Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1973

Vol. 267 No. 9

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

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

There is, as already mentioned, also before the House an expediency motion to establish a Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I would propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission and with the agreement of the House that this motion should be discussed concurrently with the Second Stage of the Bill which is now being taken.

Since the debate on the European Communities Act, 1972, Deputies have been practically unanimous in emphasising the necessity of establishing a Parliamentary Committee to consider draft Community legislation. More recently, the desirability of such a committee having a function in relation to regulations made by Ministers here under the European Communities Act, 1972, was also underlined.

The expediency motion now before the House will establish a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas and give it authority to examine and report to the House of the Oireachtas at three different stages in the process of adoption of legislation by the Communities and of its implementation here. At the first stage, draft acts for adoption by the Council —that is, draft regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions—can be examined by the committee who can report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on what in its view the attitude to be adopted by Ireland in their regard should be.

At the second stage, the committee can examine the acts of the Council and of the Commission with a view to considering how best any obligations involved for Ireland might be implemented here. I might perhaps remark in this connection that the decision-making power of the Commission is narrower than that of the Council in the sense that it is confined in effect to day-to-day administration of matters in respect of which the broad policy guidelines have been decided by the Council.

The third stage at which the committee can intervene will be in relation to Ministerial regulations made here either under the European Communities Act, 1972, or under other statutes to implement our Community obligations.

These are the important functions of the Joint Committee. But, in connection with this third and last function of the committee it is proposed in the Amendment Bill that the committee should have power to recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that any national regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, be annulled and, if a resolution annulling a regulation is passed by both Houses, the regulation ceases to have statutory effect.

Thus the confirmatory provisions in section 4 of the European Communities Act, 1972, become superfluous and the Amendment Bill removes them putting in their place, as I said a moment ago, a procedure for annulment instead. Provision is also made in the Amendment Bill for the recall of the Dáil and/or the Seanad during adjournment on request of at least one-third of their Members in each case. Such a recall would not, of course, apply in relation to regulations in respect of which a resolution for annulment had been tabled and defeated in either House. Finally, and logically, it is provided that the new section should not apply either to regulation already confirmed in the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Act, 1973, or to regulations which have already lapsed before the Bill passes—but, of course, it does apply to regulations made since the passage of the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Act, 1973.

The Expediency Motion and the Bill together represent, I think, a complex of measures which allows the Houses of the Oireachtas to involve themselves fully in the formulation of Community policy and in its implementation here. As I have said elsewhere, the Secretariat of the committee will have the fullest co-operation of Government Departments in ensuring that the committee is informed of all relevant developments. Ministers will also be happy to appear before the committee at mutually convenient times to discuss with the committee matters arising directly from secondary legislation.

The setting up of a committee such as that proposed is an important new departure for the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government hope that its dual role will assist in increasing the effectiveness of the Irish input into the formulation of Community policy and in ensuring that the implementation of Community policy here is as appropriate as possible to Irish conditions. Both aspects of the committee's role can contribute to the greater involvement of the people in the evolution of European integration and thus to the creation of a European Union with which Irishmen in general can identify.

Deputies are aware of the interest the Government have shown in the whole question of improving the democratic process of the institutions of the European Communities. It is our view that there is a pressing need to ensure effective control, through the European Parliament of the evolving European Communities. This must be our primary objective—for nothing else will ensure the full operation of the democratic system in respect of Community matters.

The provisions of this Bill, introduced in response to legitimate concern expressed by Members of the Oireachtas, will not of itself provide an adequate answer to the problem. We should have no illusions on this score. This Bill merely ensures that our own national parliamentary institutions will be able to control the manner of implementation of Community directives, to the extent that these directives leave room for national variations in their application.

The real issue with which we must concern ourselves, however, is democratic control over the formulation of these directives themselves—and indeed of Community regulations and other decisions. The establishment of the new Committee of the two Houses, for which provision is made in the Expediency Motion before the House, will provide a channel through which the Oireachtas can advise the Government on the approach it would wish the Government to take towards the formulation of Community legislation in the Council of Ministers. But democratic control over the process of Community legislation can never be effective if it is confined to nine separate channels of national advice to nine Governments; it must also be brought to bear directly and in a unified way through a powerful European Parliament, its members elected direct by the peoples of the Communities.

This is the objective of our policy. It is the Government's view that the extension of the powers of the European Parliament, and its direct election, are necessary preconditions of the establishment of an Economic and Monetary Union and of a European Union as projected for the year 1980. For without real democratic control through a directly-elected Parliament, such a Union involving as it will a full integration of the economies of member countries would be quite unacceptable to our people, and we believe also to the other peoples of the Communities.

I see no conflict whatever between such a strengthening of the European Parliament and an expansion of our own Parliament's necessarily somewhat limited role in Community affairs: the two should and will complement each other. Both are democratically necessary. I hope that this debate will carry that message from this House to the country, and indeed from this State to the other member countries of the Communities.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Minister's statement emphasises two main points— the establishment of a committee and the power of a certain number of Members to recall either the Dáil or the Seanad during a period of recess. On both of these issues, I have no serious objection to the Minister's proposal. At this stage I want to say that I am rather taken by surprise myself in that our spokesman on Foreign Affairs is not available. I did not know until the House sat that he was not available. In the last few minutes I have decided on my attitude to the Minister's opening speech.

First of all, I take it that at this stage the composition of the committee is not in question apart from the fact that there will be the ten delegates to the European Parliament, together with 16 others, with certain proportions between the Seanad and the Dáil. Otherwise composition has not been decided on. Will the Minister confirm that?

Dr. FitzGerald

The Government have indicated their views on the composition.

Mr. J. Lynch

I welcome the idea of the setting-up of this Committee. It is obvious that with the volume of directives and regulations coming from Europe it would be impossible for the whole House, or for an individual Deputy, to examine these in a proper manner as they come. I hope it will be possible for the Committee when set up to examine these matters and to report as succinctly and as intelligently as possible to the House, so that we will be in a position to know exactly what is happening.

The second main point is the power of the joint committee to make recommendations for the annulment of regulations, or rather to recommend to the House resolutions annulling recommendations. That is fair enough, during the course of the sitting of either House. I am a little bit worried about section 1 (2) (a). I do not wish to read it out at the moment, but in the first place it seems to me, on first reading it, that a certain number of members of Dáil Éireann or of Seanad Éireann, in fact one-third, can request the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, as the case may be, to recall either House, but it does not specifically say that the purpose of that recall is related to these regulations. It reads as follows:

If when regulations under this Act are made, or at any time within one year thereafter and while the regulations have statutory effect, Dáil Éireann stands adjourned for a period of more than ten days and if, during the adjournment, at least one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann by notice in writing to the Ceann Comhairle require Dáil Éireann to be summonded...

It does not say that the summoning of Dáil Éireann is related specifically to the regulations. In effect, if regulations are made and if one-third of the Deputies get together and ask the Ceann Comhairle to summon Dáil Éireann, that one-third of the Members do not have to say to the Ceann Comhairle that they want to deal with these regulations. They can summon Dáil Éireann on almost any issue totally unconnected with regulations or directives of the Common Market. This is my opinion as a result of a quick reading of the clause. The Minister may be able to clarify that point. He may be able, by reference back to the 1972 Act, specifically to relate the power of summoning to regulations or directives coming from the Community.

I also want to make the point in relation to the number of Deputies or Senators who would have power to ask the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach to summon either House. It seems to me that it gives the Opposition for the time being a rather undue advantage. Again, specifically related to the fact that the purpose of the summoning is not specifically stated, one-third of the Opposition at any time could require the Ceann Comhairle to summon Dáil Éireann for any purpose. It suits us at the moment, but it gives an undue advantage to the existing Opposition in that one-third of their members could summon Dáil Éireann even for this specific purpose but, as it reads to me, for any purpose, as the Bill stands.

I suggest to the Minister that he should amend that figure to one-half of the Members. That would give the Government of the day reasonable assurance that the Dáil would not be summoned for less than serious matters. I should like the Minister, first of all, to correct me if I am wrong on the first point and also to deal with the second point which I think is a serious one because it would give the Opposition for the time being an undue advantage. If my interpretation of clause (2) (a) is correct the Dáil could be summoned for almost any purpose, unless the purpose is more specifically set out in this clause.

On the general issues, we had the welcome visit here, during the past week—and it is still continuing—of the President of the European Parliament, Mr. C. Berkhouwer. If he had any message for us it was the current ineptitude of the European Parliament in relation to the Council of Ministers and, secondly, the manner in which decisions are building up at Council of Ministers' level. He foresees that at the present rate of decision-making the whole machinery is likely to become bogged down.

