Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 12

European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Section 4 of the European Communities Act provides that regulations made under the Act shall cease to have statutory effect unless they are confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas passed within six months after they are made or are regulations merely revoking wholly regulations previously made under the Act. The purpose of this Bill is to confirm regulations made under the Act. As the first of these was made on 13th December, 1972, a confirmatory Act has to be enacted by 12th June, 1973, at the latest.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask that complete order be restored to the Chamber.

Mr. Briscoe

The disorder is being caused by the exit of Fine Gael and Labour members.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not concerned with the brand of politics of Members. He is endeavouring to restore order.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputies will recall that regulations have to be made by Government Ministers in order to implement Community legislation which is not self-enacting. Directives and decisions under the EEC and EURATOM Treaties, and recommendations under the ECSC Treaty, are not directly applicable, and obligations arising under these forms of Community legislation are implemented by the regulations which are to be confirmed by this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order, are there copies of the Minister's speech available?

Dr. FitzGerald

I apologise that copies are not available.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Dr. FitzGerald

My opening speech is very brief and I think it is not universal practice to circulate speeches when they are brief. Nonetheless, I regret there is not a copy for Deputies opposite, as some of the points are a little bit technical.

As mentioned in the Bill, there are nineteen regulations which require confirmation. These are of a technical nature and details are listed in the Schedule to the Bill and in the explanatory memorandum on the Bill. The majority of these regulations such as, for example, those on crystal glass, shipbuilding and customs matters, make only minor modifications to Irish practice.

I should, perhaps, refer in more detail to the regulations on the enforcement of Community judgments. These provide that judgments of the European Court, and decisions of the Council or of the Commission of the Communities which impose pecuniary obligations on persons other than States, can be enforced here. Such provision is essential to the operation of a body such as the European Community. It should, however, be noted that criminal offences are not involved and that, in accordance with the treaties, we are here concerned with the civil procedures only.

The regulations on market intervention nominate the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as the official national intervention agency for implementing the price support arrangements for agricultural products. This is necessary in relation to the implementation of the common agricultural policy here.

In addition to the Bill, there is also before the House a motion to take note of the first report on developments in the European Communities. Deputies will recall that it was agreed during the debate on the European Communities Bill last year that the Government would report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the Communities and section 5 of the Act provides for such reports. I would propose, a Cheann Chomhairle, with your permission, that this motion should be taken concurrently with the Second Stage of the Bill which is now being taken. This is the first such report and it will be followed towards the end of the year by a second one.

The present report is unusually long as the Government decided that in order to give the Houses of the Oireachtas a complete picture of the ways in which the European Communities have been and are developing, the report should cover the entire period from the signing of the Treaty of Accession in January of last year up to the middle of May—to be precise up to the 15th May—of this year. We felt that the House would wish us to interpret widely the requirement of section 5 of the European Communities Act in this regard. Normally, a report would cover the preceding period of six months and that, of course, will be the case in the future.

The House will note from the table of contents the very wide range and the importance of the subjects covered. I think it fair to say in regard to each of the chapters that we have put in a description of every major development and have also indicated the effect of each major development on our own circumstances. The subjects listed in the table of contents give an immediate, even a startling, indication of the wide span of activities involved in our membership of the Communities. They range from the enlargement of the Communities through external relations and trade, customs policy, common commercial policy, competition policy, industrial policy, transport policy, and so on. These policies may be said to comprise, together with harmonisation of laws and free movement of persons, services and capital, the first generation of common European policies.

But the table of contents also lists what might be regarded as a second generation of common European policies. These include regional policy, social policy, energy policy, economic and monetary policy, environment policy and scientific and technological policy. The summit conference of Heads of State or Government of last October in effect gave the Communities a mandate to explore seriously these new fields and to design policies for them which would be in the interests of the member States taken as a whole. We have a lively interest in these second generation policies, some of which are of particular importance to us.

Although there is a separate chapter devoted to the summit itself the House will notice that the decisions made by the Heads of State or Government are constantly referred to throughout most of the other chapters as well. That by itself is an indication of how relevant the summit has been in the creation of new guidelines for the evolution of the European Communities.

Finally, I should mention that at the Committee Stage of the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Bill I shall ask the House to accept an amendment which is intended to add three further regulations to the Schedule. These are regulations replacing regulations on fishery limits and on marketing standards for eggs, which are being allowed to lapse and regulations implementing an EEC directive on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultry meat.

The House will appreciate that this process of making regulations in pursuance of EEC directives, decisions and recommendations is one which is going on all the time, and between the moment when we draft the Bill and the moment when we introduce it, further developments take place, and it seems right that these should be incorporated in the Bill on Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I might tell the Minister I have just now got a copy of a speech.

Dr. FitzGerald

A bit late to be much good.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Not at this stage to me, but I hope it will be to other Members of the House. First of all, I should like to welcome the opportunity of discussing this by-annual report which is being taken in conjunction with the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Bill. It is particularly important that this report, which comes before us by virtue of the European Communities Bill which was moved and passed in this House in the last Dáil enables us to consider, at least twice a year, the development, as the Minister has said, of the European Community and our membership of that Community.

I think the Minister will agree with me that it is of vital importance that the Members of this House and the general public would have every facility for informing themselves in advance, first of all the contents of this report and also the details of the regulations which we are passing into law by virtue of this Bill this afternoon. I should mention to the Minister that this report which we are now debating has not until this morning, and possibly not even today, been available in the Stationery Office here. Obviously, that is something about which the Minister would be concerned. This is not a discussion and debate merely for the benefit of the Members of this House; it is, in fact, one that affects the public in a very real and practical way.

Throughout the report, and particularly in the part dealing with the Community institutions, the point is repeated that one of the pre-occupations of the Community will be to bring home the effects of their policies to the public. One of the ways this can be done, particularly for a new member state, will be to circulate the reports well in advance so that, for instance, Members of this House would have an opportunity of hearing the views of those directly concerned. The Minister has stated that this report is wide in scope, covering matters from company law to the common agricultural policy, to customs policy, scientific and technological policy and Euratom. Many of these areas are of considerable importance to the organisations concerned.

This debate will suffer because the report has just been made available to Deputies and, so far as I know, is not yet freely available to members of the public and to the organisations concerned. I hope that in the future there will be more time between publication of the report and debate in the House. The Opposition have been anxious to facilitate the Government in this matter. There are reasons why the debate must take place at this time because it is stated in the Act that the regulations made on 13th December, 1972, must be confirmed by this measure not later than 12th June. The Opposition have been anxious to have maximum co-operation with the Government in this area. In view of other matters which are taking up the time of the House and of matters outside the House there was urgency in bringing in this legislation at this time. However, one hopes that this situation will not arise in the future and I suggest that a period of three weeks or four weeks should elapse between the date of publication of the report and the debate in this House. During that time the report should be freely available to members of the public.

Ideally the regulations that are referred to in the Bill should have been reviewed by a committee of this House concerned with scrutinising the secondary legislation of the EEC. However, such a committee has not yet been established. This highlights the necessity of establishing such a committee and I know that the Minister is concerned about the matter. Neither the Minister nor myself will pretend we are experts on regulations dealing with motor vehicles, shipbuilding, crystal glass or textiles. Neither of us pretends he is qualified to express informed views on these wide-ranging and technical regulations. I hope the Minister will be able to proceed expeditiously with establishing some procedure to help in this matter. I have had discussions with him and he has been helpful.

I have considered the procedures in other parliaments and I shall refer to a few matters that may be of assistance to the House with regard to the establishment of such a committee. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hillery, during the course of the Communities Bill recognised that Members of the House and the public required to know what was happening in the EEC, what regulations were being passed that would affect their interests or professions. The Minister then undertook to circulate to Members a copy of Iris Oifigiúil in which the regulations would be noted as they were passed by order of the Minister. I do not think that practice has been implemented yet and I would ask the Minister to arrange that Deputies be supplied with copies of Iris Oifigiúil. This would encourage and facilitate them in their further researches. I think the Minister has some doubt about the accuracy of what I am saying: I should be pleased to hear from him if this is so.

We are dealing with a wide range of matters and, consequently, it is particularly important that we activate here an awareness of the practical effects of the EEC in our businesses and our lives. As new members of the Community it is important that we adopt every device to inform ourselves on what is happening. We start at a certain disadvantage in this House in that in the German Parliament, for instance, there are specialised committees for agriculture, social affairs, finance, industry, education and other matters. Similar committees exist in Belgium and Holland. These specialised committees have the opportunity of considering the drafts of directives and regulations and conveying their views to their Ministers and to the Commission in advance of the regulations being passed by the council. We do not have such committees and thus we are at a serious disadvantage. In addition, we are rather limited in number in this House because a considerable number are engaged in government or are on the front bench in opposition and others are on committees already established. We need every possible assistance to ensure that we scrutinise effectively the drafts that are available, that we have effective consultations with our Ministers, and here I do not just mean the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and also if necessary, have the opinions of the Minister's adviser in particular cases, because what will happen now will set the guideline for the future in this connection.

Let me refer, for example, to the Belgian situation. There they have a Committee of European Affairs as well as various committees specialising in the areas to which I have referred. This Committee of European Affairs can receive from the various other committees their views as to the effects which various regulations and directives may have on Belgian law and on the course of Belgium's commercial life. By our standards this is a very sophisticated procedure. The same problem does not arise in Germany which has a very highly specialised system of committees which do not require the same liaison with the European committee, which I think have somewhat lapsed in recent years.

Nevertheless, in this House we have neither one nor the other, and quite frankly, there is very little this afternoon that the Members of the House can do to improve the Bill before us. The best we can do at this stage, indeed it is the only thing, is to accept the Bill as being entirely necessary, and to make some helpful comments on the report. We must acknowledge, however, that there is not anything we can add to or subtract from the Bill except in very limited areas in which we might have some reasonable knowledge. I hope, therefore, that we will not have to delay too long. The Minister can expect every co-operation from this side in the matter of the establishment of a committee. I can understand the Minister's sense of urgency in the matter but I should like to say that it is a pity, in view of this urgency, that an earlier committee did not have an opportunity of considering it and, indeed, of advising the Members of the House of the effects of the regulations which we are now discussing. I hope that what is happening now will not happen again in the future.

In terms of establishing a Committee of European Affairs, one does not want to set up what would appear to be a group of people who pose as experts on European affairs in this House. European affairs at this stage are simply, on a broader scale, a mirror of our national affairs—all aspects of our commercial and social concern. It is, therefore, important for all the House to be involved and may be it is important that this committee which we are concerned about would not be confined to those who will serve on the European Parliament. Indeed, it might be as important that those who are Members of the European Parliament would not at any stage serve on this committee. The reason I suggest this to the Minister is that I think it is important to extend the involvement of this House as far as possible in this area, and though I appreciate the advantage that will accrue to Members of the European Parliament serving on the committee, at the same time, having regard to the limited availability of personnel here, it is vitally important that we would extend an awareness and knowledge in the House of the effects of European legislation and secondary legislation.

There are precedents in other countries for this. Those who have reviewed the function of national parliaments and committees of national parliaments have generally come to the view that it is desirable to attract as many Members of Parliament as possible to involvement in European affairs. It is particularly desirable that no group would think this is a specialised area for those interested in foreign or European affairs. This matter covers every aspect of national programmes.

Now I come to a matter which may send an icy chill of fear through some Members of the House who may have some ambitions to offer their names for membership of the European Parliament. Experience has shown that those who have been Members of the European Parliament from other countries have not had a very high rate of success in being re-elected to their national parliaments. This has happened in France, for instance, where the Gaullists, who had 15 members in the European Parliament suffered a loss of nine of those members in the last general election in France. When one can see that France is so much closer to Brussels and Luxembourg than we are one can appreciate the immediate danger for Members of this House letting their names go forward. It may be said that is merely a problem for Members of this House but I can see much more to it than that.

Dr. FitzGerald

I would not press this too hard or nobody will volunteer.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The reason I mentioned the matter is that those who would volunteer would be first of all aware of the hazards they are undertaking but more importantly that the public and the House would seek to ensure that what our people do in the European Parliament would be brought to the notice of their constituents at home; that particularly our media of communications—this is a complaint the French had—would as much as possible highlight the activities of our people in the European Parliament or, indeed, their inactivity so that in some way what they do there will be closely related to the concerns and interests of their constituents here.

If this is a problem in France, Belgium or Italy, it will be a real problem here because they are much closer to the scene of European power than we are. It is a problem which will demand the attention of this House in a very real way for a considerable time because if we were to lose the benefits of the best contributions we can make at European Parliament level by virtue of the fear which those who could make such contributions would have, I am afraid we would be doing no service to the European Parliament but more importantly we would be doing no service to our interests in Europe. I hope that in the course of the development of our institutions in association with the European Parliament we can in some way offset that danger.

It is important for us now to start to create a real impact in Europe. Jean Monet said of Britain, and I think wisely, that from the date she became a member of the EEC she would act as if she had invented the EEC. There are signs, some of which I will refer to, that the British have so acted and that some of the contributions this little country has been making have been swept under the wing of our nearest neighbour, and they have conveyed the impression through their influential agencies of publicity that they have been more involved in promoting certain activities than we have. It is vitally important for us, not just for the sake of our national pride but also for the sake of striking an awareness here to leave no stone unturned to create an impact in the minds of the Europeans. This will have effects in many ways. One will be that if one is establishing various off-shoot organisations of the European Economic Community— for example, a European Centre for the Development of Education—those who service them naturally will tend to think in terms of a country that they know most about. They will tend to think in terms of a country that has either attractions for them in terms of recreation, tradition or status.

If we hope to attract some of these off-shoot organisations and institutions to this country, and we must hope to do so, we must give the impression to the Germans, the French and the Italians that here is a thriving country, a country that is committed to Europe, a country in which the European can feel at home both for his domestic life and his social recreation. It is important that we create this impact and impression; otherwise a situation will arise where all our experts will be going to Brussels and Luxembourg but none of the experts will be coming from those cities to Ireland.

