothing for a quarter hour except discussion on the proposed committee.
I do not think the Chair should be castigated for extending leniency to Deputies to make brief points. Apparently other Deputies took advantage and the Chair should not be castigated.
I have a small point to raise on the Financial Resolution in regard to an advertisement which appeared in weekly newspapers under the heading of "The Council of the European Economic Communities, Brussels". It was for administrators and it referred to a competitive examination for their appointment. The advertisement has caused astonishment and amazement to at least 200,000 Irish people who recognise the Irish language as the national language of this State. The advertisement referred to the candidates' ability in regard to English and mentioned German, French, Italian and so on, but did not refer to Irish. If Irish money is to be voted in this House in relation to a competition for such positions and if the Constitution recognises——
The Deputy now is going into questions of administration.
We should get off on the right foot in relation to this matter. We are now dealing with a Financial Resolution. Can the Chair tell me on what occasion I can deal with the discrimination shown in Brussels against the Irish language? I consider I am entitled to make that point. An example of this discrimination is the advertisement issued by Brussels regarding the examinations I have referred to. In that advertisement German, French, Italian, Dutch and English are regarded as the languages of note and importance. The advertisement makes reference to people of "English mother tongue". I am one Member of this House who does not recognise English as the mother tongue of this country. On this Financial Resolution, I consider I can express my views regarding the discrimination that has been shown against the Irish language.
The Deputy must not go into detail on a matter which deals with administration in Brussels.
I accept the ruling of the Chair that we are not going to deal with administration in Brussels but I am referring to an advertisement in an Irish newspaper.
The Deputy is now proceeding to discuss the matter.
I will not refer to it again beyond saying that it gives offence to 200,000 Irish speakers.
It is a matter of language policy and is far removed from the Financial Resolution.
Regarding financial matters, the question has arisen whether a committee of this House would be the best means of expressing an opinion on such matters. If the Minister makes a statement tonight and tells us that it is the Government's intention to set up a select committee for the purpose of dealing with financial matters in relation to the EEC, I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition to be as liberal as possible in relation to such a committee. There are Deputies who can never reach the dizzy heights of appointment to such committees.
The Deputy is now discussing the committee; he is anticipating the motion to set it up.
Perhaps I am anticipating the appointment of such a committee but if the committee is appointed I would recommend——
The Deputy is well aware it does not arise on the Financial Resolution. It can arise on a motion.
Deputy Cosgrave has asked the Minister to make a comment on the appointment of such a committee and Deputy Tully has invited the Minister to clear up any misunderstanding with regard to this matter and to state if it is the Government's intention to recommend the appointment of such a committee. I cherish the rights of all Deputies in this House. I am afraid a Deputy on the committee would be superior to a Deputy not on it.
The Deputy is skilfully dealing with the committee. He is anticipating the motion regarding the committee.
I will give an example of a financial matter of concern to me. When it is stated that the EEC provide funds for farmers, I regard that as a financial matter.
This does not arise on the Financial Resolution before the House.
What about value-added tax?
No, value-added tax was imposed by separate legislation.
What about the funds necessary to set up offices in Brussels?
This is like "Twenty Questions".
What about the money that will be required to staff offices in Brussels, the money that will be needed to arrange for the translation of documents? Is it not the position that we are being asked to vote money blindly——
The Deputy is dealing with expenditure rather than the Financial Resolution.
The people will be taxed in order to pay for costs and expenses involved in the translation of documents. If the money the Minister for Foreign Affairs is seeking is used to provide additional staff and to provide information for Members of this House regarding the EEC, we are in favour of that. However, I want to make a plea on behalf of our people who would wish that EEC documents be available in our own language and to ask that the necessary staff be recruited to ensure that the documents are available. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was quoted in the newspapers on 18th September, 1971, as stating that Irish had been recognised as an official language in the EEC but it appears that is not so.
The Deputy is discussing a matter that the Chair has told him he should not discuss. The Deputy is repeating his remarks.
I am not certain that the money the Minister will get as a result of taxation will be used to pay staff. If it is so used, I want information regarding the duties of such staff. Unless information on the EEC is in English or Irish, it is no use to most Members of this House as we do not understand French, German, Dutch or Italian. Will sufficient staff be provided in this House in order to translate documents?