I agree entirely with the Minister in his opening statement that in order to ensure that our concept of democracy will be carried into the European Communities the European Parliament will have to get more powers and ultimately will have to be elected on universal suffrage. In the meantime, now that the Minister himself is a member of the Council of Ministers, he will recognise that there is this build-up of decisions yet unmade, although they are important ones. Offhand, I do not know how increasing the power of Parliament would relieve the pressure on the Council of Ministers, but it is obvious that there could be some devolution of the power of the Council of Ministers to Parliament.

This would almost necessarily involve an amendment of the original Treaty of Rome, although it provides that the Parliament have certain powers and can exercise certain strictures over the Commission but they have no power whatever in relation to the Council of Ministers. It is rather too much on the pattern of the Council of Europe that the Council of Europe may make recommendations but that the Council of Ministers is omnipotent. They may or may not accept any regulations no matter on what point emanating from that assembly. It seems to me that there is a similar modus operandi imported into the European Communities. It is one that ought to be cured very quickly.

Other than these matters, I have no other points to make. I feel strongly about one-third of the Members of the Dáil having power to recall the Dáil. It is reasonable to assume that the Opposition at any time could summon one-third of the Dáil and so bring the Dáil back on any issue, as the Bill reads at present. Even if that is cured, it would be an undue advantage if they could require the Dáil to sit even on issues relating to directives and regulations coming from the European Communities.

Mr. E. Collins

I welcome the Bill and the motion before the House. I should like to make two brief comments. While welcoming the joint committee, I should like the Minister to elucidate what powers and privileges the committee and its members will enjoy. I hope this committee will exercise a powerful influence on the formulation of policy in relation to Europe and in relation to its examination of directives and regulations. For it to be powerful in a parliamentary sense it is important that the committee should have proper powers such as powers in relation to calling witnesses and calling for documents. It should have privileges analogous to the privileges which Members enjoy in this Chamber.

I should like the Minister to elucidate those points particularly in view of his experience on a recent Dáil committee of inquiry which inquired into the matter of the £100,000. I refer to the Committee of Public Accounts Special Inquiry into a grant in aid to relieve distress in Northern Ireland. That committee found it was not as powerful as I would think it was originally intended to be. This raises a valid point in relation to this joint committee and I should like the Minister to be a little more explicit on it.

The second point I want to put to the Minister concerns the Council of Europe. Is it intended at any stage to co-ordinate the involvement of Members of the Oireachtas in relation to development both in the EEC and the Council of Europe institutions? Recently, there was a wide-ranging debate in the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe on the very question of the future of the Council of Europe and its position vis-á-vis other European institutions. Looking to the future, I think there is a problem in regard to the desire for co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. I know this is slightly outside the scope of the Bill before the House but I am sure the Minister will say something on it.

Mr. Haughey

On a point of information, I received the Bill this morning and I have not had time to study it but I want to ask in regard to section 1 if the numbering is correct. Section 1 seems to me to be divided into subsection (1), subsection (2) and what would appear to be subsection (3) seems to be subsection (2) again. Perhaps there is something wrong.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I do not think so. Everything under the first two lines of section 1 is, in fact, in inverted commas. It is a quotation, so the (1) and (2) that you see on lines 9 and 22 are, in fact, within inverted commas and are part of subsection (1). I think it is corectly numbered.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I ask if the Deputy wishes to contribute at this stage?

Mr. Haughey

No. I have not had time to study the Bill as I only got it this morning.

Mr. J. Lynch

Like the rest of us.

Mr. McDonald

I wish to support this Bill and to compliment the Minister for bringing it in so soon in the light of the experience of the Irish members in the European Parliament and in the progress that has been made there to date. The importance of regulations or draft regulations cannot be over-emphasised and the vast number of regulations going through each year is very difficult to keep abreast of. I feel, however, that it is fortunate that the Treaty of Accession gives our Government authority to make or adapt some regulations so that the Community legislation will be enforced here to the advantage of our people and country. By regulations formed to meet the Irish situation and the Irish position we will be enabled to obtain the maximum benefit from the Community legislation as a whole.

A brief resumé of the modus operandi of the European Parliament will, perhaps, make it easier to follow what happens during the parliamentary sittings and the part it plays in the Community's decision-taking procedures. The European Parliament's main business is considering Community legislation proposed by the European Commission and of necessity these Bills are very often technical, as they are in national parliaments. The final decision on them rests with the Council in which the Community's legislative power is vested.

The European Parliament helps prepare Community legislation and the public discussion of proposals allows for a measure of democratic involvement in the Community's legislative work and provides a guarantee that it is brought to the notice of the public. Parliamentary procedure gives members abundant opportunity to intervene and this is very important for another aspect of parliamentary work, that is, policy control. It is the fact that members can intervene that enables Parliament to react directly to the latest developments in the Community, to call the Commission to account and to ask the Council for information.

The European Parliament's main business is considering the legislation and the parliamentary procedure gives members abundant opportunities to intervene. Members may, either individually or as members of groups, raise any point they think deserves the attention of parliament, the Commission or the Council. For this purpose the members may adopt any one of a number of lines. In the plenary sitting they can put oral questions, with or without debate, to the Commission or the Council. These questions require the approval of the bureau of the Parliament which has a very strong governing body. Motions tabled in Parliament are normally referred to the committee concerned except in the case of urgency.

Question time, which, unfortunately, is not as effective as Question Time in this House, takes place on the second or third day of each meeting where if a point is not dealt with in full a group of at least five Members of Parliament may ask for a debate to follow directly. That is technically described as a debate on request. Outside the plenary session it is possible for members to put written questions to the Commission or the Council and answers are published in the official journal of the Community. Oral or written motions are taken in the relevant committees of Parliament and if a member raises a point in committee the discussions may result in a decision by the committee concerned either to put an oral question, with or without debate, to the Commission or the Council or to submit a report on the matter to the plenary assembly.

It is very difficult for members to get acclimatised to this rather complicated procedure. The dual mandate of the Irish Members of the European Parliament is a heavy burden. I am glad that a joint committee is being set up and I am sure it will help to ease the burden of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who have the honour to represent Ireland in the European Parliament.

Irish Members have a difficult task. One does not have to be in the European Assembly for very long to appreciate that our facilities are not to be compared with the facilities offered to our European colleagues. Many of the European Parliaments provide members with a political aide or assistant. I know one member who asks many questions and who has made quite an impression in the European Parliament; he has two personal assistants, one is provided by Parliament and the other by a trust. It is difficult for Members of the Oireachtas to compete with people who have this dynamic background service. I hope the joint committee will be staffed by people of sufficient calibre so that they may help to make matters easier for the Irish members of the European Parliament. We must ensure that we have adequate senior staff to operate the workings of the committee.

Between now and the re-assembly of the Dáil the new members of the joint committee should attend the September Plenary Session in Luxembourg and also visit one or two of the working committees in Brussels. It is necessary that members of this committee should see the institutions of the European Parliament in working session. Finance must be provided to enable these people to understand the workings of the institutions of the Community. This matter is a complex one and is different from what is done in this country. In addition to attending at the sessions in Luxembourg and Brussels, the members of the committee should also arrange a tour of the Berlaymont Building which is the Commissioners building and also the building of the Council of Ministers because, unless one visits these places and attends at meetings, it is difficult to understand the rather peculiar way they do things in these countries.

In the six months we have been members of this greater Europe, our country has made quite an impression. I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the Irish Commissioner. He has the difficult task of setting up the Social Affairs Commission; this has not attracted tremendous publicity but by his dedication and the excellent work done by his cabinet, the commissioner and his colleagues have made quite an impact on the Community and have earned the respect of those people with whom they have been in contact. Our commissioner has one of the more difficult tasks to perform; it has not been said here and I should like to take this opportunity of referring to it now.

It has been said to me in the past few weeks by nationals who are living and working in Europe that one feels proud to be Irish. Perhaps it is not the correct thing to do in his presence, but I should like to compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has done a tremendous job for our country. Some weeks ago there was a leading article in Le Monde to the effect that this small, insignificant country is providing the Council with a world statesman. This is generally accepted in Europe and I wish the Minister continued success in his efforts.

Mr. Haughey

Well done.

Mr. McDonald

In the last six months I have had the pleasure of serving in the European Parliament with my distinguished colleagues. Michael Hilliard has had a distinguished career in Irish politics and I should like to pay tribute to the work done by him and Sir Anthony Esmonde in the last six months. They have introduced the less experienced members to this new kind of political life and but for them we would not have had the opportunity of being introduced to people who have made European political history in the last ten or 20 years. Their contributions have been noticed and have been commented on.