To a certain extent we have started at a disadvantage. I remember when the first negotiations for entry into the EEC of Britain and ourselves had broken down we were faced with the stark reality on our visit to Brussels that they were hardly aware of our existence. They wondered aloud what the consequence to them would be of Britain not becoming a member. Maybe we have come a long way since that but they still tend to think in terms of Britain's accession to the EEC joined, but not with any particular significance, by the minnows of Denmark and Ireland. We have to ensure that this impression that we are simply tagging along and are of very little consequence should not be allowed to remain in the European mind.

I should like to mention to the Minister a matter which I dealt with in passing. I do this for fear that it will be said later that I did not lay sufficient emphasis on this vital matter. It is vitally important, particularly in the area of education where our tradition does not leave us anywhere behind the educational traditions of the other countries, that we should press as much as possible for the establishment here of such institutions as the European Centre for the Development of Education which is at present under consideration. The effect of such an institution being established in this country, both by way of invisible exports and by way of impact on our life would be to the good in every possible area.

Dealing with the report itself—I do not intend to go through it in detail because it would not be possible or worth while—in connection with the summit meeting this is one area in which is clearly illustrated the effective way which Britain somehow conveyed the impression that what other countries had been fighting for she somehow really achieved. That arose when a decision on the regional policy was taken at the summit in Paris last October. Our deputation, who were particularly concerned about the establishment of a regional policy, were surprised to find afterwards that the impression had been created abroad that were it not for British concern in this area the establishment of the regional fund and the making of a meaningful thing out of the EEC regional policy, would not have been achieved.

One has only to look at the European publications of that time to see the impression that was conveyed. It is accepted that this was one area in which our deputation's contributions were effective. It is important, in the interests of any other deputation going to Europe, that no such impression will be allowed to escape from any future meeting, namely the impression that we do not exert much influence at summit meetings.

In the section of the Report on Developments in the European Communities dealing with the institutions of the Community—I refer particularly to paragraph 3.4 on page 12—there is the statement:

There is therefore a growing consciousness of the need to compensate in some measure the loss of democratic controls by the Parliaments of member States, over matters decided in a Community context by greater democratic control at the Community level exercised by the European Parliament. There is also a growing awareness of the need to give the peoples of the member States a greater involvement in the life of the Communities.

There is a growing awareness of the need to protect our democratic institutions by strengthening the European Parliament and of the need to give the people of the member states a greater involvement in the life of the Community. The first can only be achieved by ensuring that whatever we do in the European Parliament will in no way be taken as a diminution of the democratic control of the national Parliament. I do not see that there is any contradiction in that.

Most of us recognise the effectiveness of parliamentary control. Most of us have a healthy concern for the dangers of bureaucratic control as we see it. If we want to maintain the supremacy of this Parliament it follows that the single institution in Europe which we should endeavour to strengthen is the European Parliament. This House will have its representatives on this parliament and these Members should be offered every facility to ensure that the interests of this House and this nation will be projected and protected in the European Parliament.

There are some matters which I should like the Minister to clarify. They leave me a little at sea. I refer particularly to paragraph 3.10 on pages 12 and 13 where there is a very definite commitment by the Government to what is a rather nebulous idea. I quote:

With regard to the general question of reinforcing and possibly extending the powers of control of the European Parliament the Government take the view——

—a definite decision has been reached on this matter obviously—

——that it is desirable for the Governments of the member States to examine together possible ways of introducing a more democratic tension into the relationship between the Parliament and the Council while respecting at the same time the position of the Council as the Communities' primary decision-making body.

I have read that a few times. What precisely is meant by the desirability "of introducing a more democratic tension into the relationship between the Parliament and the Council"? If the Minister can put that in simple words for me, I will be in his debt. I hope it will help to clarify something on which the Government obviously have a clear view. I should like some further clarification in the same connection. It states:

...the Government take the view that it is desirable for the Governments of the member States to examine together possible ways of introducing a more democratic tension...

I would have thought that the Governments of the member states act through the Minister on the Council of Ministers. Is there an implication here that we will now somehow have a different institution for consultation over and above the consultation which takes place at ministerial level in the Council of Ministers, the Ministers representing the decisions and wishes of their various Governments? I do not think I am trying to read too much into this, but there seems to be a suggestion that the Governments will consult through some other agency with a view to implementing this democratic tension which is talked about.

Paragraph 3.12 states:

The Government are ready to join with the Governments of other member States in working towards agreed provisions in the Council on this matter.

That was the matter of the introduction of elections to the European Parliament. What precisely is meant by that? Should we not just be ready to join with other Governments in working towards agreed provisions in the Council on this matter? There is definitely an implied distinction between Governments acting independently and Governments acting through the Council. Should we not be promoting strongly the development of elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, rather than be ready to join with Governments some of whom have, up to this time, proved themselves very reluctant to consider this matter in any event?

I know that the Minister is very much in favour of promoting the idea of direct elections to the European Parliament. This statement does him less than justice. To a certain extent it serves to illustrate a certain lack of what I might call precision in some of the broad general statements one finds throughout the report, without in any way criticising the general scope of the report. The report has been prepared with great expendition and obviously, from some of the references to meetings which took place as recently as this month, it is a credit to those who compiled it and for the work they put into it to get it ready at this stage in accordance with the commitment given in the European Communities Act. I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the work that must have gone into the preparation of this report.

On pages 13, 14 and 15 there are references to Irish members of Community bodies and there is reference at paragraph 3.15 to official visits by members of Community bodies to Ireland, from the European Parliament, from the Commission, from the Court of Justice, and from the Economic and Social Committee. Was it considered that in that list reference should have been made to visits made by Irish Ministers to the European institutions in the period under consideration? If it was considered, why were these visits not referred to in this report in the same way as the visits of the dignitaries from the European Parliament, the Commission, and the Court of Justice to this country were referred to? If in future they refer to visits at all, will they make reference to visits made by our Ministers to these bodies? As the Minister now knows they are numerous, indeed, and will be more numerous.

This might convey to the public an awareness of what is going on. They would be more concerned about what our people are doing in Europe than about what these people are doing in Dublin. If we want to convey to the public an idea of what they do, we could also mention why they were there and give a general summary of the matters discussed at meetings attended by Ministers. It might too— although maybe it is too late for this now—rise in the mind of the Government, if not in the mind of the public, the notion of reconsideration of a matter on which the Government made a very quick and decisive decision as soon as they came into office, that is, transport facilities for members of the Government. I do not know if they have any regrets at this stage about it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs may be one Minister who has.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I hope that in the future he does not have any cause to regret it either. If these visits were notated in the same detail the public could decide for themselves whether the decision to have an executive jet for Government Ministers and other members of delegations was entirely unreasonable, or if it might be desirable in the future. However, I will leave it at that. I imagine if they had the experience then that they have now of travelling to and fro, they might not have made the decision so quickly. Whether they would have reached the same decision is another matter.

Chapter 4 deals with External Relations and Trade. I want to get clarification from the Minister on one point. In the course of his Estimate speech the Minister outlined the intention to extend trade associations and diplomatic associations with certain countries in Eastern Europe. Paragraph 4.3 states:

The provisions of the Community's Common Commercial Policy require that from 1 January 1973 no new bilateral trade agreements or protocols with East European countries may be negotiated by member States. It is envisaged that such negotiations will in future be carried out by the Commission on behalf of the Community as have agreements with other non-member countries since January 1970.

Does that mean that any trade association or trade agreement which we would now want to establish with eastern Europe can only be established through the agency of the Community?

If it means that, it raises the whole question of the purpose of diplomatic associations with countries in which we might be limited in our trade associations by virtue of this. I am not saying that is necessarily so. One has diplomatic associations for two main reasons: for political reasons and for trade development. If this has a significant effect on the establishment and development of trade between this country and the eastern European countries, obviously this is a matter which the Minister will have to take into account in deciding whether we will open diplomatic missions with the countries referred to here.

Referring to relations with Mediterranean countries at paragraph 4.8 it is stated that agreements with Greece and Turkey provide for eventual full membership of the Community by those countries. Those agreements were initiated and signed some years ago. In view of the commitment of the European Economic Community to extend their scope through democratic countries, and democratic countries only, one wonders what attitude the Council of Ministers are taking up now with regard to eventual full membership of the Community by Greece which is stated here as being still part of the commitment of the Council. I should like to know what the Minister thinks about this matter and whether it is proposed at this time to suggest to the Council of Ministers that, until such time as Greece abides by the democratic criteria established by the Community for the Community, the question of Greece ever becoming a full member should be left, to say the least of it, in abeyance and this agreement would not be regarded at this time as binding even on an interim basis on the present Community. I should like to hear the Minister on this because we have in the Council of Europe, for instance, which is much more widely representative of European countries than the European Economic Community Greece and Spain excluded from the Council of Europe and one wonders why this commitment to include Greece in the light of conditions in that country at this time.

Another general comment I should like to make on the format of the report is that it presumes that those of us who got it in the last few days are fully familiar with the sources and references which those who compiled the report had at their command. Right through the report there is a lack of notation and a lack of reference. Notation and reference would be of great benefit even from the point of view of initiating us into the sources and, indeed, the machinery for implementing this secondary legislation of the European Community. I will quote some examples. Chapter 6, paragraph 5, page 26, which deals with the right of establishment and right to supply services says:

On 29th June 1972 the Commission submitted to the Council a draft directive concerning the right of nationals of any member State to remain on the territory of any other member State after having carried on a self-employed activity there.

There are many such examples in the report. Is it not vitally important that we should know from whence that information came, where we can go to find confirmation of it and, particularly, when a committee of this House is established, where that committee can go to find confirmation. There is no notation, no reference, no source anywhere in the report and these are the things which would achieve the very desirable end about which the Minister is so concerned, namely, that we should all become more familiar with the institutions of the Community and its workings. As a textbook this is not designed to effect that familiarity.

In paragraph 6.7 there is a statement in connection with the proposals for the implementation of the EEC Treaty in relation to the right of establishment by professions and their right to supply services and for mutual recognition of degrees, diplomas and other qualifications in order to facilitate self-employed persons in taking up and practicing their occupations within the area of the Community. There follows then the statement:

These proposals raised problems for us which are under consideration in consultation with the Irish professional organisations concerned.

Is there any objection in principle to stating what precisely these problems are? Is it not a good idea to inform all of us of the nature of the problems which are now under consideration in consultation with the Irish professional organisations concerned? Secondly, while I recognise that the machinery for consultation in the Minister's Department and in the other Departments would need to be extended to achieve our objective, these consultations referred to would need to be very meaningful consultations, taking place over regular fixed periods and not just haphazard meetings in which someone voices a view and others say they have heard the view and they will go along from there. I should like to be assured that the consultations will be meaningful. I am not aware of any awareness throughout the various professions that their professional organisations are engaged in serious consultations with Government agencies about these matters and, if I am not aware, I suspect that these consultations are taking place in a very limited way. Obviously, they would have to be consultations with the representatives of the various professions but there is every reason for publicising the scope of the consultations as much as possible because we are all the time talking of bringing home an awareness to the Irish people at every level of what membership of the EEC means in normal working life. Surely we could get a little more information. In future, references such as I have instanced should be extended to give a clear indication of what the problems are so that those of us who may be concerned will be in a position to express a view.

One notices here references to the legal profession. The medical profession immediately comes to mind. So does the pharmaceutical profession. These are well-organised and well-established professions. There are other professions represented by small organisations. I am not suggesting that consultation has not taken place with them but I am suggesting that, if consultation has not taken place with them, the fact that they represent small groups does not make these consultations any the less urgent. There are, for instance, opticians audiologists, chiropodists and so forth. If one failed to consult with the Incorporated Law Society or the medical association one would immediately have a battle on one's hands and one might possibly overlook the opticians or the audiologists or the chiropodists and have no great battle on one's hands, but these regulations will affect them, too, just as much as they will affect the doctor and the lawyer or anybody else. It is, therefore, vitally important that these small organisations should be consulted, that they should be at the top of the queue and not at the end of the queue, so that those who look after the interests of their members by virtue of their strength and tradition will not establish their interests to the detriment of the other smaller professions.

This leads me to the conclusion that it is vitally important to extend the facilities for consultation in the various Departments with the various professions and business organisations in connection with the regulations which will have to be implemented by us as a result of our membership of the European Economic Community. If we do not do that, no matter what talking we do here, we will not bring home to the people the nature and effect of our membership. Other members of the Community will be fully aware and ready and qualified to take advantage.

In the same chapter, paragraphs 6.15 and 6.16, there is a reference to public works contracts and to public supply contracts. In paragraph 6.16 it is stated:

A draft directive for the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts was presented to the Council by the Commission in March, 1971. During 1972 the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee examined the draft directive and gave their observations on it. The Commission is at present preparing a revised draft directive for submission to the Council which will take account of the observations of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

Ireland's observations in the matter were forwarded to the Commission early in 1973. I know that everything cannot be spelled out in a report as to what our observations were. It would be helpful if it was indicated in the report what the broad nature of our observations was, and why we took a certain stand.

This serves to illustrate clearly the need for having a review by a committee in this House as soon as draft regulations are formulated so that we could offer views. If there is not some protection for the Irish contractors we could undo, at one stroke, the whole effect of the regional policy about which we have been hearing so much. There are many small contractors who rely to a considerable extent on public supply contracts. If we cannot offer them some protection we could offset the benefits of the regional policy. If we do not express strong and cogent views on behalf of this developing area in Ireland we could, by virtue of ceding too much, offset the whole benefit of the regional policy and in many ways the benefits of the agricultural policy, which is probably the one area in which we can see immediate effects at this time.

It is very important that the broad concerns of the Minister and the Government should be set out. It is even more important that this House should have an opportunity of looking at those concerns and of consulting with the bodies concerned, whether they are in the building industry or any other industry and of assuring them that their interests are protected by the attitude our Minister would take when these matters come to be considered finally by the Council.