The Deputy is again dealing with expenditure.
I want to make it clear to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that taxation has reached a very high level. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should give a detailed and candid statement to the House in regard to this matter. As a rural Deputy I am not happy with the situation. It requires explanation to convince someone like myself about European matters. The Minister should give this matter some thought. I am expressing these views because the people of the country are being left in the dark. The Government, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, should give more information. This House has the right to demand information. If there is any question of a committee to deal with the financial matters Members of this House should cherish the right of eliciting information on behalf of the taxpayers who will have to meet the financial obligations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should give the House the necessary information.
I want to talk briefly on this question of a means of ensuring some kind of control, in the competence of this Parliament, directly or indirectly, over taxation arising from this Bill. There are various ways in which this can be done. One way is to set up a committee for this purpose. This has been suggested by the leader of the Opposition. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle permitted him to speak about this committee and permitted the spokesman for the Labour Party and members of the Fianna Fáil Party to speak about it because this committee would perform, in their submission, a valuable function, although Deputy Haughey thinks it would not be so valuable a function in regard to the control of taxation.
There are two sections of the explanatory memorandum dealing with the relevant parts of the Community legislation. They are section 1 and section 11. We are concerned about how we can best ensure control over taxation which would be effected in existing regulations and directives. They are mostly decisions of the Coal and Steel Community. There is also a regulation of the EEC at the top of page 5. There are a number of directives on page 40. We are concerned with how the taxation levied under these can be best controlled by this House. This House has a responsibility in this respect.
There are several methods of doing this. A committee of this House would be a helpful element. It would examine proposals relating to certain matters. I submit these are the only matters which we should be discussing. These matters are the regulations, directives and decisions affecting the external tariff. It is through this tariff that taxation is levied for the purposes of the Community. The directives and regulations which we are adopting are ones that entitle the Community to levy taxation from 1975 onwards directly in this country by means of this tariff. We are concerned with future changes in the common external tariff involving the levying of taxation in this country at the ports of entry to it, with future legislation involving changes in the import levies, with legislation involving any change in the percentage of VAT which the Community are entitled to levy—that is the 1 per cent figure—with any legislation involving decisions about how much of the 1 per cent should be levied on any one occasion and, finally, with any legislation involving the actual system of VAT and decisions as to how comprehensive this tax should be and what exemptions should be permitted. All that legislation directly affects taxation here. Anything I say will relate directly to those headings and will be relevant.
There are two main approaches to the problem. One is to ensure that this House will have an adequate chance of considering draft regulations and directives before they are made. The other approach is to ensure that this House—through the control it will have of choosing people for the European Parliament, through the influence it may have in the future concerning the method of election to the European Parliament, and through the views it may express in the future which may influence the powers given to the European Parliament—will have in the future control over the legislation, not at the draft stage only but when it actually comes into effect.
What combination of actions should we undertake here in regard to the procedure of this House meeting in full committee, and Members of this House meeting as a select committee, or the procedure of the European Parliament? What procedure should we adopt to ensure adequate control of taxation? The idea of a select committee of this House is a good one for this purpose. The reply of Deputy Ryan to points made by Deputy Haughey indicates that the Fine Gael motion is sufficiently flexible to allow for Deputy Haughey's objections, which have some force, to be met. If there are other ways in which our motion could be varied or amended that would help to meet any legitimate objection which Deputy Haughey raised, I am sure that we would have no objection to making any necessary changes.
The idea of a select committee is valuable. That committee should be in a position to report back to this House so that if on examining a draft regulation or directive which involves proposals for taxation affecting this country, the committee feel that such matters should be debated by the full House or, if the House, having heard the views of the committee so decides, the House should be in a position to debate them. That is legitimate and proper. I would suggest that there is a danger of proceeding solely by that method of control. If we seek to exercise our control solely by and through the national Parliament we may reduce the impetus towards giving to the European Parliament effective power, and the impetus towards direct elections to the European Parliament which would give it the authority from the people of Europe, from which alone it could derive the right to seek power to control taxation directly.