There are many small matters that make it difficult for the Irish members to get to and from the Continent. In the last few months there has been a certain amount of carping about executive jets. Nevertheless, we must face the reality that the dual role of being a Member of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament is extremely difficult. It takes the Irish Members almost 12 hours to get to Strasbourg or Luxembourg and this creates difficulties. That is bad enough, but when one has to wait 30 or 40 minutes in a queue to get out of the car park at Dublin Airport one is not altogether awed with the efficiency and services of Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus who are paid to transport us. The Irish members were told they would probably have to spend a week per month on the continent but it has not worked out that way. Most of us have made more than 20 trips to Europe in the past few months; this is greatly in excess of what we were led to believe and it is difficult to sustain this pace. I should like to see everything possible done to make the journey to and from Europe easier and less tiring.

We need a telex service in Leinster House. It is not good enough for members of the European Parliament to be cut off as we do not have daily papers when we are abroad and it is difficult to keep in touch with events at home. Small things like this mean a tremendous lot to members. I am speaking of the ten Irish representatives. I do not profess to speak for them, but our problems are the same. Some effort should be made to provide these facilities so that we could more easily keep in touch with what is happening back home.

Irish industry in general has not "copped" on to the fact that many regulations affecting their products and their profits are being made in Europe, and that an opportunity is given to the members of the European Parliament to comment on these things and to amend the regulations governing them. Only two Irish industries have contacted me about problems coming before the Parliament. This is a pity. Perhaps the others do not realise that we have this opportunity. A huge publicity operation is necessary to alert industry to that fact. It would be very helpful to the Irish delegates if we had memoranda on these matters so that we would know exactly what suits Irish industry and Irish companies.

The same applies to the semi-State organisations. Many Bills and regulations have gone through dealing with sugar but I have had no memorandum from the Irish Sugar Company, which is a semi-State organisation. We have had regulations dealing with duty free shops at airports and air control, and yet we had no memorandum of any description from Aer Rianta or Aer Lingus. The list is never-ending. There are 3,000 or 4,000 regulations affecting every facet of our life going through each year. If we are to be in a position to do the maximum amount of good for our country, and the people whom it is our honour and privilege to represent, we must have the back-up support so that we can speak with authority and fight for amendments to regulations to provide the maximum advantage for our people.

Over the period when we were initiated into Europe the tremendous help given by the personnel of our mission to delegates in helping us to settle in and in explaining the various procedures, has been of great value to us and is deeply appreciated by the ten delegates. I hope the Dáil will pass this Bill. I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing it in so quickly. It will be very difficult to find the ten Members of the European Parliament here on any one day during the session and, therefore, it is necessary to have a wider committee. I should like to see the committee broken down into sub-committees. This would make it easier to handle the regulations and we could have more expertise brought to bear on these problems.

Mr. Cunningham

It is important that Dáil and Seanad Éireann should be well informed of the EEC activities. Every Member of both Houses should be well briefed. For that reason this committee will be of great importance. I should like to make a few suggestions in regard to the operation of this committee, not alone its operation in respect of directives and regulations which we can alter in the European Parliament but also other directives and regulations which we cannot influence. As the last speaker said, all the directives and regulations made in Europe affect our industry, our economy generally, and the agricultural industry.

It is not satisfactory that we, as Members of Dáil Éireann, should try to elicit information on specific directives or regulations by way of question and reply in this House. Having regard to the amount of work ordinary Deputies have to do and the amount of time they have to spend on other matters, this is sometimes the only way they can get quick, short, concise information on these directives. I suggest that when the committee is set up we should have an information bureau from which we could find out the gist of a directive, what it intends to do, what it purports to do, and what, in fact, it will do. Any interested Deputy whose constituents may be affected, or any Deputy who has a wider interest than his constituency alone, should be able to get the full momorandum on that directive and study its implications.

I am not suggesting that Deputies should be taken by the hand and told what each directive or regulation means, but I am suggesting that, in general, all these regulations and directives should be spelled out concisely in brochure form which will make it clear to each one of us what the directive is, what it seeks to do, and so on, and even that it exists. Our major problem is that we are not au fait with all the directives and regulations. For instance, how many Deputies know that by 1st September a directive will bring into operation assistance to the less-favoured farming areas? I tried to get some information on this by way of question. I did not succeed. I am interested. On 1st September this year, two months' hence, benefits of various kinds will be available to certain areas known as the less-favoured areas. I have no way of finding out what is happening. Have the Government put forward proposals for these areas? What are the proposals? What areas do they affect? What influence can I, as an ordinary Deputy, have on the Government in listing the proposals?

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. Doubtless what he is commenting upon is of great interest, but it could hardly be related to the subject matter we are discussing: the setting-up of a joint committee, and the reviewing of regulations.

Mr. Cunningham

I am giving this as an example of how very necessary such a committee is.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair appreciates the importance of the matter.

Mr. Cunningham

I am suggesting that something should be done to take Deputies like myself out of the predicament that I find myself in in regard to only one directive of the EEC which is in the offing. There is information which I could not and cannot get on one proposed directive. I hope the committee will be able to follow up that sort of thing.

In regard to the Social Fund I give one example of what I suggest the committee should be able to do. I suggest that even before directives and regulations are made, the committee should issue information so that Members of this House who may not be on the committee would have some access to a pool of information and can know what suggestions are being made in preparation for and anticipation of a directive of the European Parliament.

I understand that the Government, State agencies and private companies have put forward suggestions for aid under the Social Fund. How am I as an ordinary Deputy to find out what these suggestions are, what proposals for aid have been put forward? How can I object to them or seek to have additions made?

These are two examples of the many problems facing the ordinary Member of the House. For that reason I welcome the proposal contained in the Bill. I hope it will go some of the way. It would not be possible at any stage for every Deputy and every Government in every member State of the EEC to be fully up-to-date and "with it" as far as all the operations of the European Parliament are concerned. I am not asking for this. I am asking for what I think we should have and that I think we can have in a reasonable form, namely, advice from a committee which, as Deputy McDonald has said, should have reasonable staffing so that it could look after the working of the committee but, over and above that, would be able to assist ordinary Members of both Houses who may wish to have access to the information they require in the everyday work of Parliament.

Mr. Crowley

Like the other speakers, I welcome this Bill in the main and, certainly, I welcome the spirit of the Bill. It is very important to ensure that our national or parliamentary institutions will have some say and control over the implementation of Community directives, especially as they affect this country. It is also important that the representatives of this Parliament going to the European Parliament should speak in unison about such directives or about any legislation that comes before that Parliament.

As you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we are a member of three different groups in the European Parliament. This committee will ensure that at least we have harmonisation of thinking and of action in that European Parliament regardless of what political group our representatives may belong to. It is important that this joint committee would have available to it the expert personnel that would be needed to interpret legislation and to prepare briefs for all the Members in the European Parliament. Our Members have been to some extent the poor relations of the other Members. It is a sad state of affairs that we in Parliament should let our Members go out so ill-prepared.

A tremendous amount of the legislation in the European Parliament is of a highly technical nature and unless one is a specialist one very often finds it practically impossible to interpret the ramifications of certain lines or paragraphs or, indeed, pages of the various Bills that may be going through the European Parliament. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the Minister should make available to this committee a reservoir of technical men who can advise our Members.

In addition, extensive minutes of these meetings should be available to the Members of both Houses because, naturally, the questions that will be raised at the meetings will affect us all and there might be questions that some of us who are not at these meetings would like to raise but would have no opportunity of doing so unless we were to get exact and comprehensive minutes of the proceedings of the committee.

It is rather ironic that we had Deputy McDonald, if not saying so in words, at least implying the loss of the executive jet. I agree with him.

Mr. McDonald

No. The executive jet was only going to carry eight. There are ten of us.

Mr. Haughey

You could always cadge a lift from the British Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Crowley

It was unfortunate that during the election campaign we made a political issue of this proposal. The Deputy did admit that he did not realise that he would have to go so many times to Europe and the number of times will increase as we become more involved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill does not deal with that matter.

Mr. Crowley

It has to do with the back-up necessary for our parliamentarians in Europe. I only refer to it in passing as Deputy McDonald referred to it. Nevertheless, there should be absolutely no impediment in the way of our representatives going to Europe comprehensively briefed and having available to them all the expert knowledge that even is available to the Minister.

I realise that in a Bill such as this, which is a new departure, inevitably some mistakes will be made. The Bill will probably not find its true level for some time until we have ironed out all the flaws that may be in it. Nevertheless, the Bill is a tremendously important step by this Parliament. It is vital that every Member of the House should give the spirit of the Bill wholehearted support because there is a pressing need to ensure that this House to some extent has effective control through the European Parliament of the evolving legislation and directives that may be coming through. Very often when they arrive here and possibly are passed by this House we have, in the main, only a very vague knowledge of the implications of these directives. This committee will, to a certain extent, ensure that nobody can say that he did not know what the implications of pieces of legislation were. I commend the Minister for bringing in this Bill. It is important that we have this back-up service for our parliamentarians and that our men can speak with knowledge and, indeed, with the certainly that they represent the views of this House because of the establishment of a committee such as this.