The common agricultural policy was dealt with in Chapter 7. It is obviously an area of great importance. I am not going to assume suddenly the mantle of the shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. When the next report comes before the House I hope that all the Ministers concerned will have an opportunity of expressing their views in each area and that the shadow spokesmen will have an opportunity of testing those views and suggesting, where necessary, additions or amendments. This is an area which has been of greatest concern to the people of this country.

I would like to mention a point which may illustrate the concern which I am developing as a theme of my address here, and that is the publication throughout the country of the EEC regulations and the effect they have. At paragraphs 7 (7) at the bottom of page 31, there is a statement as follows:

Applications intended for participation in the funds provided for 1973 are required to be lodged with the Commission through the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries not later than 30 June 1973. The availability of these grants has been widely publicised. Several projects are at present under examination with a view to the submission of applications to the Commission.

Possibly the availability of the grants has been widely publicised. Could the Members of the House say whether the availability of the grants is widely known to the people concerned, the farming community? I have not noticed awareness in the constituency where I live, which is a farming constituency. The people are not aware of the grants available. I have not heard of many farmers applying before the end of June. They may miss applying this year. Have our farmers the facility for consultation? Is this information being channelled by advertisements in the daily Press? Many people do not read the daily papers much. The farmers should be made aware of the fact that, even at this stage, this type of grant is available here.

I suggest that the farmers are not aware of these grants to the extent they should be. This is a matter of concern to all of us. We must bring Europe right into the kitchens of the farms. Otherwise the fact that these facilities are available will be of no consequence whatever to the farmers and businessmen. They must be aware of their existence so that they can utilise them to the best effect. When we have a committee in this House I hope that that is something that they will be able to achieve. I hope they will be able to spread this knowledge through the Deputies of this House who, in turn, will make it available to their constituents. The farmers should be aware of the grants available to them.

I welcome the establishment of a regional committee to supervise the operation of the farm accounts system. The fact that it is so widely representative is in itself an illustration of the kind of situation which I have been suggesting. The committee represents the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Central Statistics Office, An Foras Talúntais, the farming organisations and the county committees of agriculture. In view of the information which will emanate from some examples of the farm accounts information system, have the Government something else in mind as a result of the conclusions reached following an examination of the accounts? This is of concern to another Minister and is another day's work.

I will just refer to paragraph 7 (56) on page 44 of Development in the European Communities. It says:

The Council has had before it since 1969 a draft directive which, if adopted, would permit nationals of other member States to purchase agricultural land generally on the same conditions as nationals. Our present legislation (Section 45, Land Act 1965) would be contrary to the draft directive if adopted in its present form. If and when this draft comes to be adopted we will be in the position, as one of the member States of the Community, of having a full voice through our representative on the Council whose concern will be to ensure that our special interests are taken fully into account.

That is an exact repetition of what was in the White Paper and of what the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs said so often when this question was raised in regard to the fear that people had that the right of establishment in land could mean that big farmers in other countries could buy up land over here. I am glad to see that repeated here. I am particularly glad to see it in view of the inference in the Minister's address in the course of his Estimates speech—an inference with which I did not entirely disagree—that the sooner one moves away from the veto the better for all concerned. This is an area where this small country needs, if necessary, to rely on the veto. I would hope that this will not be seen in any way as being contrary to our European commitment but will be seen as an indication that if we want to preserve the opportunity for our farmers to develop their own resources, subject to obvious limitations, we will do so not only in the interests of this country but in the interests of Europe as well.

I hope the Minister—I know he has the great commitments to Europe— will be as determined about this as I am sure his predecessor would have been if it ever comes to a crunch. Otherwise, the reaction throughout rural Ireland will be one of immense concern. Lest the Minister might be concerned that he would be, by virtue of being a determined Irishman fighting for the Irish rights, less European, it is accepted that each of the original Six at some stage found themselves in a minority of one protecting the rights of that country against the other five. This has been a pattern of the European Community for some considerable time. Britain has not shown itself reluctant to look after its own interests, neither have the French nor the Germans, and when our turn comes we can make a particular impact by insisting that that particular directive, as it now stands, will not come into effect to the detriment of the Irish farming community.

I turn now to the industrial policy chapter. There is a reference to the establishment of a Community Business Co-operation Centre at paragraph 9.9, page 49. It says:

In September 1972, the commission addressed a communication to the Council on the creation of a bureau for encouraging co-operation between enterprises in the Community (popularly known as the "Marriage Bureau"). The purpose of the Bureau was to foster contacts between industrial firms in Europe to enable them to work together across national boundaries. It is expected that these links would stimulate trade and facilitate communication between member States. The Bureau is seen as of importance in particular to small and medium size firms as a mechanism whereby they can form some sort of permanent links, not necessarily mergers, but also licensing arrangements, marketing agreements and production-sharing facilities.

The Minister will be aware that many small and medium size firms in this country at present are very anxious to find out how they could co-operate in the area of marketing, production and distribution with other similar size firms in the other European countries. The advantages in this are obvious. If one could use an agency agreement here on behalf of an industry engaged in a similar process in France or Belgium in return for a similar agency agreement on their part, it would add very much to the prospects of small industries here exporting to the EEC countries. Obviously, small industries of 100, 150, 200 or 250 workers have not got the resources to carry out market research throughout the EEC, and they have not got the experience to supply the demands of a market that they frankly do not know very much about. The idea behind this co-operation centre, which I welcome, is one that should be promoted widely among the small industries of Ireland. I happen to know many at present who, of their own initiative, are searching around for other similar industries in Germany, Belgium or Holland who could handle their products for them there in return for a similar arrangement here in Ireland. The sooner this bureau gets into effective operation the better. I see that at its meeting of 16th April, 1973, the Council agreed to the proposal and earmarked 42,000 UA for its first year of operation. The Centre has been entrusted with three tasks which are broadly along the lines I have referred to. This is an area which illustrates how important it is to bring home to us what membership of the EEC means and how important it is that this House should have, as soon as possible, an opportunity of engaging in study of proposals such as that and should be able to communicate the effect of such proposals to the interested parties.

In the same chapter, at paragraph 9.16, it says in connection with the building industry that:

The Commission has established separate working parties, with representation from all member States, to consider urgently each of the following three questions:

(a) The technical and legal obstacles hampering the development of a common market in construction

(b) current and planned projects for construction research and

(c) long-term forecasting of construction output and demand.

I want to come back to the separate working parties with representation from all member States. Who are the working parties? Who selects these working parties? How representative are such working parties of the industries concerned? How aware is our building industry, our builders and trade unions involved in the building industry, of the existence of these working parties? How much does the decision of these working parties affect our construction industry? These are matters which need to be clarified to some extent.

Here I might refer to what I would call the "expert syndrome" which seems to be emerging, if one is to judge by this report. There are references to anonymous working parties, to experts and committees of experts. This seems to be a warning sign saying: "Stand off. Experts at work," with no place for those who are directly concerned. I am not satisfied that, if working parties so-called are involved in various areas, this is a guarantee of protection for those whom they are meant to protect. I would suggest that future reports should give a little more detail about these committees of experts and working parties. As an illustration of a trend in this report, at page 55, paragraph 11.13 it is stated that:

Under the terms of the Accession Treaty the new member States undertook to accede to the Convention and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the European Court of Justice subject to any necessary adjustments to be negotiated. A working group, representactive of all member States of the enlarged Community, is now engaged in the examination of the problems of adaptation of the Convention to meet the requirements of the new member States.

How is it representative? Is it representative of the Civil Service, of the professions concerned or what does it represent? In so far as it is representative, who selected that working group? Again, at paragraph 11.15, which deals with draft convention on private international law, we read that:

... The group of experts drawn from the original member States submitted a preliminary draft of a uniform law on contractual and non-contractual obligations in 1972.

Who are these experts and how are they recommended to whoever makes the appointments at European level? It is important that the people concerned will know that whoever are these working groups or parties, they are people that can be identified and who will protect the interests of our people. The whole report is full of this kind of thing. At paragraph 12.4 we read:

The Commission has set up a number of expert groups to assist it in drawing up and implementing the environment programme. Irish experts attend meetings of some of these groups....

At paragraph 13.4, in relation to ECRD it is stated that:

The Commission has taken an initiative in setting up a European Committee on Research and Development (ECRD) which held its first constituent meeting on 4 April, 1973. The Committee, composed of 21 members, brings together leading figures from the member States of the Community from the fields of science, technology and industry.

We have all heard some of the European jargon but let us have a little less of it. Let us find out who precisely are involved when they speak of experts and working groups and by whom such experts and groups were selected and what authority they have. We must know also to what extent they are in touch with the people whom they are intended to represent. The real gem in this report is in the section dealing with medium-term economic policy. I refer to paragraph 14.18 on page 64 and I quote:

Ireland has been associated with the Community's activities in the field of medium-term economic policy since May, 1972. We are represented on the Medium-Term Economic Policy Committee and on the Medium-Term Economic Medium Projections Study Group which is a group of experts in the field of medium-term economic projections and associated matters reporting to the Commission and to the Medium-Term Economic Policy Committee.

I do not know who these experts are. If they happen to be in the Department of Finance, they can be identified and brought out into the open. Let us not be satisfied in merely covering them in the clothing of experts. We must ensure that our interests are being protected fully and effectively.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps it would help if we had pictures of the experts.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not being cynical in this regard. I am merely hoping to be able to assure the public that their interests are being protected and to let them know by whom they are being protected. The fact that a person may be termed an expert, whether he be a doctor or anything else, does not necessarily make him an expert. Our main concern during this debate must be for the citizen and for his awareness of what we are doing. We are concerned also about his awareness of what is contained in this report and that the report should be made available to him so that he would be able to take any steps he would wish to take in relation to anything being done in this House that would affect his real interest.

In connection with the enforcement of judgments it is important that the Minister would take steps to ensure that this regulation be confirmed as soon as possible. Obviously, it would have immediate effect on, for instance, maintenance orders in respect of deserted wives. One of the problems that has bedevilled us for so long in this field is that an erring husband could go away to England, where he was immune from the effects of our judgments against him in our courts. For that reason it is very important that whatever socially progressive legislation we introduce here would ensure that the judgments of our courts could be enforced regardless of whether the persons concerned were living in any of the other EEC countries.

I turn now to the question of regional policy. We all welcome the rather belated recognition of the Commission of the need for the development of a regional policy, a meaningful policy financed by a substantial regional development fund. One of the key areas in this whole policy document is highlighted in the report on page 74, 15.5 (h) and I quote:

The Fund will have to concentrate its expenditure very largely in those regions which are the most in need in relation to the Community as a whole. In other words there must be standards to ensure that the means available to the Fund are used in a manner quite independent of any criterion of "juste retour" and which reflects the size and urgency of the regional problems facing the Community. The acceptance of this principle will be an important test of Community solidarity.

The acceptance of that principle will be the test on which the regional policy will stand or fall.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Kennedy

But if each country thinks it must get back in some just return what it puts into the Community, such concept is flying in the face of what regional policy should be. If any country should be of the opinion that it can engage in activities by way of the attraction of industries to certain areas, irrespective of the effect of such industries on other countries, it is being untrue to the principles of the regional policy as they are now enunciated.

We are pleased by the emergence now of clear guidelines for regional policy. Ireland has much to gain from this policy, but not merely from the point of view of drawing funds. We cannot expect, in our time, to get the just return from the use of the resources of this regional policy that we would criticise others for claiming at this time. We will get that just return if and when we reach a stage of economic development comparable to that applying throughout Europe at the time.

This is a note on which I do not like to finish, but in the course of the debate on the Budget Resolutions the Taoiseach, on two occasions—and I find it extraordinary—referred to VAT. I would mention particularly the value-added tax section in this report, paragraph 1447 of which says:

Since 1st April, 1973, all member States of the enlarged Community are operating a system of value added tax in accordance with the two Council Directives of 1967...

That is a clear indication that our membership of the EEC would involve us in introducing a system of VAT in this country. In the light of that, it is very strange that when there was a discussion in this House on a proposal to lift the value-added tax from food the Taoiseach said at column 1393, Volume 265 of the 16th May, 1973:

I should remind Deputies opposite that it was they who introduced value-added tax. It was the party opposite who introduced it.

That is twice he mentioned it and, if that was not enough, later on in the column the Minister for Local Government said:

If Deputy Molloy listens for a moment he will hear all about it.

And this is what he heard from the Taoiseach:

Value-added tax was introduced by the party opposite when they were in government...

I find those two statements extraordinary. The implication was that we were at fault in introducing it, and that now, in some way, we have to take the consequences of it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I think the Deputy is reading an implication into it that was not intended. I think the suggestion was that if the party opposite introduced it in accordance with EEC requirements they should not complain too much about its provisions.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If, in fact, we introduced it in accordance with EEC requirements, which is very clear from this report, it was totally and utterly irrelevant to refer to the fact that we introduced it in any event.

Dr. FitzGerald

Not if Deputies on your side are complaining about what you yourself introduced.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I should like the Taoiseach to clarify what he meant by saying that the Fianna Fáil Government had introduced VAT and, having done so, we had to live with it.

Dr. FitzGerald

They are estopped from complaining about it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are not engaged in a court of law; if we were I could engage in the same jargon as the Minister. I would simply like the Minister to bring to the Taoiseach's attention his remarks on VAT in view of the statement that VAT was introduced as a consequence of our membership of the EEC. That is not a note I am happy to finish on, but the point had to be made.