As proposed now under existing legislation here, the power to levy taxation in this country will in future be delegated by us, subject only to consultation, to a group of nine Ministers—the Irish Minister and eight others—who are the legislators. They are not the executive committee. They are legislators. Having conferred with various groups they will take the decision as to what the taxation shall be. This is something to which we are not accustomed. It is something about which we are rightly concerned. We are concerned that we should reach a stage where the members of the Executive in this country can, by participation with people in other countries, turn themselves into a legislature and pass laws which this House cannot properly control.
We must be concerned to bring such legislation as far as possible within the ambit of this House. We should not be content with doing that. If we were content with doing only that, our influence could be minimal on our own Minister. In this House we might express our views on what form the taxation should take. The Minister, as a legislator, retains the right to decide with other Ministers what the law will be and what the taxation will be. Regardless of what views we may express our Minister would not be amenable to this House in his capacity as legislator. We should certainly proceed to set up a committee of this kind. It would be useful and valuable. It is vital that we know what is proposed. It will be most undesirable that we should be content with that. We must go beyond that and insist that the legislators of the EEC, who are the Ministers and members of the Executives of member countries, shall become amenable to the European Parliament, itself a legislature. That parliament should be directly elected. Only in that way will the people of Ireland exercise jointly with the people of other European countries direct control over taxation.
Surely that is years and years away. It is only a pipe dream at the moment.
The Deputy may say it is a pipe dream. That is the atitude which I fear. That is precisely the point I fear. If that attitude takes root here and if we become content to permit members of the Executive of this country to impose taxation on us jointly with members of the Executives of other countries, without parliamentary control at home or in the European Parliament, then we are giving up a right we should certainly be seeking to retain. I would be concerned that this Parliament and all parties in it would seek to use their best endeavours to persuade the Governments and the Parliaments of other countries to move with us towards securing effective Parliamentary control of taxation in Europe and taxation in this country. While certainly this Parliamentary committee is useful, valuable and necessary we must not delude ourselves into thinking that if we agree to it, and if we have such a committee, that it will be sufficient. We must be willing to do what Deputy de Valera is sceptical about, go beyond that and insist that at an early date, by 1975 if possible, when the full budgetary powers of the European Communities come into effect, we have a directly elected Parliament with adequate legislative power to control taxation. Otherwise, instead of creating, as we should be seeking to do, and as, indeed, was the full intent when these communities were established, a democratic Europe, we will be creating a bureaucratic Europe and indeed, to some degree, an autocratic Europe in the sense that the executive will have a power of taxation uncontrolled by Parliament.
I think my remarks have been relevant. They have, I hope, been brief and I trust they will find some echo in other parts of this House.
I shall take up the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave about a committee but I would like to remind the House that we had a referendum—and this is necessary for people who strongly supported the referendum and committed themselves totally and wholeheartedly to it—which decided we should join the Communities and there was no option open to any of us to select whichever laws of the Communities we would like. Those who went out wholeheartedly and campaigned for a "Yes" in the referendum and come in here now and say that the existing Community law is not available to them are confused. First of all, it is not true to say that the 43 volumes of legislation of the Community are not available. I think that what was said here was that not one volume is available. The whole 43, in translation, are available. That is not the point.
There are 44.
Forty-three are available. What was said was that not one is available. The point I am trying to make is that even if every Deputy in this House read every bit of it, having decided to join the Community and accept their legislation as already existing, there is nothing for the Deputy to do about that legislation.
Future legislation?
This is basic to setting up committees or, as Deputy Haughey said, giving TDs their right to talk in this House. It is basic that we address ourselves to the things we can influence——
Future legislation.
——and not talk now as if we are about to enter the referendum period on the basis that we will select what laws we want to apply here. We have to accept the decision of membership.
The Minister means it is a good job the people did not hear this before the referendum.
They heard it from me. I said in many speeches, and, in fact, I was very much criticised by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien repeatedly in the House for having accepted the Treaties and the secondary legislation and the decisions arising from the Treaties—I think it was the most frequent criticism made of me in this House that I accepted these but I accepted them and publicised my acceptance of them because——
As we all did.
——It was a sine qua non of membership; there was no alternative. I think if this House is to address itself to dealing in any way resembling efficacy—I will not talk of efficiency—in any way resembling lack of confusion, they will have to get away from trying to deal with matters over which we now have no control.