Mr. Callanan

I wish to compliment the Minister on this Bill. Everybody should know by now that our way of life from now on will be directed from Brussels to a large extent. I was astonished to hear from Deputy McDonald about the very poor communication there is between here and Brussels. Even during the campaign for entry to the EEC I said there was no use talking about what type of EEC you had, that it was what type of EEC you were going to have that mattered. With nine countries in the EEC now, as compared with six before, the whole policy of the EEC will change drastically in the next few years. We must have the best brains and the best methods of communication between this House and Brussels. We, even as a small nation, should be able to play a major part in changing the structure of the EEC.

It was also astonishing to hear Deputy McDonald saying that he was not sufficiently briefed on what was suitable to Irish industry. I am very interested in wool. I heard recently of people who went to France and they did not even know that we produced wool. We must have a back-up service behind our attaches, too, to sell Ireland abroad. We are treating our entry to the EEC much too lightly. We went in for benefits. If we do not send the best brains to Europe and if we do not have a back-up of expert advice behind those people, we cannot play our part in Europe or reap the benefits.

Deputy Cunningham mentioned many things that I would have liked to mention. I am very interested in what is to come from the Regional Development Fund. I tabled a question the other day and I was astonished to hear that drainage is not covered. This may not be relevant but I welcome this Bill because we want to know more about what is happening in Europe. I found that no money was to come to the Land Commission. This affects my area. I heard that the only things that were covered were industry and making farms viable. I do not know whether this is true or not but we just do not know enough about it.

I would like to see a situation in which, if the European Parliament were in session and if the Dáil were in session, our Members over there would know exactly what happened here the day before and we would know, and have a brief discussion here if necessary, if there were any changes made at the EEC which would affect this country. Deputies here just do not know what is going on in Europe. This Bill will do a good deal to provide the type of service which we want. Deputy McDonald, in a very fine contribution, let us know a little about our shortcomings in regard to Europe. As Deputy Cunningham said, we will have certain directives in September which will play a vital part in deciding whether a big area in my part of the country will survive or not and I know very little about them. I would like to know a little more. I hope more news will be given to this House about what is happening in Europe and that our people over there will know quickly what is happening here. More of what is happening in the European Parliament should be debated here because it is of such vital importance to this country.

Mr. Nolan

The most important statement in the Minister's brief is:

As I have said elsewhere, the secretariat of the committee will have the fullest co-operation of Government Departments in ensuring that the committee is informed of all relevant developments.

I have no doubt that the secretariat will be bombarded with questions from Deputies. The Community, as distinct from the Council of Europe, the UN or any other international body, affects the lives of every man, woman and child in the country. Therefore, the secretariat will be most important. At the moment one can get a lot of documentation in the Library but I hope the headquarters of the secretariat will be in the House, as is the secretariat of the Committee of Public Accounts, so that Deputies, can go to members of the committee and get information. As Deputy Callanan said, Deputies, Senators and others are not familiar with the directives. I, as a parliamentarian, and Deputy Herbert and Deputy McDonald, can assure the House that we get volumes of stuff that we have not got the time even to read if we are to look after our constituencies and do other work. We want a secretariat that will give us a concise brief of what is going on. There is a weekly leaflet from the Confederation of Irish Industries issued each week which gives a synopsis of directives and decisions taken in the Community. This is an excellent document.

The Council of Ministers is the decision-making body. The European Parliament is still a consultative assembly. The Ministers are based in nine different states and have the problems of all matters connected with foreign affairs. How can they deal with the Community as well which would be almost a fulltime job for a Minister? The Minister for Foreign Affairs will have to go to the United Nations in September and spend a certain amount of time there. He will agree with me that at the moment on his desk in Brussels there are probably 300 to 400 resolutions or matters awaiting decision. I do not know how this will be resolved, whether the Government will decide to appoint a European Minister or whether the Minister will have a Parliamentary Secretary who will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs while the Minister becomes Minister for Europe.

Because it deals with the economy and the life of the people the EEC means more than any other organisation. I have been a member of the Council of Europe. To the ordinary people the Council of Europe did not mean as much as the Community does. They passed certain resolutions dealing with international travel, with transport, with matters that were not real bread and butter issues such as have to be dealt with now by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I welcome this Bill. I welcome the part where the Minister refers to direct elections. At the last summit that was held, as far as I am aware, the heads of Government were unanimous in their decision to give the European Parliament the power they need instead of, as at present, where they are all elected to their own parliaments, but then they are selected to serve in the European Parliament. They will get certain budgetary powers in 1975, but if the Parliament of Europe is to be a decision-making Parliament with legislative powers, then the members of that Parliament must be elected directly.

Mr. Herbert

Unfortunately, I was not here this morning for the Minister's speech, and it is a pity the Bill was circulated only this morning; in other words, we were unaware of this very important subject we are discussing. However, I welcome the committee and the fact that they will examine draft reports. One of the most important drafts to be sent out by the Commission, especially in relation to this country, was the draft report on the guidelines for regional policy. This was sent to the Council of Ministers in May this year. It was returned to the Parliament to express an opinion. A very fine report was presented by the rapporteur, Mary Delmotte of Belgium, and this very important document was discussed at length at the last plenary session in the presence of the Regional Commissioner, Mr. George Thompson. This very comprehensive and detailed report was lauded by Mr. Thompson. However, while I understand that the guidelines in this draft report were discussed in the Bundestag, in the House of Commons, and in almost every parliament in Europe, they were not discussed at all here. I am the only member of the Irish delegation on that committee. I had to do my own research, get opinions here and there from industry and from educational authorities, because it also embraces education. This was the great defect, and I welcome the fact that this is being corrected.

I understand that my colleague, Deputy McDonald, spoke about the lack of briefing. This is an enormous disadvantage for us. We have been living out there in a vacuum since last January. Our friends in the Irish mission in Brussels were very cooperative and gave every possible assistance, but this is not the type of service we are looking for. We want a service that will give us a comprehensive and detailed knowledge of any subject in which we are interested. We are interested in very narrow fields of the European Parliament's activities. I myself am interested in regional policy and transport. I specialise in this field as my colleagues specialise in their particular fields. A briefing service is of vital importance.

My colleague, Deputy Tom Nolan, spoke about direct elections. I am all for direct elections, but I realise they are a long way off. I also realise that while the European Parliament is the least powerful of the four institutions it is by far the most important. One has to democracise the entire concept; otherwise we shall become bogged down in bureaucracy. The only way to democratise the concept is through the European Parliament. Our powers must be strengthened. We should have the power of initiation in certain fields. The budgetary powers are to be increased by 1975, and that brings me to another point.

The Members of the European Parliament should receive every protection from their national government. It was suggested in a jocose way the other night that they should have the privilege of automatic reelection to the national parliament, but it should be appreciated that European parliamentarians make a huge sacrifice in trying to exercise dual membership. The ten members of the European Parliament should be able to nominate a secretary to look after constituency work, and the State should pay for it. When I say "a secretary" I mean a person who would do all the things we would normally do when we are at home, give our constituents our personal attention, deal with correspondence, perform all the day-to-day duties of a Deputy. This would necessitate the appointment of a secretary of high calibre at a good salary.

If the Government do not help to diminish the degree of political hazard entailed in trying to exercise a dual mandate, then many of us will have second thoughts. None of us wants to commit political hari-kari. We might return back to our people, and it might be difficult to get replacements. I do not know whether my colleague, Deputy McDonald, spoke about the jet.

Mr. Crowley

En passant.

Mr. Herbert

I think it was a very foolish decision on the part of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, who are two committed Europeans. Every thirdclass American company have got——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out to a previous speaker that this would be elaborating on the Bill, which is a very limited Bill.

Mr. Herbert

It is of vital importance to this country that members of the Civil Service, the Ministers and members of the European Parliament should be able to travel from the national capital to the various points in Europe where the Community institutions are meeting, such as Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg or elsewhere. A discussion on the jet is very important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair thinks that some other vehicle will have to be found——

Mr. Haughey

Deputy McDonald was permitted to talk about telex machines.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The occupant of the Chair at the present time feels that there is danger of going beyond the scope of the Bill which is before the House.

Mr. Haughey

Let us have that ruling universally. Deputy McDonald spoke about telex machines—and I think quite rightly so—and about facilities of that nature.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill is concerned with the setting-up of a committee.

Mr. Herbert

I think I have made my point about the foolishness of the Government on insisting on scrapping this jet. Perhaps they will regret that before too long. I should refer now to the latest happening in the European Parliament. This is the advent of the new philosophy in the European Parliament. I am a member of Fianna Fáil. I am very proud and privileged to belong to the latest alignment in the European scene, the European Progressive Democrats. We have been very much-maligned in recent weeks. The other night, on a very solemn occasion, the Minister saw fit to make a caustic reference to this new party. I am very proud to belong to that new party. We will transcend many boundaries. At the moment we embrace two countries but, as time goes by, we will spread out into the other member states. I welcome the new Committee.