I welcome this report. A great deal of trouble has gone into preparing it. I hope the suggestions I have made in regard to the trend of the report and the elaboration of certain broad generalisations in it will be taken in the spirit in which I intended them. I hope, above all else, that the next time the report and legislation of this type comes before us all of us will have had an adequate opportunity well in advance of considering in detail, in a committee of this House and through the committee in consultation with organisations and the Departments concerned, the implications of what we are being asked to pass. The Ministers concerned can come before the House to elaborate their point and the shadow Ministers on this side can question them. If that happens—and it must happen, the awareness in the public mind which is mentioned so often in this report will emerge. Until such time as this happens, that awareness will not be there. As I say, I welcome this report and do not intend to offer any obstruction either to it or the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Kavanagh

I do not think I have to repeat the Labour Party's point of view on our accession to the EEC. It is well-known and was well argued at that time. When the result was announced the Leader of the Labour Party accepted the democratic decision of the people of Ireland and pledged the Labour Party to work for the betterment of the institutions of the EEC and to see that Ireland as one of its members would benefit in whatever way it could through active participation by the Labour Party in the enlarged community.

With that in mind, I am inclined to agree with a good deal of what the previous speaker has said about the timing of this debate today. Were it not for the fact that there is a time limit on the introduction of this Bill, the Minister could, perhaps, have left it over to a period when a good deal more time could have been spent by Members of this House reading the report and the regulations which he is asking us to accept today. In the normal way, if a Deputy received through the post information of such a technical nature as this to read through and assimilate in the space of a few days it would be a major job. However, to ask him to spend all the week-end out on electioneering in a Presidential election, to do constituency work on the Monday, and then come in here and participate in a budget debate on Tuesday, and be expected to make some sane comments on material such as this is, I think, asking a little too much. Surely the primary duty of a representative in this House is to represent the views of his constituents and organisations within his constituency.

Many of the regulations being introduced affect intimately the lives and the working of people within our constituencies, and I do not think the individuals or institutions affected by those regulations could possibly have time even to see those regulations and, as the previous speaker said, it is unlikely that they even got an opportunity to buy the report about developments in the EEC by this time. Therefore, it would be difficult for us as public representatives to come in here and say we represent the views of anybody in this regard. In mitigation of that criticism, it must be said that these regulations must be passed by a certain date and, therefore, we cannot blame the Minister too much since this date is fast approaching. However, I think it worth putting forward those criticisms and asking the Minister that, on the next occasion, perhaps, the committee for European affairs, which has been promised by the previous administration and which I hope every effort will be made to put into effect, will be set up in good time to have further regulations brought before it when the next period of time elapses for these regulations to be passed.

I do not intend to make very many comments on this report in view of the limited amount of time I have had to look at it but, perhaps, one of the disappointments in the report is the lack of any move to make the institutions of the community more democratic. This was one of the main planks of the Labour Party's disagreement with our entry into the EEC. We thought there should be direct elections to the European Parliament. We read phrases such as: "there is a growing awareness" or "there is a growing consciousness" within the Community, surely at this stage there should be something concrete offered to members of the Community to bring a more democratic base to the institutions of the Community.

I hope this country will make a better effort to democratise the institutions of the Community than was done by the original Six. In the three countries who have joined recently, the democratic process has been a firm part of their own institutions and I hope this will be transmitted to the enlarged Community and to the European Parliament.

This would be an answer to the problem mentioned by the previous speaker regarding our representation in the European Parliament. There is no doubt there has been a high casualty rate among the members. As far as we are concerned we have lost two representatives as a result of the Dáil and Seanad Elections in addition to the fact that a number of our members have been elevated to the post of Minister in the Government here. This has meant that the Irish membership in the European Parliament will be changed radically within the next few months. For one reason or another, at least six of the original ten members will have gone and the new people will have to learn about the problems involved in membership of the European Parliament.

For that reason I would appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make every facility available to Members not only in connection with their work in the European Parliament but also in their work for their constituents. I hope facilities will be made available for Members in Luxembourg, Strasbourg or Brussels which will enable them to look after the needs of their constituents, who elected them primarily to do a job in this Parliament. However, because of the undemocratic system by which Members find themselves in the European Parliament they must forego much of their time in this House and it is only fair that these facilities be made available. I say this for personal reasons because I understand the Labour Party have nominated me for one of the posts in the European Parliament and I should like to survive not only the next election but several more in the future.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kavanagh

Until we have direct elections perhaps we might have a system whereby we would be returned unopposed? Perhaps I am asking too much? It would certainly make a position in the European Parliament a much more competitive one among Members of this House.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The instinct of self-preservation is very strong.

Dr. FitzGerald

It sounds like a suggestion which, if adopted in Europe, would hurry up direct elections.

Mr. Kavanagh

It seems to be the obvious answer to have direct elections, although it appears to me they would be mini-presidential elections so far as this country is concerned. At least it would be an improvement on the present position.

Many of the regulations referred to by the Minister are of a technical nature. The previous speaker pointed out that time was not available to consider these matters adequately. It is essential that we have a special committee of the House before which experts could be called and questioned. This should be established without further delay. The Minister's speech today did not get as far as these benches but the documents we have been handed deal with amendments to the Bill and includes three regulations dealing with fisheries, marketing standards for eggs and fresh poultry and meat.

These regulations need clarification, particularly the contentious regulation about fisheries. This was one of the main planks of the Labour Party's involvement in the referendum; one of our reasons for opposing Ireland's entry into the EEC was the opening of Irish waters to foreign fishermen. Although the regulation appears to exclude certain people, I understand it will open our waters to fishing boats which were not previously allowed to fish within the six mile limit. Will the Minister explain if this is so? Will fishing boats from West Germany and Holland be allowed to fish up to six miles whereas previously they were excluded? It seems that if people from, say, Luxembourg, were to start a fishing fleet they could fish in Irish waters whereas previously they would not have been able to under the London Fisheries Convention, 1946. Perhaps the Minister would explain what would be the effect if this Parliament threw out these regulations. Are we merely to rubber-stamp what is put before us? Has this Parliament any jurisdiction over the regulations? If we are handed regulations and told they must be passed within the next month, obviously this means a diminution of the powers of this Government.

We have joined the EEC. It is our job to give people the opportunity to find out not only the disadvantages but the many benefits that will accrue to the country by way of these regulations. I suggest also that there should be some method of circulating these regulations in some form of bulletin or pamphlet. It has been said that Iris Oifigiúil will give the information but in any issue of that journal which has arrived in my post in the past six months there has not been any explanation of the effects of regulations which are being passed daily.

I suggest it should be possible for the committee to be set up to request the ten Members of this House who represent us in the European Parliament to address the committee regularly. The committee should be able to question them about legislation being passed and about decisions being discussed in the European Parliament. This should be a function of any such committee. I hope every facility will be given to the Irish members of the European Parliament to acquaint the people in this country with the views they are putting forward to the various committees of which they are members. It is important that our members put forward very strong views in the European Parliament and it is important that these views should get the same amount of publicity in the Press as do the workings of this Parliament. On the next occasion on which we have a debate on this matter I hope we will be much better informed than we are today.

Mr. Briscoe

I should like to begin by paying a tribute to Deputy O'Kennedy for having opened up this debate. He gave considerably more colour to it than did the Minister in his opening statement. If positions were reversed, the Minister would have been the first to criticise us for giving such a limited statement. I hope that when he is concluding the Minister will answer the various points put to him.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will give the Deputy 90 pages if he wants them.

Mr. Briscoe

Written by the Minister?

Dr. FitzGerald

No, but it represents part of the opening statement.

Mr. Briscoe

It was not given to the House. The Minister will agree it is a sad reflection of the interest being taken in the EEC by Members of this House that so few of them are here now. Not one of the six outgoing members of the European Parliament is present to take part in the debate and to give us the benefit of their experience in the European Parliament. It is fair to say that a number of our outgoing representatives in the European Parliament are unable to be here because they are not now Members of the House but six of them are at present Members of the House and I do not see one of them here.

Mr. Kavanagh

Some of them are in Europe and some of them are Ministers.

Mr. Briscoe

There is nothing to stop Ministers from coming here and giving us their views. I hope that on the next occasion they will be here and that Deputy Kavanagh will also be there——

Mr. Kavanagh

I hope so too.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree with Deputy O'Kennedy that we should not only be seen to acquiesce in the idea of direct elections to the European Parliament but that we should be seen to be pushing towards direct elections. If we had direct elections the people who elected our European representatives would take a far greater interest in European affairs than they do at present.

I should like to see the different matters related to these directives divided into separate booklets for the benefit of people interested in, for instance, the social policy, the agricultural policy, the industrial policy and so on. I should like to see the Minister surrounding himself with experts who would devise the best means of impressing on the Irish people what is going on in Europe. We should let our people know that we are in Europe and that very important things are happening which will affect our future.

Many regulations and directives were made before we entered Europe over which we had no control and I should like the Minister to tell me if any consideration has been given to any such regulations which may affect us adversely. For instance, a regulation dealing with the chocolate industry was in the process of being made. In the mainland of Europe chocolate is made differently. The materials from which it is made are considerably more costly than ours and when the regulation was being drafted as to what constituted a bar of chocolate there was a great danger that, if we had not been vigilant, ingredients would have been imposed on us which would mean that we would be in competition with chocolate manufacturers on the Continent having used far more expensive ingredients than we now do. Our ingredients are just as good, or may be better than those used in Europe but, the big business interests in Europe would be interested in continuing to use their own ingredients. If in the future some regulation went through without our being sufficiently vigilant we might find ourselves in serious trouble.

All this underlines the serious effects membership of the EEC can have. I wonder if there is a verbatim report of the proceedings of the European Parliament as we have here. If so, I suggest it could be circulated to Members of the House so that we could learn what is happening and what our members there are talking about. I have a feeling that some of our parliamentarians who are there may be talking in a vacuum without a sense of direction. We are now part of Europe and we are vitally concerned about what goes on in the European Parliament, particularly that anything which happens there will not do us any harm.

I think the whole idea of what Europe means to us should be dressed up colourfully and presented to us, if possible, in a weekly or monthly radio report. This report could contain information on what is happening in Europe and even if they do not effect us such programmes could prove informative and helpful to the people of the country. They could also help to bring Ireland into the greater field of European affairs and help the Irish people to feel that they are Europeans. I may have a few of the gestures——

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is practising.

Mr. Briscoe

Some of my ancestors came from there.

Dr. FitzGerald

All our ancestors came from Europe.

Mr. Briscoe

I believe that we should get this feeling for Europe and become aware of what is happening. For this reason I would welcome the widening of the debate on the next occasion this matter comes before the House.

Mr. Esmonde

My contributions on this matter will be very short. I have looked, in part, at the White Paper and I consider that this House will be more concerned with the details contained in Chapter 3 of the report. This Chapter deals with the institutions of the Community and the roles of these institutions. I note that in paragraph 3.2 on page 11 it states:

It is anticipated that the movement of the Community towards economic and monetary union will entail the transfer of certain decision-making powers in the economic and monetary fields, hitherto exercised by Governments, to the Community.

There has been considerable emphasis recently on the democratising of the European institutions and, in particular, of its parliament. As I understand the position today, the European Parliament, from a financial point of view, has only control of money matters in so far as they relate to the household budget of the European Parliament. It has not such a say in the overall budget.

There may be reasons for this but I gather that the intention is to have monetary union in the EEC by 1980. This will probably be a gradual process and many difficulties will have to be overcome due to disparities in currencies. I feel that it should be the function of any parliament to have control of monetary matters and I do not think that it is healthy for any institution, taking the EEC overall, to have diverse hands on the purse strings.

I take it that money, and the control of it goes through every economic facet of the life of the EEC. If the European Parliament is to have any say or standing, I suggest that the parliament should have a greater say in budgetary matters of the EEC than it has at present. I hope there will be a gradual process towards the giving of parliament a greater say on budgetary matters.

We had a fairly obvious example of difficulties from a financial point of view in the recent weeks. One can only describe it as getting down to terms of wrangling when it came to deciding on agricultural prices. It might have been better if that matter had been threshed out in more detail at the European Parliament level. A step has been taken in the direction of upgrading the standing of parliament in the suggestion of a second reading. It states:

In the event of the Council departing substantially from the opinion of the Parliament the altered text would have to be resubmitted to the Parliament for a "second reading".

This is a necessary democratic procedure. Some people, when they think of democratic procedure, think that the use of the word "democracy" is to stop somebody with a big stick. There is far more to it than that. We are living in an age of technocrats and technology and human error, with the best will in the world, can slip in. Numbers do help to level out error and any seriousness resulting from error can be greatly mitigated by leaving the matter in the hands of more people rather than narrow-minded technocrats who are looking at it from their point of view.

The other matter which has been adverted to is the question of elections to the European Parliament. I support direct elections to the European Parliament but it has to be from Members of this House and the Senate. I feel this way because the members of the European Parliament must be in direct contact with the decision-making process of our Houses, under our Constitution. This House should be in a position to bring pressure to bear on these people by advice and otherwise. This House could arrange sessions at which members of the European Parliament could attend to answer questions and give information on the transactions of the European Parliament. All decisions on social and economic policy—I am leaving out Defence because I do not think we have got to that stage—have to be looked at in a far wider context than heretofore.

Another problem, and this is one to which Deputy Kavanagh also referred, is that of the electoral mortality, or the fear of electoral mortality. We have seen electoral mortality. It may not have been due to the absence of these Members on the Continent attending to the European business but life for any Deputy today is a complex and very full one. Taking on the added burden of being a member of the European Parliament is a problem that this House will have to work out. We will have to see that justice is done to those people who give service in the European Parliament and that the fact that they are absent, diligent and attentive members of the European Parliament should not have the effect of damaging their position as elected representatives of this House or of the Seanad.

There might be something to be said for a certain method of election. It might have to be from the combined Members of both Houses. It might be necessary to consider the Members on a regional basis. Various parts of the country may have a greater interest in certain aspects of European policy than others. There might be a slight divergence of views. I do not say it would be severe, but there might be a graded divergence of views. These matters might also be taken into consideration.

It will be a bit of a problem to arrive at some satisfactory solution on how direct election should be effected. I do not see it being a very satisfactory method, if we have what some people have suggested might be mini-Presidential elections on top of the ordinary election to this House. If that were so, we would be continuously on election campaigns which would not necessarily be good for Parliamentary existence or that of its members.