Who is the Minister arguing with?
The Deputy missed an earlier speech. We can drop the argument about legislation.
What the House seems to be bothered about is its participation in legislation in the future. The Bill before the House deals with ministerial regulations mainly to get us in line with Community directives and decisions. I think the House accepts this differentiation. Community directives and decisions are implemented by the method of the country in any of the nine countries. Regulations of the Community have direct application in the nine countries and regulations made by the Community are far and away the biggest number of documents produced. Last year they produced 2,900 regulations. These have direct application and, again, as far as this Bill is concerned, we can do nothing about it.
Last year they produced 410 directives and we can expect, having dealt with the first backlog of about 70 ministerial regulations to get us in line, about 20 ministerial regulations each year to implement directives and decisions of the Community. However, I do not think this is what was in the mind of the House. I think what was in the mind of the House, from listening to Second Stage speeches, was how it could influence the formulation of these directives in the Community before they come for implementation here because there is not much option then and it is better to give the power to the Minister to get them done quickly with the power of the Dáil to stop them, as proposed in the Bill, after a year—if they do not agree then they can stop them—but how do they influence them in the development stages and, as well as influencing these directives, influence the Community regulations. The way to do that, as Deputy FitzGerald has said, is to influence the Parliament.
To give the Parliament power, which is slightly different.
Yes, but you have to influence the Parliament. At the moment the Parliament has a certain amount of power. You have to deal with what is. What is desirable you have to achieve.
How do we get this House effective? I think Deputy Haughey is quite right. Any Deputy in the House would want to be free to make his statement and protect his constituents, this is why we are here, but there is a mass of documentation. How long would the House have to sit or how many Houses would have to sit to deal with any of this massive legislation in the way we dealt with our business tonight? There were 2,900 regulations last year. About 90 per cent of these had to do with the common agricultural policy. Many of these are ordinary administrative decisions. They do not need any involvement of the legislature. They can be done by administration. They can be done under legislation already passed through this House, But certainly some of them would have policy content, some of them should be considered by the Deputies of this House. I think what we should address ourselves to is to finding a method by which we could separate the technical from the policy, whether in a select committee or in a total committee of the House, which is an attractive idea, if both were existing together. The Government are not against a select committee; the Government would like a way of handling the problem. The problem, as we see it, is one of a massive amount of work to be done. We see merit in a committee but we think the committee would have to have its own secretariat and the secretariat would have to be full-time, of a high level. It might not be very big but it would want to be of a high level and have access to all Departments so that the Deputies would be informed of the facts. Perhaps, we can deal with the realities rather than the doubts and the misinterpretations.
The number on the committee, I think, we should look at again. In other countries the committees have existed for a long time and have not been able to handle the whole range of documentation coming out of the Community but if we could stream it and select policy documents which influence the lives of the people here and be able to inform Deputies, then through the Parliament and through this Dáil, through the Council of Ministers, we could have an influence. I think we should get down to structuring that committee. I would see a function for it of briefing Deputies of this House or Deputies who are selected or elected to go to the European Parliament. It will be very difficult for any Deputy to make himself fully acquainted, if he has to plough through all the technical material to find the policy matters. I think it would be a function of this committee to make certain Members of this House very well acquainted with the European structures and institutions because it is envisaged that the legislation applying to the Community, to member countries of the Community, will be a function of the institutions of Europe and any influence we have will be through these institutions—the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. I mention these because the number of 14 from the Dáil and six from the Seanad is mentioned.
We should get down to consider how this committee could, perhaps, be linked with Deputy Haughey's idea of meetings of the full Dáil every now and again. In this terribly difficult task of informing Deputies we wanted to have a debate from time to time. We had a one day debate on Europe; there were those marathon speeches from three or four Deputies and the day was gone. That was no service to the ordinary Deputy. The House will have to face up to the problem of giving ordinary Deputies—Deputies who are not in any special position—access to knowledge and the time to study it. Some Deputies have to have this knowledge made easy for them. Deputies must be given an opportunity of coming in and saying what the problems in their constituencies are without having to listen to marathon lectures.
Does the Minister not agree that a Deputy on the committee would have an advantage over a Deputy not on it?