Mr. Haughey

I would like the Minister to clear up something for me. The main purpose of this Bill is to substitute or to put into the original 1972 Act a new subsection (4), which is comprised in lines 10 to 45 on page 2 of this Bill. Is that correct?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

Subsection (3) is, in fact, subsection (2) of this Bill, not of the original one?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

Following on that, I take it that the purpose is that all the regulations which were confirmed by the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Act, 1973, are now, as it were, firmly established and will not come within it and cannot be dealt with by the new committee in so far as referring them to this House at the moment is concerned? That Act confirmed about 19 regulations which were made under the original Communities Bill. They are sacrosanct, as it were, and cannot be referred by this new committee to the House for annulment.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

They could be discussed by the new committee and examined, presumably, but without the follow-up of referring them to this House for annulment. It is not a very vital point. There is another matter which I wanted to raise. The European Communities Act, 1972, will now have included in it, by virtue of this Bill, a new section 4. Would that not, in itself, have been sufficient to deal with regulations made under the 1972 Act but not yet confirmed? Are the opening lines of subsection (2) of section 1 of this Bill really necessary? Would the insertion of the new amended section 4 into the original Act not have been sufficient?

There is one final point. The old procedure of having a Confirmation Bill drawn up and introduced in the House at least listed and brought to our immediate attention the regulations made at a certain period. They were compiled for us and brought to our attention in a very specific and direct way. The new committee will be going through all these various regulations and examining them, but there will be many Members of this House who will not be on that committee. Would the Minister consider substituting some new process whereby these regulations will be brought to the general attention of the House in the same way as they were when they had to be included in a list in the confirmation legislation?

Dr. FitzGerald

I must apologise to the House for the fact that the Bill was not before them until today. This was connected with the wording of the motion. Various problems arose about it which were not settled finally until yesterday. In retrospect, it seems that we probably could have published the Bill before finalising the motion but that was not clear to us at the time. That is why the Bill was not published until today.

The House has resolved the problem by absorbing the Bill rapidly and Deputies have raised important points in connection with the Bill. The points raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the power to summon the Dáil or the Seanad by one-third of the Members is the point which I wish to deal with first. It is rather curious that we in Government should seek to give power to the Opposition and that the Leader of the Opposition should be seeking to hand it back to us.

Mr. Crowley

We expect to be in power again very soon.

Dr. FitzGerald

One wonders whether there is not in this a hangover of Government-mindedness in the Opposition and a hangover of Opposition-mindedness in the Government after the long frustration of the Opposition when every attempt which we made to secure a more democratic system of working the Parliament was frustrated by the Government in power. We retain that conviction and we are giving expression to it. We are not going to become overnight suddenly an establishment which forgets all we have learned on parliamentary reform. In Government we will introduce reform.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That was already introduced in the 1972 Act.

Dr. FitzGerald

On the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition what was puzzling was that, as Deputy J. Gibbons so appropriately said, the section which he objected to was in the Act introduced by his Government. This provision about the power of one third to recall is in the original Act. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition should feel it was all right to trust Fine Gael and Labour with this power but as soon as Fianna Fáil get into Opposition the power must be removed. I think, in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, he did not have an opportunity to study this Bill because of the short notice. Indeed, as he told the House, he was standing in for Deputy O'Kennedy.

Mr. Haughey

May I interrupt the Minister? Last night he was slightly critical of the Opposition party and the fact that we were all in attendance for a piece of legislation dealing with Oireachtas salaries. He said he hoped we would continue this attendance. I just want to point out that at the present moment there are quite a few Opposition members present and only one Government member and it would be as well if we had a quorum to hear the Minister.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is very courteous of the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey

That is a fairly consistent pattern with this Government.

Ruairí Brugha

That is correct.

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

Ruairí Brugha

May I bring up a point of information in relation to what Deputy Lynch said? He was talking about giving this power to one third of either House without specifying for what. He mentioned there was no reference in the Bill to the fact that it might be in relation to the European regulations.

Dr. FitzGerald

This is the point. When Deputy Haughey called for a quorum, I was just trying to deal with this point and to say that in the original Bill there is the same lack of any specific limitation. The only change in wording is a technical one related to the fact that the original legislation involved confirmation in six months. This is open-ended and in order to close the open endedness there is a one year time limit. Apart from that technical change the wording of what is here is identical with the wording in the original Bill. It seemed appropriate to the previous Government—we welcomed it at the time—that there should be this power and it was not found necessary or, perhaps, possible to limit the power specifically in so many words to recall the Dáil to deal with the particular regulations. I am not clear how, in fact, that can be done.

The fact is that the power to recall the Dáil is something which I think has to be technically left open-ended but when the Dáil is recalled, unless there is a Private Member's motion of some kind put down by the Opposition on the particular regulation it is a matter for the Government to decide what public business is to be discussed.

Ruairí Brugha

I do not want to harass the Minister but there have been occasions over the years when the Opposition asked to have the Dáil recalled for other reasons. I think what Deputy Lynch was referring to was that the Bill did not state for what reason it could be recalled.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is what I was going to deal with. The fact is if you are going to allow the Opposition to recall the Dáil the control of what the Dáil discusses when it has been recalled is something which will rest with the House. As regards Private Members' Time the Opposition can put down a motion but as far as Government business is concerned the Taoiseach decides that. If the Dáil resumes, the Taoiseach can simply say there is no business, that it was a frivolous recall and the Dáil adjourns.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister said the wording is exactly the same. Surely the difference is between the Dáil and the Seanad. The original section 4 of the 1972 Act dealt only with the Dáil.

Dr. FitzGerald

I know but the principle of recall of a House of the Oireachtas by one-third without the limitation of a subject matter was clearly established by the previous administration. Of course, we are bringing the Seanad in now because the new system involves the Seanad. That is new though not so much a matter for us to debate as for the Seanad to debate.

Mr. Haughey

My only point was that inadvertently the Minister said the words were exactly the same as in the original section, whereas he now says he is bringing in the Seanad as well as the Dáil.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry. The wording in the original legislation relating to the Dáil is identical with the wording here relating to the Dáil except for the technical change I mentioned. There is, of course, the additional provision now relating to the Seanad. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The position is that the previous Government, rightly I think, decided they would take the risk of a frivolous recall of the Dáil by the Opposition, that they could rely on the Opposition not acting in that way. We feel the same way. I am quite happy to accept that Deputy Lynch will not recall the Dáil on something frivolous or attempt to pretend to use some ministerial regulation arising from the EEC as an excuse to recall the Dáil with a view to discussing something else. I do not expect the Leader of any Opposition in the House to behave in that way and were it attempted the Taoiseach would simply say that there was no business and the Dáil would adjourn. I do not think there is a problem here.

I do not think there is anything we have to worry about. It seems to us it is right that if you are going to have parliamentary control and if it is going to be possible for the Dáil and Seanad to challenge regulations, and as these regulations can have immediate significant effect on economic and other interests in this country, the power must be one that could be exercised even if Dáil and Seanad are in recess. You should not have a situation in which the Dáil and Seanad are frustrated. If there is a matter which the committee feel should be raised and which one third of the Members feel should be raised you should not have a situation in which it is not possible for the Dáil or Seanad to meet. Despite what Deputy Lynch has said, I would stand on the provisions here as they introduce no new principle as far as this House is concerned and merely extend to the Seanad the provisions made in respect of the Dáil in the original legislation. So much for that point.

Deputy Haughey raised a point earlier on about the numbering of the sections of the Bill. I think what misled him is that alignment of the figures in brackets on the first page of the Bill is misplaced. Subsection (2) (a), which is within the quotation marks, is aligned with subsection (1) of the Bill itself. It should be aligned with subsection (1) within the quotation marks. That is something which, I think, can be corrected in the printing. Indeed, when I glanced at it when the Deputy raised the point, I had the same difficulty in reading it. I think he was quite right to draw attention to that fact.

He also asked if there would be power for the committee to discuss old regulations, even those which are now, in fact, law. As I understand the terms of reference of the committee, any regulations of the EEC can be discussed. I do not think there is any difficulty about that although, of course, they cannot be challenged by way of the procedure here because they have already been confirmed. The purpose of subsection (2) of the Bill is to ensure that where the confirmatory procedure has gone through, as we went through it a short time ago, in respect of a certain body of regulations they stand. We are now introducing a new procedure for regulations not already confirmed by the Houses of the Oireachtas so subsection (2) of the Bill is necessary for that purpose as I understand it.