Mr. Callanan

I will be brief. I should like to congratulate the people who presented this report. I know it is not the Minister's fault, but we did not have enough time to read it. I represent the farming community, and particularly the small farmers. In the early days I had some reservations about supporting our entry into the EEC, until I saw the excellent job which was done by our negotiators. All credit goes to this side of the House for negotiating to suit everybody. The people I represent were very worried about our entry into the EEC. About ten or 12 years ago I attended a conference of agricultural producers in Paris. I left that conference under the impression that the EEC was a big man's club.

When we decided to enter the EEC with two or three more countries I thought it was ridiculous for people to quote the undemocratic set-up of the EEC. Before we entered it, it was comprised of six countries and it is now comprised of nine. I should like to congratulate Deputy O'Kennedy on the emphasis he placed on our role in building a new Europe. It is very important, indeed, that we should take our full place, and that the best possible talent we can produce goes to the European Parliament. I am all for creating democracy within Europe. Deputy O'Kennedy said practically everything that has to be said on the question of our participating in the new Europe. All the emphasis about what the EEC was is wrong, because, now that it is comprised of nine countries instead of six, there will be big changes within the structure. Ireland must play a vital part to see that it is structured to suit our economy.

Shortly the Minister will be presenting before the European Parliament our application for grants. I am a member of co-operative movements and various farming organisations which have put forward schemes. I hope the team which studies those schemes, particularly for the western regions which need support from the EEC fund, will process those schemes very carefully before they are sent abroad. One of the things which weighted very strongly with us was the prospect of money for the development of those areas.

I was delighted to see at page 43 of this report a reference to the right of establishment on agricultural land. This was referred to by Deputy O'Kennedy and I will not go into it again. It satisfies me. I was very much afraid that foreigners would come in and buy up our land but, thanks again to our negotiators, there is no danger of that happening. I think we are well provided for. My friend on the Labour benches mentioned foreign trawlers in the outer six mile limit. I should like some explanation of that point.

We must get a fair injection of money into certain parts of the farming community such as the pig industry. I am a member of a few co-operatives and I believe that the pig industry could leave Irish hands very quickly unless it gets an injection of money. As somebody said today, pigs are a good price now. Foodstuffs have gone up to £11 a ton, and pig prices need to be good. I would ask the Minister to keep in mind, when the application for grants is being processed, that these matters are of vital importance to the western regions if we are to survive in the context of the EEC. I congratulate the people who compiled this document. If we had time to read it, I believe we could pay even more tribute to them.

Mr. Gallagher

I would be grateful if the Minister would try to clarify a couple of matters for me. At page 29, paragraph 6.15, the report refers to Public Works contracts. Do I understand from that paragraph, that people from Germany, France or any of the European countries, are now free to come in here and compete with nationals for various contracts?

On page 77, paragraph 16.3, there is a reference to projects. Will the Minister indicate what type of projects can be covered by this type of fund? If I might be parochial for a minute, I can quote a development which is about to take place at a fishery harbour at Ballyglass in County Mayo. The question of raising funds for the development of that harbour is quite all right. Roinn na Gaeltachta are providing the money. There are certain problems in connection with the building of roads. The road in question is a county road. As we have a big backlog of county roads for tarring in Mayo, we would not be able to provide the £80,000 out of our county roads grant which is necessary to develop this road. The Minister for Local Government has provided a special grant of £40,000. I should like to ask do projects or developments of this kind qualify for any particular grant?

On page 78, paragraph 16.8 of the report, it is stated that some seven schemes have been submitted and more are in course of preparation. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what type of schemes have been submitted. On page 83, paragraph 16.28 deals with co-operation in the sphere of education. I should like to know by whom was Ireland represented on this working party and if the report which has been forwarded will be put before the House for consideration.

In conclusion, I am concerned, like others who have spoken, about our fishery limits. We are supposed to have a 12-mile limit but, for all practical purposes, we have a six-mile limit. This is a matter of grave concern to our fishermen all along the coast. Foreign trawlers can fish in our outer waters and I should like to know if this particular clause is likely to be reviewed at any time after 1st July to give us, a small nation, an opportunity of further extending our limits. It is important for the preservation and development of our vital fishing industry to make sure that powerful nations do not come too close to our shores and wipe out the rich harvest there for our own fishermen.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

Though the debate has been brief—one would have wished that more people would have contributed to it—it has, nonetheless, been a very useful debate. From the point of view of the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to discover what the House needs and how best it can be served in matters like this, the debate has been an extremely useful one. It has been fruitful of ideas which we shall certainly pursue. I hope that the next report, both in its timing and its content, will give fuller satisfaction to the House. It was only to be expected that the first report would have features the House would not find satisfactory. It is our job to overcome these difficulties and it will be my function to see that they are overcome.

There is one matter, the timing of the report, about which I am a little concerned. A number of Deputies made the point that there really was not time to consider the report properly. We were concerned, above all, to give an up-to-date report. This may have been a mistake. I gathered from the debate that the House would prefer a report some weeks out of date, but with more time to absorb its contents. I see the force of that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The report need not be out of date when we get it. In fact, it can be up to date, but we could postpone our discussion to a date, say, three weeks after publication.

Dr. FitzGerald

My point is that the report will always be up to date when published, but Deputies would wish it to be published earlier than the date of the debate. The date of the debate is what fixes this because it is determined by the legal obligations to submit these reports at certain points in time or before certain dates. That is our starting point and we work back from there. The report has to be signed not later than a certain date, 12th June. It must be debated by the Seanad, with time to come back to the Dáil, and, before the Seanad debate, it must be debated by the Dáil. This brings us back to a certain date, in this case a date towards the end of May. Given that, what the House seems to be asking is that the report should not be published around 20th May, in this instance, up-to-date to the 15th, but should be published at an earlier date, up-to-date, perhaps, to the end of April, to give Deputies time to digest it. The House will appreciate that what is variable, what we can vary and what will vary, if the House so wishes, is the date of publication of the report. We cannot vary the date of the debate. It cannot be later than a certain date because of the legal obligation imposed upon us.

Mr. Kavanagh

Could that section of the report, which need not necessarily be up-to-date, be made available? Certain articles in it are quite old in the sense of time sequence. Could it not be brought up-to-date on a particular date on the finished report being published at a particular time? Could we not have interim reports?

Dr. FitzGerald

I think we could publish the main report on a date which would give the House several weeks to consider it and then, at the time of the debate, there could be published a brief note of anything that has happened in the intervening two or three weeks. I think that is the best way of tackling this. We were, perhaps, too concerned on this occasion to produce a document which was very up-to-date to show how up-to-date we were and did not give sufficient consideration to the needs of the House. The report was compiled less than a fortnight ago and my own study of it was completed only on Sunday week. There were many points that had to be looked into, extended and changed, and all that was done last week and the report then reached Deputies on the Friday, four days later. This is, no doubt, a triumph of organisation which has not really helped the House as much as we hoped it would. We will try to ensure that the main report is published a little earlier to give a couple of weeks for its consideration and then an up-dating, if that is necessary, can be made available to Deputies at the time of the debate. Perhaps we can then arrange that what is contained in the up-dating report will appear as part of the next report so that there will not be two reports for reference every six months. It is a good point and we will look into it.

Deputy O'Kennedy said that the report is not yet on sale. I inquired about this. It was published on Friday last and the position is simply a printing problem. This is an aspect of reports that I personally always found infuriating. A report becomes available to Deputies on a certain date. One goes down three or four days later to get a copy and the copy is not available. A report may be published in the newspapers and again one cannot get a copy. There seems to be insuperable printing problems here. We can get enough advance copies for Deputies and Senators, which run into a couple of hundred for a start, but not apparently enough to give an initial supply to the Government Publications Office. I do not understand the reasons for this. It is something about which I have been concerned for many years past and it is something I will look into myself. The public should be able to buy copies of the report on the day it appears in the newspapers. That is when they are interested in it. If they do not get the report, then they will not go back some days later for it. We must ensure that copies are available and I shall take the matter up directly with those concerned.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is encouraging to hear the Minister's reaction. I took it it would be on these lines. Could he ensure that, with the lapse that will occur between the date of the first publication and the date of the debate here, every effort will be made to make the report available to the public? I do not know what the problems are.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is available. The position is the Stationery Office received copies for sale from the printers only yesterday and I presume they are now available in the Government Publications Office. I presume the Stationery Office have furnished them and they are on sale today, and additional copies are available, if required. The problem has been overcome, but the fact remains that there is this hiatus with this and many other reports which is unsatisfactory and which we must try to correct.

I should like to thank Deputy O'Kennedy and the other Deputies for their comments on the comprehensiveness of the report. I myself was very impressed with the range of the report and the coverage. It is a credit to those who compiled it. Though I had many points to make on it, they were not major points. It is satisfactory to know that we are in a position to have presented to us something as full and complete as this and I thank the Deputies for the remarks they made on that particular aspect of the report.

Coming to the question of the committee, Deputy O'Kennedy and others stressed the urgency in relation to the establishment of the committee. I am extremely conscious of this. Deputy O'Kennedy knows I have been sorting this out in consultation with him. I hoped to be further on but there were difficulties in meeting certain points and I am at the moment preparing a memorandum for the Government on the form the committee should take and the powers the committee should have.

A point which was mentioned raises a query in my mind. Deputy O'Kennedy suggested that members of the European Parliament should not be on this committee. It should be comprised of other Members of the House. I feel that the more people we involve the better. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate if the members of the European Parliament were cut off from this committee, or if they were not in a position, when in Ireland, to attend the meetings, to speak at the meetings and to provide additional information beyond what we may be able to provide ourselves as a Government. That raises the question of whether it might be possible to have a committee of other Members and that the European Parliament members could attend the meetings and speak, but this is not the normal practice.

I do not know whether this is something we should arrange or not. I would be happy to discuss this further with Deputy O'Kennedy on behalf of the Opposition to see whether we should arrange matters in that way or whether it would be better to stick to the original proposal of a committee of 20. The Opposition suggested this last December. They suggested that there should be ten members of the European Parliament and ten Members of this House on the committee. We have taken over that proposal from the previous Government. If there is another way of doing this which would absorb more Members of the House I would be willing to look at it. I do not want to hold up the establishment of the committee.

On the question of the regulations which we are debating today being made available to Deputies, Deputy O'Kennedy suggested that there had been some promises to make copies of Iris Oifigiúil available to all Members, and that this proposal had been agreed to but not implemented. I do not wish to be too definite on this, but that is not my impression. My impression is that copies of the Journal Officiel were to be available in the Library of the House. There is an agreement by which any Deputy who wants a copy of Iris Oifigiúil can have a copy. In fact, it is circulated to 16 Deputies and two Senators at present. The regulations, as I understand the position, are published in the Dáil Order Paper as soon as they are made. Today's Order Paper contains the three most recent ones, which we will be discussing on the Committee Stage by way of amendment to the Bill. Any Deputy who wants the Order Paper can have it. It may be that the use of the Order Paper may be the most convenient way of tracking down these regulations. If the members of the committee, when appointed, want additional service and would like to have their attention drawn to particular regulations as soon as they are made, I am sure that could be arranged. If there are other Members of the House who wanted a particular service of that kind, I am sure it could be arranged also. I doubt if it would be necessary for every Deputy and every Member of Seanad Éireann to have every regulation brought to his attention in view of the highly technical character of many of the regulations.

The purpose of having a committee is that we will have people who will be specialists and who will look into the regulations in detail. If any Member of the House would like the additional service of having the regulations brought to his attention, I am sure that can be arranged on request. The Journal Officiel is in the Library of the House and is available to anybody who requires it as are many other publications of the Community. I do not know how comprehensive that service is, and to what extent all publications of the Community are available. This is something that should be examined. There is a great flow of information from the Community. I have a room full of such communications. I have got them in a room in the university and I must now dispose of them. I kept them in a room and I expect the authorities want the room, now that I am not using it. I have to look for a good home for ten to 15 years' of communications from the Community—and they do mount up.

It is important that all information should be available in the Library of the House. The Library should be in a position to draw a Deputy's attention to any particular document he is looking for, and to provide something like a research service, so that Deputies who want to know what has happened on a particular subject will be able to get that information. The Library of this House is very understaffed. The whole question of the adequacy of the service, especially in relation to our membership of the Community, will have to be examined. I say that as a Deputy of the House. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have no authority to make suggestions about the staffing of the House. The Minister for Finance is responsible for it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are more or less in agreement with what the Minister has to say as a Deputy and a Minister. I hope he will make very urgent recommendations to the Minister for Finance about this matter.

Dr. FitzGerald

I think I can properly raise this matter in relation to the establishment of this committee. I have every intention of doing so.

The question of direct elections was raised by a number of Deputies. I am glad it was raised. It greatly strengthens my hand in pressing this matter at the Council of Ministers when any appropriate occasion arises, or when I can make such an occasion arise, if I am in a position to say that the feeling of this House is that we need to move towards direct elections. We have a special problem here over and above that of other countries because of the difficulties posed in this respect by the electoral system which is unique among the member countries and which leaves it completely up to the electorate to choose between members of the same party. There is no possibility of bias being introduced, as there is in continental systems, and there is no possibility of protection of a monopoly kind being introduced as in a single-seat system which the Members on the other side of the House sought to impose on us on a number of occasions in the past.

The system of election which we have is inconvenient in many respects for politicians. However, it is cherished by our people, who have shown their regard for it on several occasions. What they like about it is, I think, that they can choose between us and if they do not see that we are performing properly they can dispose of us. We may fear that, perhaps for some time ahead, some of the electorate may not regard performance in the European Parliament as the kind of performance which they most urgently look for from our Deputies. There is the danger that what has happened to the de Gaullist Party in France could happen here if we maintain the present system of elections indirectly from the Parliament.