Certainly. I think membership of the committee would be an essential for a member of the European Parliament, just for that reason. We had a committee in our party during the past few years which I found very useful because everybody did his own work. As I envisage how the Dáil will be informed I think the first thing is to place all documentation in the Library and the second thing is to hope and pray that it will be read by people who are coming in here to talk. I will say that the committee which I had helping me in the party during the negotiations was a very hard-working, interested committee. It could very easily set the pattern for committees set up by other parties. If they developed along the same lines as the Fianna Fáil committee, then you could have a very effective nucleus of Deputies in this House who would be fully informed and would be helpful to other Deputies who do not have the same time available to them.
There will be occasions when some of the documentatiton coming from the Commission will be confidential and could not be given to the committee. The committee will have to accept that limitation. We would like some effective way of dealing with Community legislation. We accept the idea of a committee. We also have to accept the right of all Deputies to be brought into this. We will have to marry the two ideas in some way. It is not so difficult if the House accepts Deputy Haughey's idea of one day meetings at regular intervals. Then we could have the committees made up of members of each party who would be responsible to their own parties.
Would it not be better that all Deputies who were deeply concerned in this would participate, rather than a committee of a selected few by the leaders of the various parties? What happens to the independent TD?
The first business of the committee would be to work out some way of informing Deputies. It is basic that the information be available and that Deputies use it. It is impossible to have the whole Dáil on this. It takes a long time and it would be impossible to have the whole Dáil up to date on everything. It would be a help to have in each party certain people specialising who would be able to guide their own Deputies in terms of reading, matters coming up which affect their constituencies and so on. The committee could be a good idea as a basis for solving the problem as long as we remember that in other countries with committees well established they have not been able to handle the amount of documentation coming in. I think we can do it if we are sensible about it and avoid trying to do the things we are not entitled to do now.
Could I ask the Minister to clarify one point? Is it his thinking that the committee would at least inter alia concern itself with segregating technical legislation from policy legislation with a view to directing the attention of the Dáil towards the policy areas where debate would be particularly fruitful?
For that reason I think the committee would want to have a very good full time secretariat and especially equipped to find out legislation which is policy as distinct from technical. Each Department will have its own officers working at legislation and a secretariat with access to these Departments will to a much greater extent than any Deputy or any group of Deputies be able to separate the technical from the policy. Once it is identified the committee could bring it to their own parties and the House could discuss the policy matter. That is how I see it. It would have to be in practice before you would know how effective it would be.
The Minister must realise that every Deputy has his allegiance to his constituents.
The Minister has concluded.
His greatest responsibility is his allegiance to his constituents. That is what he takes on himself when he offers himself for Parliament. Any effort that would restrict his rights to seek information and to protect the interests of the people he is speaking on behalf of in Parliament would be wrong.
The Minister knows that a committee such as he has in mind would be left to the various political parties to appoint. There are Deputies associated with political parties who would never have a hope of being selected on such a committee. Independent Deputies have the same right to protect the interests of their constituents. If we are to have a committee such as the one the Minister suggests Deputies should be allowed to volunteer for such a committee. It should not matter if the committee consisted of half the Members of this House. It would be wrong to leave Deputies out of such a committee. The more we seek to restrict the right of Deputies to seek information and supply their constituents with information the greater the disservice we are doing to the country.
The Minister has concluded. There cannot be any further debate on the Financial Resolution.
There is no interruption from the independent Deputies and we know why.
I do not think there is any conflict. I think the committee should help Deputies. We should be able to structure a committee which would report to the House and permit a discussion in the House which would help Deputies to deal with matters. Because of the mass of legislation it would be quite impossible for a Deputy, financed as we are compared with other Parliaments, to go through all the legislation and find out what affects his constituents. If you had a committee with a secretariat reporting to the Dáil it would make it easier for individual Deputies.
Any Deputy who wants a directive or a decision, can he have it on application?
Yes. The fact that regulations were made by the Minister means that they will be published in Iris Oifigiúil and the Community has a corresponding journal in which all regulations and directives are published. All possible information will be available to all Deputies.
They would need to be in English or even in Irish. If they are in French or German they are not much use to many Deputies.
Question put and agreed to.
Financial Resolution reported and agreed to.