Deputy Haughey also pointed out that there would be no listing of regulations if we changed the procedure as we are now proposing to do. This is true so far as a Bill is concerned but we have and we intend to retain the system of twice yearly reports on the EEC, on how the legislation of the EEC is evolving and how it affects this country. Within that twice yearly report we propose to list ministerial regulations made here, so that they are in handy form and are available just as frequently as previously but in this format rather than in the form of a Bill. I think that problem can be solved in that way.

Mr. Crowley

Does the Minister think it adequate to report twice a year?

Dr. FitzGerald

We have had no request for anything more frequent than that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Requests have been made for more frequent reports.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry, I am at fault in that case. I think there may be some confusion here. I do not think we have been asked to produce a printed report more frequently than twice yearly—although I am open to correction on this point. Members of both Houses are anxious to hear more frequently about issues that arise with regard to EEC membership and on this I have an open mind. Without tying the hands of the Government or the House in a particular way, the position should be open for Ministers to make reports at various points when major issues arise and they should find an opportunity for discussion in the House without waiting for six months when the issue may be a dead one. On this point the Government are sympathetic.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is aware of the tremendous number of new directives that have been issued.

Dr. FitzGerald

We must get some order into this. When we come to the actual legislation of the Community, that is best handled in the first instance through the committee which can report to the House. When we come to major policy issues coming up for consideration, this House should be able to advert to them at an appropriate stage and to give its views. That point has been mentioned here already.

Mr. Wilson

What do the words "draft decision" actually mean?

Dr. FitzGerald

I think what the Deputy is referring to is that various forms of legislation of the Community, whether decisions, recommendations, regulations or directives, are prepared in draft in the first instance by the Commission and they are processed before being adopted. I want to distinguish between the actual draft legislation, which is probably best processed through the committee and brought before this House when the committee consider it necessary and, on the other hand, major policy areas such as the Regional Fund which is under discussion at the moment. The question has been properly raised in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition of the inadequacy of the decision-making procedures of the Community. Matters such as this, and also the GATT mandate and the United States approach to the European countries, are matters that could be discussed in this House, and the Government are open to discussion on how this could best be done. It would be a mistake to close this off and to say we cannot discuss these matters for six months until the problem is settled—and perhaps settled in a manner of which the House would not approve.

Mr. Haughey

I am concerned with regulations of this House which were formerly listed in a Confirmation Bill in a convenient form.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have dealt with that point. I have suggested that they be listed in the printed report issued every six months which is given to this House. This listing will be in handy form and will be issued as frequently as obtained under the other procedure.

Mr. Haughey

In other words, any regulations of this House which up to now had to be confirmed but which no longer will have to be specifically confirmed will be so listed in the report?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, I am sorry I did not make that clear. I tried to deal with that before discussing the more general question of the right of the House to discuss major issues. We will need to make a distinction between the work of the committee at legislative level and the right of this House to discuss major policy issues. The Government will be open to ideas on how this can best be done. Without clogging up the business of the House we should have such discussions from time to time.

A number of points were raised about the committee as well as more general points and I should like to deal first with those which relate to the committee and their work. Deputy Collins raised a question regarding the powers of the committee. The committee will not have the kind of power of the Public Accounts Committee or the kind of power that committee thought they had. I do not think it would be appropriate to this committee. The committee is not a committee such as the Public Accounts Committee which is designed to pursue to an ultimate conclusion exactly what happens to funds dispensed under the authority of the Government and the House. This was the view of the previous Government put to us in Opposition and they persuaded us at that time that there was merit in it.

This committee should work more informally, and should have a secretariat which should have the co-operation of the Government Departments. The secretariat should be able to furnish to the committee any information needed. We thought, as did the previous Government, that the committees should not have power to call for papers or persons. So far as papers are concerned, some of them necessarily would be confidential negotiating documents which it would not be appropriate to have published at a particular time. So far as persons are concerned, the work of the various Departments, some of them under great pressure, could be disrupted if the committee had power to call on one or all of them at any time. Moreover, from the committee's point of view, it seems better that the committee should have their own secretariat working for them rather than being dependent on civil servants being called before them to give evidence and who would primarily be concerned with their allegiance to their own Minister. The system under which the committee would have their secretariat which would have the co-operation of Government Departments is more effective. If at any stage there was a feeling on the part of the committee that they were not getting that co-operation, the matter could be looked at again. I can assure the House it is the intention of the Government to extend the fullest co-operation.

Mr. Crowley

Can the Minister state the composition of the secretariat?

Dr. FitzGerald

Frankly, that is a matter I think the committee should take up, probably through the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, with the Minister for Finance. It is not within my competence. My view, and I think the view of the Government also, is that any reasonable proposals will be sympathetically considered by the Government but I do not think I should lay that down in detail. I am expressing a personal view about a matter that is not in my area of competence, that the secretariat could usefully be linked with those people who will be assisting the delegations to the European Parliament. What I personally have in mind would be a secretariat which would include officers whose job it is to service the committee and to service and assist the delegations to the European Parliament. As a minimum, it is my view that each delegation should have at least one person to help them. It is right that the Opposition delegation should have someone directly available to them to assist them. However, it is a matter for the committee and for the European Parliament delegation, severally or jointly, to make representations as to what they consider they need in the matter of assistance. Probably the right thing for them to do would be to start in a very modest way and if they find they have not enough help they could go back to the Minister for Finance who, I am sure, will be sympathetic on this point.

Mr. Crowley

Would the secretariat have the right of access to Government Departments?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, I have emphasised this. They would have the co-operation and assistance of Government Departments to ensure that the committee and the delegations to the European Parliament are fully informed. As I said in my opening speech, Ministers will be prepared to appear before the committee to discuss secondary legislation if the committee so wish. This could be done at a mutually convenient time; we do not need a formal procedure for summoning Ministers. They would be willing to appear as and when this is thought desirable.

In this way we have provided a framework and a basis for the work of the committee. What we should do is to proceed with it. In introducing this legislation and the motion today, I am doing so because of my anxiety to ensure that the various processes will be put through in time for the committee to be established before the Dáil adjourns for the summer recess so that the committee will be able to meet during that period. The committee will need to formulate staff requirements and they will need to discuss how best they can work so that when the new session starts not only in this House but in Strasbourg and Luxembourg a nucleus of staff be there to assist them. In this connection, perhaps I should explain to the House that, in addition to the expediency motions being brought forward in this House today and in the Seanad next week, when they have been passed in both Houses there will have to be motions nominating members of the committee. That will be discussed by the Whips.

The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of whether the composition of the committee was involved today. It is not so involved. The position is that there will be the ten members of the European Parliament plus 16 others. The ten are fixed by prior agreement and the breakdown of the 16 is for discussion.

Mr. Crowley

Surely it will be in the same ratio as in the European Parliament.

Dr. FitzGerald

The view of the Government is that the composition should reflect the composition of the two Houses.

Mr. Wilson

Of the two Houses?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, the two Houses are on it. The representation of the Parties and Independents should be in that ratio. The Government, being anxious to give the fullest facilities to the Opposition, are willing to concede one of their number to which they are proportionately entitled, to bring up the Opposition strength. This would involve that, instead of the Opposition having six of the 16, they would have seven of the 16, reducing the Government's representation proportionately by one. The composition then would be seven from the Opposition party, one Independent and eight Members of the Government, of whom I believe six would be Fine Gael and two Labour. That is proportionate to the membership of the two Houses, with a shift of one actually from Fine Gael to Fianna Fáil.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is a new departure.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is a new departure to give more than proportional representation, I suppose.

Mr. J. Gibbons

On the contrary.

Dr. FitzGerald

In the case of the European Parliament delegation, the figures were worked out as near as you can get with ten to proportionality. Again the Opposition have a little more than their share, but the rounding up process has to take place, and fractions of Deputies are hard to find. I am merely stating what the Government's view is. I am not certain that the discussions have been concluded on this matter, but the Government are prepared to concede one of their proportionate membership for this purpose.

There are a number of other points about the committee with which I should like to deal. A point was raised by a number of Deputies as to whether Deputies of the House other than members of the Committee would have access to the secretariat and to information. It seems to me that the most convenient way to handle the information needs of the Deputies is, on the one hand, to ensure that there is sufficient information in the Library and—again I express a personal view—to ensure that the Library is adequately staffed to assist Deputies.

In so far as Deputies are seeking information, it would be convenient if the secretariat were able to assist Deputies who are not members, but I can do no more than express that view because what the staff of the committee does must be a matter for the committee. It would be in line with commonsense if the committee, when they meet, decided to permit the secretariat to answer inquiries from other Members of the House. That is a matter for the committee when they meet and decide on their secretariat. It seems to be a convenient way of dealing with the problem of providing answers to queries additional to what can readily be found out through the Library. Just how that will be sorted out will be a matter for the committee. The Government have no function in that matter.