Deputy Esmonde had suggestions to make and some of these will bear examination. We must consider very carefully what we want. The Deputy suggested that direct elections should be among people who are Members of the Dáil or Seanad already. That is a possible way of meeting the situation, but it does not solve the problem because, if we operated that way then by being elected by the people to the European Parliament, by virtue of being so qualified by being a Member of the Dáil or Seanad, a Member might be in a position of being so pre-occupied with the vital national work in Europe that he might lose his entitlement to be in the European Parliament by not being re-elected in his constituency. That would make things worse than before. I see difficulties about that particular solution.

The choice of members of the European Parliament is now made by the parties. Election by the Dáil and Seanad might produce a very similar result as occurs in the not dissimiliar circumstances of election to the Seanad. We are talking about direct elections. What has been suggested in Britain by Sir Douglas Stewart is that in a grouping of constituencies a regional constituency should be formed, and that people should be elected from that constituency. By virtue of being elected to the European Parliament a member would have a right of membership of the British House of Commons or, perhaps, the House of Lords. In that way there would be no question of a person losing his entitlement to be in either House of Parliament by virtue of not being re-elected in his constituency because he was so busy in Brussels. He would be entitled to attend and speak, and perhaps vote— that is a matter which is being debated in Britain—in the House of Commons.

That may be the solution which we have to come to. It would require a constitutional change. I do not think our Constitution would permit this form of dual membership of this House. When we come to look at our Constitution, as we all have to for this and other reasons in a period ahead, perhaps we could look at this point. Direct elections will not necessarily solve this particular problem. If they did they would do so perhaps only, unless we are careful, at the expense of severing the link between this House and the membership of the European Parliament and that itself could be dangerous. To have Members of the European Parliament with no association with this House or, worse still, to have no member of the European Parliament with any association with this House would, I think, be unfortunate because the link between the two is going to be of great importance in the future in ensuring that the semi-federal system which we are building up to will work smoothly. Therefore, we cannot simply look for direct elections and leave it at that; we have to consider how we ourselves would organise ourselves for this purpose. This could in certain circumstances involve Constitutional change.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It would be a welcome piece of variety to have the Deputy's party propose a change in the electoral provisions of the Constitution.

Dr. FitzGerald

There would be no intention to depart from the proportional representation system for either set of elections, it having served us so well and being so popular with the public of this country.

In relation to this question of the election of Deputies and their re-election, the point was made that, if people are to be re-elected who have been serving in the European Parliament, it is very important that their activities there should be well publicised in this country. I am very conscious of this. The impending appointment of an information officer of the European Parliament in Ireland, to which much attention has been directed in the Press because of what appears by Irish standards to be a high salary attaching to the post, is intended I think to facilitate this. That is not to say that we should neglect any opportunity to encourage greater publicity for the activities of the European Parliament. It will be easier when the European Parliament has its own officer here seeking to publicise what is being done there and, above all, what is being done by the Irish representatives. In the meantime, I will be happy to discuss with the members of the European Parliament any way in which we can help to ensure that what they do there is reported adequately at home. This may involve assistance to them and indeed I believe they will need assistance in the form of some person or persons attached as secretariat to them to provide services to them and perhaps facilitate with regard to communications as well. I would be sympathetic to any proposals members of the European Parliament may have on that and I think, when the new team has been constituted and announced, it might be useful if I had a meeting with them to discuss this and other problems that may arise.

The point was made by Deputy O'Kennedy that some impression seems to have emerged from the Summit Conference that Britain did it all. This is another public relations problem, how well do we get across from meetings abroad what Irish people are doing there. I think what happens here is that, generally speaking, each country gets across to its own people at home what its representatives have done. This produces a very curious picture if you compare the newspapers. It is sometimes entertaining to read the accounts in an Irish and British newspaper of a meeting of the Council of Ministers. The Irish papers concentrate, and I am very glad they do, on the activities of the Irish Minister and one almost gets the impression that he ran the whole thing, whereas in the English papers the Irish Minister does not appear at all and nobody is referred to except the British Minister. I am sure if one took the trouble to examine reports in the French, German and other papers there is something similar happening there.

In a way, I am not so worried now about the reporting of what goes on at these meetings, although the European Parliament still poses something of a problem. I think we are getting very good reporting—though I say it myself as one of the beneficiaries— of the activities of Irish Ministers at Ministerial meetings, but not necessarily an entirely balanced picture of what happens there. That is not our fault. It is naturally the job of the Irish Minister at any meeting to ensure that the Press know and the Irish people know what he did. But I think it is important—and this applies in Britain as well as here—that the reports should give an overall picture of what happened and should indicate the balance of debate, what the issues were and who took what side, and not concentrate solely—although we are delighted to have the publicity—on the particular activities of the Irish Minister in question. I think the overall reporting of Ministerial meetings is now very good and we cannot complain too much about it. The problem rests more with the European Parliament and to the extent that other meetings occur which are properly reportable—I am not sure if this is true of the Economic and Social Committee, I am not certain it meets in public but to the extent that it does we have to ensure that what happens there is adequately reported too.

Deputy O'Kennedy inquired about the meaning of certain phrases in the report. The words that bothered him were: "A more democratic tension". Paragraph 3.10 says:

With regard to the general question of reinforcing and possibly extending the powers of control of the European Parliament the Government take the view that it is desirable for the Governments of the member States to examine together possible ways of introducing a more democratic tension into the relationship between the Parliament and the Council while respecting at the same time the position of the Council as the Communities' primary decision-making body.

I would not have thought that the phrase should give rise to too much difficulty. The problem at the moment is that, as the Parliament has no power whatever to do anything in regard to legislation, there is not any tension at all. Democratic tension is the kind of thing that goes on in this House between Deputy O'Kennedy and myself. It means that we are not always in agreement, that dissenting views are expressed which may or may not carry conviction with the Government. If they do, changes are made. If they do not carry conviction with the Government and the Opposition are dissatisfied, they go on pressing it with public opinion until they shift the Government from its intransigent position.

That democratic tension arises when there is a power balance, when there is a body such as the Government, which is the Executive power but responsible to Parliament, capable of being embarrassed and defeated in Parliament. That gives rise to a democratic tension which is constructive. The trouble with the European Parliament is that there is not any tension because the Council of Ministers know all too well that, when the Parliament expresses its views, they can simply file them away. In fact, that is more or less what the Council of Ministers does, taking note of, but without discussing, in most instances, the views of Parliament. If you are to make this system work and make it democratic, that has to change. It has to change so that in respect of an increasing volume of legislation the European Parliament has some power —power to hold it up, power to amend it, power to ensure that it does not go through unless both the Council of Ministers and the Parliament agree perhaps. There are various methods of doing this and I am sure we will move gradually, but move we must, and there has not been much movement yet. One of the things I would be concerned to do on behalf of the Irish Government, Parliament and people is to ensure that the European Parliament does as soon as possible get the kind of power that will create a more democratic tension.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am glad that my query, which related to a particular phrase, has given rise to the Minister's undertaking in that connection. I think the point can still be made as far as the words are concerned. What the Minister is now saying is that there is no democratic tension at all at the moment and what we want to introduce is a democratic tension, not a more democratic tension. The most important thing is what the Minister has just said, that he will be very anxious to ensure that the European Parliament will not be treated as it has been——

Dr. FitzGerald

As a cipher. I could answer the Deputy by saying that technically the European Parliament has power to dismiss the Commission and therefore there is a theoretical democratic tension, but we want a more real one. The fact is there is virtually none at the moment and the Deputy's criticism of the phraseology is semantically justified.

The Deputy seemed to suggest in regard to this paragraph, and I think the following one, that the wording was intended to mean that in taking action on this it would be taken outside the Council of Ministers by Governments coming together separately and outside the framework of the Council. This was not the intention of what is here save to the extent that the ultimate decision in a matter of this kind is likely to be taken by a Summit. My recollection is that the last Summit required proposals to be brought forward for the reform of the institutions which, if I recall correctly, were to come back eventually to another Summit. It is not simply a question of the Council of Ministers enacting something in this area. If you are to have important institutional changes I think the intention and expectation is that they go back to a further Summit, which is not a meeting of the Council of Ministers. To that extent perhaps the phraseology here reflects an expectation that this will finally be decided outside the Council of Ministers, but yet the discussion of these proposals coming from the Commission will take place in the Council of Ministers in the first instance and perhaps, in the unlikely event of the Council being able to agree with something, it would go ahead as enacted without its having to be referred to a further Summit.

Realistically, and given the divergence of views existing in this whole area of the power of Parliament and the question of direct elections, it seems improbable that we will make significant progress within the Council of Ministers without the matter being referred to a further Summit occurring I think, in 1975 and which should make the kind of progress which we in this country would like to see. Perhaps that is the best answer I can give about Governments consulting together.

Deputy O'Kennedy suggested also that the visits of Irish Ministers to Community institutions should be recorded in the same way as we have recorded here the official visits to this country by members of Community bodies. This could be done. Indeed, as a Minister, I would like to see my name in print as would any other Minister. There is a lot to be said for this but given that all of us in varying capacities of Government have to attend meetings very frequently, records of our visits to the Community would fill one page of the report every six months. I see no objection to these visits being recorded but it had not occurred to me that there was such a passionate interest in the House in our activities. In drafting this report it is understandable that the visits of other people to this country are concentrated on. These visits are official ones, whereas ours are more routine and do not count as official visits in diplomatic terms. However, I will look into this matter. I would have no objection in principle to the recording of our visits although it would require a lot of space if, say, all the visits of our delegates to the European Parliament and its committees were to be recorded. There are some who might regard that as being desirable.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I take the Minister's point regarding official visits. It is not for us to promote the journeys undertaken by the Minister and his colleagues. The whole purpose of the report has been to highlight our involvement in the EEC and if in some way there could be recorded a summary of the visits undertaken by Ministers and delegates to the Parliament, this would serve that purpose, otherwise it would be necessary to omit altogether any reference to these visits. However, this is not a major point.

Dr. FitzGerald

I suppose it is important that the people should be aware of the part played by 67 delegates and, indeed, as Deputy O'Kennedy suggested at one stage, the part not played, by them if they are not fulfilling their duty. The activities of members of the European Parliament could be highlighted so that the people would know how many meetings they had to attend. There is the danger that absence from the constituencies of these members would not make electoral hearts grow fonder and that something to remind the electorate of what their representatives have been doing might be useful. One can envisage the local papers taking chunks from these reports to show the amount of activity in which the local man had been engaged.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That would be very welcome from a Deputy's point of view.

Dr. FitzGerald

It would be less welcome, though, to the other Deputies in the constituency but we must not allow them to take unfair advantage of their absent comrades.

The Deputy asked also for summaries of what happened at meetings of the Council of Ministers. We are getting to the stage now where the report can become very voluminous indeed. It is important that the people should have an adequate knowledge of the activities of Ministers at the Council of Ministers. To some degree we are getting this from the newspapers but there is a limit to the extent to which these activities can be reported. I will consider what more may be done to ensure that adequate information is available. It is intended in Britain that Ministers would report before, and/or after meetings with the Council of Ministers or with the Parliament but theirs is a Parliament which, because of the much larger scale of its responsibility meets for much longer periods in each year and on more days of the week than we meet here. I am not sure that we can follow them in all respects but we can look at the question of ensuring that what is being decided at the Council of Ministers and what position we have taken can be reported more fully. That is a matter which I am prepared to discuss further with the Deputy.

Steps in this direction might best be taken in the first instance through a committee of the House but I have an open mind on the matter. It is a question of our finding the best method of coping with this new and unfamiliar situation.

The Deputy asked if we had any regrets regarding the executive jet. We have no regrets whatever. I am not aware that its non-availability is posing any problem. We seem, by various methods of transport, whether by surface or air, to get backwards and forwards quite easily. The only occasion on which a problem could have arisen was on my first day in office when I was faced with an unplanned visit of which I could not have known 24 hours earlier. The desirability of making contact with the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary could have created a problem but did not do so because of the kind offer by the British Foreign Secretary of transport in his aircraft. That was a very unusual occasion because it is not often that one finds oneself faced with an engagement on the day after being appointed a Minister and not having known, 24 hours earlier, to which Ministry one would be appointed. In the ordinary way one plans one's visits so that I do not see any significant problems arising in respect of our decision regarding this jet.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is reassuring.

Dr. FitzGerald

On the question of trade agreements with Eastern Europe the position is somewhat complicated. It is true that the question of trade agreements in the formal sense of the term relates to quotas, quantitative restrictions, imports of goods and so on. This kind of agreement has to be undertaken in future by the Community but in dealing with these State trading countries, as they are described, one is dealing with countries where the sale and purchase of goods is negotiated by State agencies or by State trading corporations.

In regard to Eastern Europe one must go and sell the goods. This means talking to Governments and reaching agreement with them to buy so much of your products and then trying to organise your private entrepreneurs at home to buy certain products of the countries in question. All of this is carried on at Government level. That is the kind of agreement in which we will continue to be involved in dealing with State trading countries but the absence of diplomatic representation in such countries can prove difficult because they may be unwilling to engage in trading activities unless there is diplomatic representation and even where they do not take that line there can be difficulty in dealing with countries where such business is not negotiated at Government level.

The mere fact that trade negotiations relating to such matters as quantitative restrictions would be carried out by the Community does not imply that if we wish to have trade with these countries, we would not need to have diplomatic representations with them.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question also of eventual Greek and Turkish membership of the Community. So far as Turkey is concerned, membership is about 20 years away. From my recollection of the agreement I am not sure that any date has been fixed but if I recall correctly, the agreement was for a 20-year period after which at some unspecified date thereafter, Turkey might become a member. In respect of Greece there was an agreement of a 20-year period but, of course, the whole Greek relationship with the Community has been frozen, for political reasons, since the change in regime there. There is no question of Greece becoming a full member of the Community and, indeed, the existing associate agreement is, to a substantial degree, inoperative at the moment pending the return to democratic institutions in that country. The Deputy need have no fears in that regard because the position that he believes we should take up—and on which I share his views—is that of the other members of the Community and we are ad idem with them on that subject.

Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the lack of references in the report to specific documents. I will look into that. In the cases he mentioned I would have thought that in a num- ber of instances the documents were almost self-explanatory. If one goes to the Library and asks for the Regulation of a specific date dealing with a specific document, it will be located very quickly. At the same time, it may well be that we should be more precise in our references. Certainly, where the absence of reference might pose difficulties in tracing a document, I will ensure that references are included.

Mr. O'Kennedy

This would facilitate the Library staff also.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps that is true. In any case, the suggestion is a constructive one as were all the suggestions made by the Deputy during the course of the debate.

The Deputy raised the question also of legislation affecting the professions and he expressed concern as to whether, in fact, the professionals were being kept in touch with these problems. It is curious he should be raising this, because when I first found myself in Opposition in this House I raised this question in July, 1969, with the then Government and got very unsatisfactory answers. I remember being told in respect of one profession that a particular document had not yet been communicated to the profession as it had not been received until four months later and was still being translated. When I pointed out that I had picked the document up myself in Brussels eighteen months before, this did not seem to the Minister in question to be an adequate reason for his having an obligation to have got hold of it the same time. I think and hope that this has changed, and I understand that the relevant Government Departments are in touch with the various professional organisations concerned and that our Department have made inquiries about this to ensure that this is being carried out. If the Deputy has any doubts on this score or has any particular case which he is concerned about I shall look further into it, but I have been assured that this matter is now under control.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have no doubts and I have no reason to have any doubts about the bona fides of the Minister's Department. What I was suggesting was that in view of the extensive consultations that will have to take place with the various professional bodies, the facilities in the Minister's Department and in various other Departments should be extended to cope with that. I do not know how troublesome these consultations are, and I suspect that if they are troublesome they will be ignored.

Dr. FitzGerald

At the moment we are in a situation where our new membership of the Community is posing very great problems, certainly for our Department and clearly for other Departments which are intimately involved in Community legislation. The additional burden of the work, the complexity and unfamiliarity of it, the amount of contact involved through membership of various committees, the amount of time that absorbs, are posing an intolerable strain, and it is necessary to strengthen the relevant Departments. At this very moment we are preparing proposals in this respect for the increased staff necessary to do this job properly. It is only kept up to date so far as my Department is concerned by dint of people working under pressure which could not be sustained—indeed, it is surprising it has been sustained for so many months already—and certainly because of the very high quality of the staff concerned. However, we could not continue like that, and could not continue to provide the services necessary unless changes are made here.

Reference was made by the Deputy to the question of working groups of experts, and before I deal with the question of what is an expert and what is a working group, I want to say that I doubt if the House or the country realise what is involved here. There are over 200 working groups of various kinds, committees, on which we have to be represented at Civil Service level, which is quite apart from those bodies—and they are, I think, more numerous again—on which various Irish vocational interests must also be represented if they are to ensure that matters that concern them are to be looked after. To suddenly find oneself having to serve on an additional 200 plus committees, none of which reaches within 400 miles of Dáil Éireann and the capital city of this country is a very great burden. Moreover, it is going to be greatly complicated by the fact in the first half of 1975 the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and also the foreign ministers of the Nine will be the responsibility of this country. This means that the chairmanship of over 200 committees will then be the responsibility of an Irish official, the chairmanship being by no means nominal but carrying with it the burden of responsibility for making this committee work and servicing it.

I had occasion recently to inquire as to the problems in another Community country which will shortly be facing this difficulty, and I asked what additional staff for their foreign service department would be required to cope. The answer, when one totted up the staff in Brussels and at home, was 100 additional staff for that six months' period of the presidency, all of whom would have had to be trained in one way or another for their work. Apart from the immediate increase in work we are facing now, there is this special peak at unhappy 4½ year intervals occurring, rather like elections to Dáil Éireann, when each country becomes the president, and then lapsing again. Therefore, we shall not only have to find more staff to cope with the continuing expansion and progress of the Community, but every 4½ years we shall have to find an extra lot of staff temporarily, many of whom will have to be released back to whatever they were doing, sometime afterwards, these activities being neglected for six months while they do this special job. This is a problem which we must tackle, because we cannot have the position in which, while other countries do this job well, when it comes to Ireland's turn it is neglected or done inadequately and we get the reputation of being fumblers, inefficient and incapable of doing our job. It is absolutely essential, not merely as a matter of national pride but if we are going to secure the kind of respect that alone can lead to success in the many negotiations we shall have, that we do this job as well as any other country and preferably better. This will involve very special arrangements beyond the normal vision, may I say, of the Department of Finance which has not been used to coping with this kind of special peak activity.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am glad I raised this matter because I think it will require arrangements beyond the normal vision of many people, including the public. It is one of the hidden problems to which we had not adverted up to this time.

Dr. FitzGerald

I stumbled on it very shortly after coming into office and my toe is still hurting at the thought. On the question of working groups and what is meant by a working group and what is meant by an expert, they are really bodies of civil servants from the relevant Departments meeting on behalf of their Governments with a view to formulating propositions for decisions to be taken eventually by the Council of Ministers, or to the extent that they are properly delegated by the Council of Ministers, to be taken by Committee of Permanent Representatives, in Brussels, heads of mission, who have powers delegated to them and who in matters that are non-controversial and where the members of the Council of Ministers have approved of the decision-making pattern, can take decisions subject to confirmation of the Council of Ministers.

This poses some problems for us. First of all, there is the parallelism in the decision-making mechanism under which we have, on the one hand, the civil servants from the different Departments of State meeting together with their opposite numbers in other countries to formulate propositions with a view to eventual decisions and, on the other hand, parallel to them meetings of committees representing the particular interests likely to be affected by their decisions, and in most cases there are such interests likely to be affected. It is very important that we maintain close liaison with the interests concerned. My information is that in other countries very close liaison is maintained, and at meetings abroad you will see, where the civil servants are moving towards a decision, they will adjourn the meeting even to consult the particular interests in their country who are likely to be affected and come back then to take up a position after that consultation.

I have not the impression that we have in Ireland the position of a close degree of consultation between the civil service and vocational interests as is the practice in other countries. We must be vigilant to ensure that the interests of this country are not lost at any stage through any lack of liaison. Moreover, we have a special problem which will have to be looked at, in that we have chosen in this country, and rightly, in my view, to delegate the promotional activities in certain key aspects of our national economy to State enterprises or State bodies. This is true of tourism, of export promotion, industrial promotion, of development of the fishing industry, of aspects of agriculture. We have done this because we feel that such bodies can be and will be flexible in their approach and that matters like promotion are best dealt with outside the framework of a civil service department which is answerable for everything it does to Dáil Éireann. That has been the Irish tradition.

The trouble is that in a number of instances this poses a problem. There is a danger that the State bodies concerned, who are the people most directly and vitally concerned, who know more intimately the problems than do the civil servants, might not be fitted into the Community decision-making structure. There is the danger that their representatives might not be accepted as producer representatives on behalf of the interests concerned, because the exporters might not see Córas Tráchtála as representing them. They might see Córas Tráchtála as serving them but not as being their representatives to speak on their behalf. At the same time, the relevant Government Department might not see an official from the IDA as being a civil servant capable of engaging in the first stages of decision-making on behalf of his Minister in such a committee.

We must ensure that we do not fall between two stools in this matter, that we do not have a system under which the key work of promotion is delegated to bodies which we then exclude from the new decision-making process. This will have to be examined with a view to seeing how best we can fit them into the decision-making structure. I was concerned about this matter before our entry into the Community and it is a matter which has concerned many of the State bodies who have been agitated about the position.

The question of working parties, experts and decision-making at that level is something we will have to examine. We will have to learn from our experience to date and ensure the closest liaison with the State bodies concerned and with the interests involved so that there will be no gap that might lead to the neglect of any legitimate Irish interest.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister. Can he give us any idea about how he intends to set about this examination? Obviously it is a very complex area.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is a complex matter and it is one I should have to draw to the attention of the Government with a view to seeing what problems exist and how they can be resolved. Perhaps they are imaginary problems but I think there are certain problems that must be tackled and this is something the Government will have to examine collectively. Deputy O'Kennedy asked about structural aids for agriculture and how these had been published——

Mr. O'Kennedy

No, I said they had been publicised. It was merely a rhetorical question as to what their effect had been and what the reaction had been to their publication.

Dr. FitzGerald

They had been publicised very extensively by press advertisements and notices, by circulation to all agricultural societies and interests, to county development officers and others, asking them to draw the attention of all those likely to be interested and who might benefit from these provisions. Quite a number of proposals have come in and I think they are still being received. In fact, I think there is a mention of a figure in the report; at any rate, I have seen a figure of seven projects but I have also seen a list of a much greater number and obviously the number is growing as the interests concerned see possibilities for them here.

A number of Deputies have had the experience in the election campaign and since of being approached by people in various parts of the country inquiring about a project they had sent in and wondering if it would be seriously considered. There is a fair amount of knowledge and interest about this now. In fact, I should be happy if there was the same knowledge and interest in other areas as there is in the agricultural area. However, if Deputies think there is any other way in which we can take further steps to ensure the fullest knowledge of any grants, agricultural or otherwise, we would be grateful for any suggestions they might make in this regard. There is nothing more frustrating than to find at the end of a given period that there was a fund from which legitimately we could have drawn our share but had not done so because we had not submitted projects in time. This is a matter the various Departments are examining to make sure we do not miss out on anything to which we are entitled.

Several Deputies referred to the construction industry and the question of public works contracts; I think Deputy Gallagher raised a question on this matter. The position is that there exists, as is stated in the report, a directive on the co-ordination of public works contracts. I understand it will apply from 1st July, 1973, so far as we are concerned only to contracts controlled by the State and having a value of more than one million units of account. Because we are floating it is not easy to put an immediate value on units of account unless one has read the financial columns of the morning papers accurately but it is something of the order of £400,000.

While that provision is there, experience in the Community does not seem to suggest that great advantage is taken of it. The vast bulk of public works contracts are still being given within the country in question to native companies and there has not been much public works contracting outside each country. However, we should not always take the negative view that we might lose something here—we might gain something also. So far as the construction industry is concerned, this country has a considerable range of experience, entrepreneurship and ability. We know how active Irish people have been in the construction industry in other countries. There are firms in the construction industry here who have formed groups to seek out contracts abroad. I am by no means certain that the liberalisation taking place in this area is necessarily to our disadvantage. It could well be that a few active Irish firms could generate more work abroad, much of it providing employment for a whole range of skills in other countries at different periods, and giving employment for Irish products to be used in the construction. Seen from the European continent we are a somewhat remote, misty island and not necessarily the first place a large public contractor in Germany would look to enhance his profits. A long time may elapse before they cotton on to the fact that there is money to be made on our far-off hills also. It could well be that we could be the net gainers in this liberalisation. I hope this will be so.

There is another draft directive referred to in the report on the co-ordination of public supply contracts for the supply of goods which proposes a limit of $60,000, about £25,000, above which contracts should be liberalised. The Economic and Social Committee have proposed that this limit be raised to 100,000 units of account—about £40,000—and the European Parliament have outbid them to 200,000 units of account, about £60,000. It is not certain what the limit will be but there will be liberalisation here also. Although it may not be so easy, we must ensure that we benefit as well as lose in this area, that Irish firms go out and get their share. The question was a valid one to raise and I am glad to have had the opportunity of dealing with it.

With regard to regional policy, Deputy O'Kennedy laid stress on the importance of rejecting the principle of juste retour, which we do absolutely. As the least developed country in the Community and the one that most needs assistance through the regional policy, the social fund and investment in agriculture, we could not concede that the Community could possibly work on the basis that anything you pay out you must get back because in that event the net benefit to this country would be minimal.

I am glad to see that this principle is not being pressed. It was thought at one time that the United Kingdom Government might try to operate on this principle. They have made it clear this is not their intention, that they do not see it working that way in regard to regional policy or otherwise, and I do not think there is a major issue here. They are the main points Deputy O'Kennedy raised. He made a point at the end about the Taoiseach and VAT. I think I dealt with that at the time as best I could. I do not think it is worth pursuing in the context of this debate.

Deputy Kavanagh raised a number of points. First of all, he emphasised again the position of the Labour Party which is in such marked and constructive contrast to that of the Labour Party in Britain. May I also say that without the Labour Party in this country there would not have been a debate because I do not think the other elements engaged in the discussion were capable of putting up a real debate? It is very important that there was that debate. I can look back to 1962, a time when we looked like becoming members of the EEC. Coming towards the end of 1962 I was deeply concerned lest there would be no debate, so much so that I went out to generate it by trying to find people who would take an opposite view and debate with me publicly in the Press or on the radio or anywhere else so as to ensure that the Irish people would hear the pros and cons.

Nothing could have been less desirable than that we should enter into an immense project of this kind, which is in practice irreversible— possibly we could reverse it but the economic cost would be too great for us to contemplate it—without having debated it fully and without the Irish people feeling that they had heard all the arguments and knew what they were doing. The task undertaken by the Labour Party was a constructive one from which the whole country has benefited. Moreover, on the very night of the result of the referendum they made it clear that, the Irish people having spoken, they accepted the decision. Indeed, they made it clear that having accepted the decision they saw that the future for Ireland, once we were within the Community about which they had had some doubts, would be best served by the fullest participation. This is in immense contrast to the British Labour Party whose attitude is reflecting no credit on them and doing no good to Britain.

Mr. Crowley

The Irish Labour Party had a little more than some doubts.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister might discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Labour, a view expressed by him yesterday. Now that the Minister is busy with his eulogy on the Labour Party he might express a view on the view of the Minister for Labour that this Community might not be the Community for us. He expressed that view in a radio interview yesterday. I had not the opportunity of hearing it myself. He may have qualified his remark.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is entirely possible that Deputy Crowley would be the first to say that if all the other eight countries were taken over by their Communist Parties, there might not be the same structure remaining. However, I am not in a position to comment on something I have not heard the full context of.