Deputy McDonald raised the question of whether Members of the Committee other than the members of the European Parliament might not be permitted, encouraged, and presumably financed, to visit the European Parliament in Plenary Session and in Committee work and perhaps, also, the headquarters of the Commission in Brussels. To me personally that sounds a good idea, but it is a matter which the committee would need to take up with the Minister for Finance through the Committee of Procedure and Privileges when they are appointed. It would be of great help, I think, to the Committee, as Deputy McDonald said, if they had this direct experience.

Mr. Crowley

It is absolutely vital. The Committee could not possibly be technically equipped unless they had that experience.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not dissent from that but I am moving into an area outside my own competence. That is between the committee and the Minister for Finance. I can only express my sympathy with the proposal. Deputy McDonald also raised the question of whether the committee might not establish sub-committees. This is worth considering. One of the considerations in the mind of the Government in extending the membership of the committee to 26 from the original proposal of 20, as a result of the debate in the other House, and here, was that in so extending the membership it might be possible for the committee to break into sub-committees should they decide so to do. There is no difficulty about that. Again that would be a matter for committee. In view of the highly specialised character of the work with which they will be dealing, working through sub-committees could turn out to be a useful method. That too, is a matter for the committee.

I was also asked whether the minutes of the committee would be published. I am not sure as to what the correct procedure is. The minutes of the Committee of Public Accounts are published. I do not know whether it would be normal or obligatory for the minutes of the committee to be published, but the committee would want to look into that themselves. For the convenience of other Members of this House, if they were published, they would be very useful. The committee may have a competence in that, and may have to decide that for themselves. I would be sympathetic to the idea, but I do not want to interfere with their privileges in any way.

Mr. Crowley

Would they be published at the same rate as the Dáil Reports, because the minutes of the Committee of Public Accounts are published three, four, or five months later.

Dr. FitzGerald

Shall we say at the same rate at which the reports of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the £100,000 were published, which was much more rapid than the annual publication of the minutes of the committee. I think that is what the Deputy has in mind.

Mr. Crowley

Even speedier than them.

Dr. FitzGerald

If it was possible to do it then, it should be possible to do it again if the committee so desire.

Mr. Wilson

If the minutes were published would they constitute the report to the Houses of the Oireachtas?

Dr. FitzGerald

No, I do not think so. The minutes are of what is said; the report is a separate issue altogether. As in the case of the committee of which Deputy Nolan was also a member, the minutes were published currently after each meeting, but we then prepared our report to the House at the end. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised in regard to the committee.

Mr. Crowley

Except for the telex and the executive jet.

Dr. FitzGerald

They do not relate directly to the committee. I will now deal with more general matters. Deputy Lynch, Leader of the Opposition, had something to say about the inadequacies of the decision-making mechanism of the Communities. He spoke of the Council of Ministers not working effectively and said that the system seemed to be creaking at the joints. He did not use those words, but that was the effect of what he said. He is right in this. The present situation in the Communities as regards the taking of decisions is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I have had the opportunity of attending four or five Council meetings and, in relation to the load of work on the Council and its obligations to take decisions arising out of matters in the Summit communiqué last year, the pace of work of the Council is grossly inadequate. I cannot see how, at the rate at which we are—I was going to say taking decisions—not taking decisions, we will arrive by next October at the position of having done what it is incumbent upon us to do by that date.

The Council will consider next Monday and Tuesday how its decision-making mechanism can be improved. That certainly is overdue. Perhaps we who are a new member, like Britain and Denmark, feel this sense of frustration more than the older members who may have grown accustomed to the curious way in which the system works but to us, coming in from outside, it seems very unsatisfactory. Part of this is a problem of political will. Clearly no decision-making mechanism will work speedily if the political will to take particular decisions is not present. You can improve the mechanism as much as you like, but if there are particular countries who do not want a particular decision taken on a particular matter, or who find difficulty in agreeing with their colleagues, then the process is bound to be slow. I am not convinced that the whole problem lies there. It seems to me that there is a defect in the working of the system. Deputies may or may not be aware that meetings of the Council are held in a very large room with a large attendance indeed—there might be 100 people in the room—and the feeling one has in addressing the Council is of addressing a public meeting. This is, perhaps, a diplomatic conference at best but certainly it bears no resemblance to the Council of Ministers as we know it, as a meeting of the Cabinet around a table.

Mr. Wilson

A more powerful Parliament might not necessarily expedite the business either; it might even slow down further.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is possible and I will come to that in a moment: the interaction of the different institutions. Apart from what may be done there, the Council itself needs to improve its procedures. When dealing with policy matters, a greater intimacy could be achieved by less people being present in a smaller room. On one occasion since I became Minister, we met in a smaller room with less people present, and there were moments of actual dialogue between Ministers, instead of the making of statements across a large conference table to each other. These matters are being considered, and I can assure the House that our delegation will do all it can to improve the mechanisms within the Council itself.

In addition, there is the whole question of the relationship between Parliament, Council and Commission.

As Deputy Wilson said, changes one might make would not necessarily speed things up, but they could do so. It is possible that the procedure of the Council itself could be accelerated if proposals coming to it had been fully worked out beforehand, and where the views of Parliament had been secured and taken into account. Whether it would speed things up, it seems clear that from a democratic point of view there will have to be significant changes in the decision-making mechanism in the years ahead. At present the views of the Parliament are not given the weight they should have. Parliament has no power except to express its views and these views are not taken fully into consideration.

There are various ways of tackling this. One possible way—I merely throw it out as a suggestion because this has not been discussed yet in the Council of Ministers and I have an open mind as to whether it is or is not the best way—would be for the Commission to consult the Parliament before it prepared its draft proposals and perhaps in time, in a second stage, be bound by the view of Parliament in the proposals it submits. Then, when the Council of Ministers receives those proposals, which would bear the stamp of Parliament's views on them, the Council of Ministers could either accept or reject; and if the Council of Ministers did not accept then perhaps there could be a further process of consultation with Parliament, perhaps some system of co-decision at that point. In other words, one could introduce the parliamentary element either at the beginning in a dialogue between the Commission and Parliament as to the proposition to be formulated and/or at the end introduce a system of either second reading or co-decision between Council and Parliament, a second reading where the Council must again get the views of Parliament if it is going to depart from their views as originally expressed, co-decision if such consultation would be binding, so that, though no decision could be taken unless Parliament and Council were in agreement, that might be a later stage.

Mr. Crowley

If Parliament rejected the Council's proposals?

Dr. FitzGerald

Then you could have a situation where you get deadlock and no decision could be taken until Parliament and Council reconciled their positions.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It would magnify the situation the Minister was talking about earlier.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not deny that. There are two conflicting requirements. One is to speed up the process; the other is to make it more democratic. I am not suggesting for a moment that the two are not necessarily compatible but we must make it more democratic. To the extent that that may slow down the procedures, we need to streamline the existing procedures so as at least to achieve offsetting economies of time to offset any increase in time that may be involved in introducing a more democratic system. There is a dilemma there which has to be faced. We need a more efficient system, a more democratic system. The two together are not easy to achieve simultaneously but that is our task.

Mr. Crowley

What is missing is the democratic tension.

Dr. FitzGerald

Indeed. How well the Deputy expresses it. Deputy Herbert put it very well, I thought, when he said the European Parliament is the least powerful but the most important institution. Its importance is shown in the Treaty where lip service is paid to its importance by listing it first amongst the institutions but it is at this moment a very powerless institution and yet it has the potential to be a very important institution, to be, as it should be, the most important institution.

We have to accept that in the period of evolution of the Communities some dilution of the democratic process was necessary or it would not have been possible to achieve what we have achieved, but we are now approaching the point where the efficient and democratic administration of the existing body of laws will be as important as a further evolution of the Community. I say approaching the point. We have not yet reached it. But, as we approach that point the importance of reintroducing a stronger democratic element becomes greater; and certainly if it is proposed, as it is proposed, to move towards an economic and monetary union, towards something somewhat vaguely and perhaps grandiosely described as a European union by 1980, we must before we reach that point have firmly established democratic control. It is the view of this Government that it would be intolerable—I use that word advisedly and deliberately—that we would have reached the stage of actually having full monetary union with the almost total interdependence of the economies of member countries, without having adequate democratic control of the whole system of legislation and administration of the Community.

Mr. Wilson

It would be very difficult to get agreement on that.

Dr. FitzGerald

It would be difficult to get agreement on it but here is where the democratic tension comes in, because there are countries which, for very good reasons as they see them, are determined to move ahead to achieve monetary union. We accept that and, indeed, at the Summit Conference we endorsed that proposal; but the Summit Conference also made provision for democratisation of the institutions as an element in that process of moving towards monetary union. What I want to say is simply that we cannot accept that there will be progress towards monetary union to the point where you have a monetary union unless there is equivalent progress at an appropriate pace in the democratisation of the institutions and in our view that would involve achieving a significant improvement in the present situation some years in advance of the point of the third stage of economic and monetary union and the creation of a European union. We do not think it would be appropriate to carry on as we are at the moment until the very last minute in the 1980s and then suddenly try to make the system more democratic.