Mr. Crowley

Some other time.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Kavanagh stressed the need to help our members of the European Parliament. Let us stress again that quite apart from this committee of this House, it is the intention of my Department to serve and to service the members of the European Parliament in any way we can, not merely to provide them with documents but where necessary with briefings on particular matters. I am hoping to have an opportunity of meeting them with a view to discussing this with them and to see how best we can be of assistance to them. They, of course, can be of assistance to us because their feedback to us in this Parliament will be important in helping us to do our job.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister will realise it is necessary also that other Ministers and Departmental personnel would do this. Many matters will relate to agriculture, industry, labour and so on.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not suggesting that my Department are in a position to provide all the assistance, far from it, but as the co-ordinating Department we can at least give a preliminary briefing and then direct the members to other areas where expertise is available. Deputy Kavanagh raised the question about fisheries. I do not wish to anticipate the Committee Stage during which it will be more appropriate to deal with this but the provision here is highly technical in character.

Deputy Kavanagh asked whether we are here merely to rubberstamp regulations. On this occasion, effectively we are. Let us be frank about it. As Deputy O'Kennedy has said, in the absence of this committee there has not been the opportunity for Members of the House to study these regulations and to pass judgment on them, but it is the intention that the committee should in future operate in such a way that they would be in a position to know what will be coming up and to offer views as to how we might best implement in Irish legislation the various directives and recommendations of the EEC, including EURATOM and the European Coal and Steel Community. In so far as a directive leaves leeway for the national Parliament to implement it in its own way—indeed, the intention of directives as against regulations is that there should be some such leeway— obviously the views of the committee on how best we should implement them in Ireland will be considered. It will then not be a question of rubber-stamping. It is true, it must be said, that in many instances directives, although technically leaving room for that measure of comment, tie things down pretty tightly and the room for manoeuvre may not be great. To the extent that there is room for manoeuvre, great or small, the views of the committee of this House on how best the directives can be implemented will be considered by the Government.

Deputy Briscoe commented critically on the brevity of my opening statement. He said that if I were in Opposition I might have done the same thing. In principle, he has a point, but not in this instance. I spoke on this Government's general policy on the EEC in the debate on foreign policy a couple of weeks ago and it would have been tedious for the House, and I suspect disorderly for me, to have repeated anything I had earlier said. Moreover, as I am presenting to the House a technical Bill which has an extensive explanatory memorandum which explains things far better than I could, and as I am presenting a report which is largely self-explanatory, it does not seem the occasion for me to make a long speech at the beginning. In general, I agree that I have been critical of Ministers in the past for not putting their cards on the table at the beginning of the debate, but I do not think I could usefully have said more than I did in my opening statement today until I had heard the comments of Members of the House. Therefore, while I take Deputy Briscoe's point, I do not feel much guilt on this occasion.

Deputy Briscoe was anxious that we should push as early as possible for direct elections. I have dealt with this point already. He asked whether any of the earlier regulations made before our entry were being looked at again. Offhand I cannot recall any such—I do not want to say there are not any. I cannot recall any case where regulations have been reopened, but a number of draft regulations, directives and so on were in preparation when membership took place at the beginning of this year. They are being re-examined now in the light of membership. It is true of chocolate and it is true of the regulation on alcohol. There are a number of instances where the law has not only been enacted and in which the particular problems of Britain, this country and Denmark can now be taken into account. This means in some instances a fundamental reopening of issues which no doubt the Six thought they had closed. That is the penalty they have to pay for letting us in and is in some instances a reconciliation of the divergent interests of ourselves, Britain and Continental countries.

I was asked whether we could circulate the European Parliament's debates. They are printed in extenso and are available in the Library of this House. If any Deputy wants to receive them regularly and feels he would make use of them, arrangements could, no doubt, be made. It may well be that the committee when they meet will ask that some such provision be made. I do not think that one would be justified in circulating the reports to the 204 Members of the Oireachtas without their asking for them. Many of them would not thank us for cluttering up their houses with more paper with which they would not be directly concerned. At the same time, it is importand they should receive a good circulation and I will try to ensure that any Member of the House who seeks copies will get them.

Deputy Briscoe was concerned with better presentation to the public of what we are doing in Europe and suggested a radio programme once a month. I suppose that is possible but I must say that the coverage being given to anything we are doing in Europe by radio and the Press is very good. Though it is always worthwhile having a programme or an article looking back on the events of a period of some weeks. I would not suggest it is necessary.

Deputy Esmonde drew attention to the transfer of powers involved in membership of economic and monetary union. He is right to do so. Economic and monetary union, if and when it comes about, will involve a most fundamental change in the decision-making process. There cannot be fixed parties between currencies which are effectively a single currency expressed in different denominations without having a degree of interdependence which is of the kind that exists within a single state. One should not diminish this in any way. As far as this Government are concerned we are anxious to see economic and monetary union develop because we believe it is the only ultimate adequate safeguard for a common agricultural policy and we believe it is a necessary step on the road towards a form of European union.

Having said that, and that is a commitment on our part, it would be quite unacceptable that we should move to such an advanced state of integration with the present ricketty, shambling structure of democratic control that exists in these institutions. That structure may have been adequate in the early stages of development of the Community, some may even think it is adequate now, but I do not and this Government do not. It would be quite inconceivable to have a situation in which the European Parliament, the only democratic body capable in potential of controlling something like an economic and monetary union, should have no power to do so. This would be totally unacceptable and the other countries are going to have to face this. I am not sure whether some of them are facing it or whether they are putting off the evil day or whether they fully accept that when the time comes there will have to be a degree of integration of a kind they have not yet spoken of. As far as we are concerned it would be unacceptable that there should be such an advanced stage of integration without a much more real democratic control through the institutions of the Community.

Deputy Esmonde spoke of some of the ways in which this might be secured. He spoke of the inadequacy of the control of the European Parliament over its own finances. I think it does secure somewhat greater powers in 1975. There is a problem there in that a very high proportion of its finances are earmarked automatically for policies already enacted, such as the agricultural policy and, before long, the social and regional policies. The amount of money which can effectively be controlled is small. I am not sure that this is very much different from our national Parliament. We like to think that each year we vote the entire £750 million but we all know that barring the last £50 million in a good year the rest is earmarked and it is not possible to spend it. In the case of the European Parliament this is more evident because of the particular way in which the finances are presented but there is a proposal to give it more power. It has, in fact, been decided to give it more power over part of its finances next year but this is a long way from its having the kind of control that this Parliament has and any full democratic parliament should have.

Deputy Esmonde mentioned the "second reading proposal" of the European Parliament. This is something which is supported by this Government.

Deputy Callanan referred to the importance of ensuring that we do get the various grants open to us through the Community. I have dealt with that already and I appreciate his concern as a Deputy from an agricultural area. I appreciate his view that no stone should be left unturned in trying to achieve this.

Deputy Gallagher, who also raised the question of public works contracts, asked what kind of project could be financed from the social fund. This is being investigated. There may be a possibility of getting funds from the European Investment Bank. Eventually there may be funds available for such purposes as constructing the road he referred to from the regional development fund when it is established. I am not sure that the European Social Fund, as such, would be the appropriate body to apply finance of this kind. The European Investment Bank is an important source of finance for us. It is not cheap finance. It has an interest rate which, while not yielding a profit, does not incur a loss and that is a fairly high interest rate today. The protocol to our accession treaty guarantees us priority in regard to the provision of aid of this kind from the Community. Such protocol is something which has proved very effective in the case of Italy in securing for that country over half of the total resources of the European Investment Bank.

This country, under the protocol, is entitled to claim its proportionate share of resources from the European Investment Bank. It is our job to ensure that proposals submitted are of sufficient merit to secure this share. Whether these projects involve road-building or financing factories it is our job to make sure that they are submitted and that we get the money that is available there.

Deputy Gallagher asked a question about co-operation in the sphere of education and the proposal to set up a European Centre for the Development of Education. He also asked about the working party involved. That working party is serviced, as other working parties are, at official level—in this instance by the Department of Education. To return to another point raised by Deputy Gallagher——

Mr. Crowley

Before the Minister leaves education, would he inform the House if there are any funds available for matters other than research and scholarship?

Dr. FitzGerald

No, I do not think so. The EEC as a whole has very little to say in regard to education. It is an area in which it has not greatly concerned itself although there are meetings now being held of the various Ministers for Education from the EEC countries. The Council of Europe has played a more active part here. It is something which is not specifically a Community matter. Education is something broader and the links and common interests between the countries in Europe extend beyond the boundaries of the Community. There is a proposal to set up a European Centre for the Development of Education. There is a proposal to set up a European University Institute in Florence. It does not amount to much more than that. As far as education is concerned OECD and the Council of Europe are, at this stage, more relevant for us.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister has dealt with almost every question that has been raised with the exception of the European Centres for the Development of Education. I suggested to the Minister that he might recommend that a centre such as this would be established in this country. Having regard to the various institutions and organisations of the Community it should be possible to have such a centre established, whether one talks in terms of the organisations under EURATOM or such other bodies. There should be some physical evidence available in Ireland soon of our membership.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy need not think that I have overlooked that. It has been in my mind for some months past and I am looking out for a suitable one to kidnap.

Mr. O'Kennedy

This European Centre for the Development of Education might be the one that would be most suitable for this country.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will bear that in mind. There is a problem here. Where a body is specifically part of the financial and economic aspects of the Community under the Luxembourg Agreement they must be sited in either Luxembourg or Brussels. We have endorsed and supported that principle and we supported Luxembourg in its claim to be the site of the Monetary Fund recently established. Through our support we helped in securing that result. We respect the Luxembourg principles of 1965 but where organisations are not in the financial and economic sphere we will feel free to seek that some of them be located here.

We will have to watch that they are not free gifts. I am not sure if it is the United Nations but certainly there is one set of institutions from which you can have a new institution when it is established but only if you pay the full cost. I will inquire what it lets us in for before launching on any kidnap operation of this kind. I had this in mind although the body I have in mind is a different one from that suggested by the Deputy.

In relation to Deputy Gallagher's question I should mention schemes in respect of which submissions have been made for assistance from the social fund for retraining, resettlement and rehabilitation. There are seven schemes in respect of AnCO, the IDA, the IMI, CERT, the tourism organisation, SFADCO, and the textile industry through the IDA and the Department of Labour National Manpower Service.

Others are in course of preparation in respect of the Rehabilitation Institute for the rehabilitation of handicapped persons and of Gaeltarra Éireann, retraining in the Gaeltacht, and discussions are taking place on a proposal in respect of the construction industry. In fact, we are actively engaged in trying to make sure that we get what we can and what we are entitled to from the European Social Fund. Deputy Gallagher also asked a question about fisheries.

Mr. Gallagher

Before the Minister departs from the question of education at paragraph 16.28: the Minister said the Department of Education were represented. Were any of the teaching bodies represented? Would the Minister be prepared to put before the House the report which has been put before the Council?

Dr. FitzGerald

I have a note here on that which I had not deciphered. I will look into that. I do not know offhand if there is any technical objection to doing so. I would be happy to do so, but sometimes there are reports which are confidential to the Government. One cannot breach confidentiality vis-à-vis the other Governments. If the report can be made available I will certainly do so. I will have that looked into.

Mr. Crowley

It is very heartening for us mere mortals to learn that there is something the Minister does not know.

Dr. FitzGerald

I thank the Deputy for the compliment.

Mr. Crowley

It is a compliment.

Dr. FitzGerald

Expressed with the Deputy's usual indirection.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is treating the Opposition in a somewhat different way from past Ministers.

Dr. FitzGerald

Let us be fair. Past Ministers varied. Some were worse than others, shall we say?

Mr. Crowley

The honeymoon is nearly over.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have not any direct information on the question of whether any of the teaching bodies were represented but, in so far as this is a working party, and those words normally imply Civil Service representation only, I think not. One can reasonably inquire whether the teaching bodies have been consulted about it or whether they are involved in any parallel consultations. This I do not know, but I will try to find out and I will inform the Deputy. I could not answer offhand, I am afraid.

The final point the Deputy raised was about fisheries. This comes up in a sense arising out of the amendment but, on the general question the Deputy raised, we have accepted membership—and the previous Government accepted it as he has said, and my party endorsed the decision— including the provisions in respect of fisheries, unsatisfactory though the previous Government and ourselves regarded them. We are not in a position to re-negotiate them at this stage. When the ten years are up and the question arises of changing the existing situation to one that could be even less satisfactory, we will see what can then be done.

In the strictest law we have not much room for manoeuvre but decisions of the Community are always taken on the basis of ensuring that no country's vital interests are adversely affected. It may well be— and I hope it will be the case—that we can ensure that continued protection of our fisheries on the question of access. There are other approaches to this. We must be concerned with questions of conservation of fish. Under that heading there are possibilities open to us of doing a certain amount, and this is something we will be looking at. I should not really be speaking about this at all in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that if I say anything wrong he will immediately interrupt me and put me right, and that he will not stand on ceremony.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister might encourage him to give us more salmon hatcheries in west Cork.

Dr. FitzGerald

At this stage there is no question of re-negotation. Having said that, I must add that the Danish Government asked the Council at the second last meeting to permit a study to be carried out of the special problems posed for coastal areas of the North Atlantic region which are dependent upon fish for their livelihood. As Deputies will appreciate, they were not thinking of the west of Ireland but rather of the Faroes in Greenland. In endorsing this proposal as something which seemed intrinsically worthwhile, I made the point that, of course, any such study must extend to Ireland and, above all, to the west coast of Ireland. That was accepted without demur by the other Ministers. As a result, I take it that that study will so be extended. It may well be that out of that study something useful may come even within the framework of the existing and ultimately proposed fishing policy. That is all I can say on that point at this stage.

I am very grateful to the House for this very constructive debate. The next report will be a better one, the better of this debate which has helped us. I hope that when Members see the next report they will feel that their efforts in raising these points have been worthwhile.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is to be complimented on the thorough reply he has given.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.