The test of people's willingness to create a democratic community will be if they are prepared to concede to Parliament far greater power and direct election in advance of the date for the conclusion of economic and monetary union and European union. What this Government will seek to achieve, therefore, is that within the second half of this decade, around 1977-78, we will reach the stage where Parliament will really become effective and where it will be directly elected and unless that is achieved, in our view, it will be very difficult to justify moving to the final stage of economic and monetary union.

I am glad of the opportunity to make clear our views on that, views which we will press strongly. There are other member states who share our views and it is one of my tasks to keep in touch with the countries with which we have common views on issues. We have common views with all of the different member states on different issues. It is one of my tasks to maintain contact and to try to pursue in common the position that we hold. I have already had contacts with a number of Foreign Ministers who on this issue share our views and hope to have further discussions in the days and weeks immediately ahead so that those of us who are concerned with this matter will be acting jointly and pursuing the same path and therefore, more likely to succeed in our efforts.

Mr. Wilson

We might get support on other issues from some people who would not support us on that one, say, France, who would not necessarily support us on that one.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Wilson raises a very good point that this country has a number of interests to pursue and, very satisfactorily, in pursuing them we find ourselves aligned with different countries at different times. This is a good thing. It is a good thing that we are not in a position of finding ourselves permanently aligned with one country or group of countries which could in some way ultimately be an impediment to our independence of action. The fact is that our economic interests, especially in the sphere of agriculture, are very close to those of France and we work very closely with France in that area.

When we come to democratisation of institutions, the Benelux countries have views close to ours. In other matters we find ourselves close to the United Kingdom because of the similarity of our institutions here. This puts us in the position of having similar interests, for example, in changes in the laws affecting the professions. We maintain an independent position pursuing our interests in alliance with any country or group which share our views at a particular time. The fact that we are in that position enables us to gain more respect than if we seemed to be a permanent satellite of any country or group.

Deputy McDonald made reference to the Irish Commissioner, Dr. Hillery, and to the assistance and co-operation which he and other Members of the European Parliament have had. I would also like to pay tribute to Dr. Hillery and to the courtesy I personally have had from him and to his helpfulness. Dr. Hillery is rightly concerned to maintain the independence of his position as a member of the Commission. That is his function. He is not there as Irish representative. He is there as an independent member of the Commission but, in accordance with normal practice in the Community, when something comes up which may effect our interests he may well be in a position to explain to the Commission a particular Irish problem and I am sure—I have no great knowledge of it —that he will always wish to do so. Certainly in the contacts that I have had with him I have found him extremely helpful. It is fortunate that we have somebody of his calibre there and that we are in a position to work closely with him on many matters.

Questions were raised about teleprinters and executive jets. I cannot pursue them at length here as I gather they are outside the framework of this debate. As far as the teleprinter side is concerned and the need for European Parliament Members to keep in touch with what is happening at home. I must say I have the greatest sympathy here. I find when I am abroad that it is very important indeed, that I should know what is happening at home, what the Irish papers are saying and what the news is from home because it can affect what one has to say and do at a particular meeting. I will certainly be sympathetic to the needs of the European Parliament members in this respect and we will see what we can do.

I am frankly less sympathetic about the executive jet which always seemed to me to be a misconceived idea. It did not seem the right size. It did not seem to meet our particular needs. Personally, and I can only speak for myself on this, I have found no inconvenience whatever in its absence. There has only been the one occasion when I needed to get somewhere and other forms of transport were not suitable and that problem was easily resolved.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Minister got a lift from the RAF.

Dr. FitzGerald

It was on my first day in office. I found myself, within 24 hours of being appointed a Miniser, having to make a journey which I could not have planned in advance because of the 24-hour notice. On that occasion I was fortunate to have the opportunity of flying with the British Foreign Secretary and having the opportunity of talking to him and discussing many common problems. Apart from that particular occasion, I have experienced no difficulty. There will, however, be an occasion on Monday when a number of delegations will be flying together from Copenhagen to Brussels. A meeting of the political committee is taking place early in the day in Copenhagen and a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. We will be going together and on that occasion also I will be having the opportunity of having discussions with some of my colleagues en route. In general, this poses no problem as far as I am aware. I think that is the position with European Parliament members. If there are transport problems of that kind we will certainly look at them and see how they can be helped.

Deputy Nolan was kind enough to comply that the work involved in being Minister for Foreign Affairs at pesent in dealing with the EEC is too much for one person. I will admit it is a heavy burden. Deputy Nolan is right. Most other countries have two or three ministers to handle these different problems but different countries have different ways of dividing up the work between them. However, this is something which we can consider in due course. So far I think I have managed to cope. I am concerned though, to ensure that there is adequate attention at ministerial level to the details of the EEC work and this can be difficult at times owing to the pressure of other work involved in this ministry. I appreciate Deputy Nolan's point.

Those are most of the general points raised unless any Deputy would like to remind me of something I have overlooked. I referred to direct elections and stated our position here. I can assure Deputies that the Government are very conscious of the fact that any Deputy who, under our very democratic electoral system under which Deputies of the same party compete in the same constituency, undertakes the responsibility of membership of the European Parliament places himself at a disadvantage and that the Government are sympathetic to this and would wish to help the Deputies concerned to ensure that they are not permanently disadvantaged by this situation. We recognise that it is an act of patriotism for any Deputy to take on this burden. Apart from the actual volume of work, the strain of travelling is itself a very heavy burden. The dual mandate between this House and the European Parliament is something that is very difficult to undertake and Deputies who undertake that are entitled to the consideration of the Government and, indeed, of the people generally so that their burden may be lightened. Again, it is up to the European Parliament members to propose any assistance they may think they need to the Government and I personally hope it will be considered sympathetically.

Mr. Crowley

What about automatic re-election.

Dr. FitzGerald

Automatic re-election would be going a little too far.

Mr. Wilson

As the parliament gets more power the work will be more difficult and the strain will be heavier.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is precisely why we think that direct election must come at around the same time as or immediately after the extension of the powers of the European Parliament. In our particular circumstances—quite apart from the general political grounds for, favouring direct election that those concerned will then draw their authority direct from the peoples of Europe and be able to speak with much more authority— there is also this special domestic problem we have because of our electoral system. We are very conscious of that and I can assure the House that every effort will be made by this Government to secure direct election at an early date.

Ruairí Brugha

Deputy Herbert made a good case for some sort of assistance in the interim.

Dr. FitzGerald

I did not exclude that. I simply said that Deputies must make their case for that not to me but to the hand that lies on the purse strings.

Mr. Herbert

But we are giving the Minister forewarning. In relation to Deputy Wilson's point, the role of the parliament has become more complex even after the summit. We find we are more involved and committees meet more frequently. We are at this stage growing in involvement in the European Parliament.

Dr. FitzGerald

I appreciate that. Deputies from this House have joined the European Parliament at a moment when the European Parliament itself is taking on additional responsibilities even without more power and that makes it all the more difficult.

Deputy Herbert's intervention reminds me of the last point I wanted to make. He suggested that I had at a recent function referred slightingly to the European Progressive Democrats. I should like to assure him publicly, as I assured him privately, that such was not my intention. I made a humorous remark, I thought, on the political groupings to which we are all aligned and the new context that this creates. I certainly intended no offence to any particular grouping and was distressed to find that what I had said had been ministerpreted. I welcome the fact that the Opposition have aligned themselves in this way with a grouping in the European Parliament because the ability of the Opposition to work effectively for this country does depend to some degree on having an alignment of this kind. If they had remained non-aligned it might have been more difficult for them to do the work which I know they want to do for this country. The fact that now the three parties here are aligned with different groups in the European Parliament means that the Irish viewpoint is being heard through a number of different channels simultaneously when our interests are at stake. This is valuable. I am very sorry if anything I said suggested that I was reflecting on a particular group.

Mr. Nolan

What will be the location of the headquarters of the secretariat?

Dr. FitzGerald

The secretariat, I take it, would be in Dáil Éireann, subject to the usual problems of finding anywhere to locate anybody in this place. It must be here if it is to work effectively.

Mr. Crowley

The problem of locating space. As the Ceann Comhairle is aware, we have a desperate space problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are doing what we can about that.

Dr. FitzGerald

I plead lack of responsibility. Again, that is a matter we must take up with my colleague, the Minister for Finance. It would be very unfortunate if the committee and the secretariat were located anywhere other than in this House. That would be unthinkable.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.