Developments in the European Communities—Second Report: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the report: Developments in the European Communities—Second Report.

This is the Second Report to the Houses of the Oireachtas this year under section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972. It covers developments in the Communities from the middle of May last— developments up to that date were covered in the First Report—to the beginning of November.

It was thought that the second and subsequent reports might not be as long as the first one as they would cover developments during periods of about six months only whereas the First Report dealt with Community activities over a period of about 16 months. Deputies will note, however, that the Second Report is in fact longer than the First. Certain information that was not given in the First Report is included in the Second Report. This applies, for instance, to membership of Committees of the European Parliament and the frequency of meetings of these Committees. The report also lists visits made by Irish Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in connection with European Communities affairs; it gives a general idea of Government policy in regard to significant proposals; it describes, where relevant, what consultation on proposals has taken place with interested bodies here, and it gives references to proposals or legislation in the Official Journal where these are available. All this is information which Deputies requested in the debate on the motion on the First Report.

A very important development in the period under review was the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the Communities: this is accordingly the subject of a separate chapter. A number of crucial "second generation" policies of the Community, such as regional policy and social policy, have been very much at the centre of the Community's preoccupations since mid-May. Accordingly, they rate extensive consideration in the report.

There have been some developments since the report was finalised. The two most important developments are:

(i) The Council agreed on 19th and 20th November on the basic terms of a directive on mountain and hill farming and farming in less favoured areas. The directive mentioned at paragraph 7.2 of the report when adopted will authorise member states to introduce a special aid system designed to encourage farming and to improve farmer's incomes in poorer areas so as to maintain farming activity and hence a minimum population level, and to preserve the countryside in these areas. The most significant aid would consist of an income supplement payable in the form of a livestock headage grant applying to beef cattle and sheep and up to ten dairy cows in areas where milk production is an important factor in farm incomes. It is expected that in this country the areas likely to be eligible for aid under the criteria agreed for the directive will be mainly in the west of Ireland.

(ii) On 26th November a loan to the Irish Government of £7.5 million from the European Investment Bank was concluded. The loan will be used to finance capital expenditure on telephone development in the current financial year. The loan is for a period of 20 years at 8½ per cent and is the first European Investment Bank loan to the Irish Government.

The Commission has recently made proposals designed to simplify the complex administrative procedures applying to the rules of origin—mentioned in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.8—in so far as these relate to the agreements with the EFTA countries.

Proposals for implementation of Directive 72/159 on the modernisation of farms—mentioned at paragraph 7.1 of the report—have now been submitted to the Commission. Under these proposals, "development" farms, that is, farms capable of development through planning so as to yield a labour income as good as that earned by non-farm workers, will be entitled to a 30 per cent grant or a subsidy on interest rates of 5 per cent on the basis of a detailed comprehensive farm plan designed to provide the required income. As a condition of receiving aid the farmer must keep farm accounts. The development farmer will be entitled to priority access to land which may become available as a result of farmers retiring under the retirement scheme which the Minister for Lands will be operating.

As the end of the year approaches, many of the matters mentioned in the report will be the subject of concentrated discussion and debate in Brussels and elsewhere. This applies particularly to those areas of Community policy, such as regional policy, which are subject to deadlines set by the Paris Summit. However, while these matters will be highlighted during the coming weeks there will continue to be developments in relation to already established areas of Community policy. As Deputies will have remarked on reading the report, activity under these headings is substantial and will remain so. The Community is, after all, a constantly evolving entity and this evolution involves developments in the area of customs policy, for instance, as it does in the field of social policy. When attention is, rightly, concentrated on the development of the Community regional policy it is well to remember that the Community continues to concern itself with those matters which make up the bulk of the report before the House.

May I apologise to the House for the fact that the report was not available to Deputies in sufficient time? This matter was raised on the last occasion by Deputies and I offered an assurance that I would endeavour to give them ample time to assimilate the report before a debate. Accordingly, knowing that I would probably be absent during the next three weeks at various meetings abroad, I tried to fix a deadline for the report so that it would be available by the 10th November, and cleared it with that in mind. Unfortunately, owing to the size of the report, in part, but principally owing to problems of printing arising from the electricity situation, the report was not available until about 23rd November. I was unaware of the length of the delay when the debate was settled for yesterday and I want to apologise that Deputies did not have sufficient notice. It should not have happened.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I appreciate the Minister's statement of explanation and apology to the House. However, it is important that the problem which arose on this occasion must not in any circumstances arise again. When the first report came before the House Deputies from every party, and I in particular, stressed to the Minister the absolute importance of having the report in the hands of Deputies for at least two or three weeks so that they would have an opportunity of studying it themselves and, even more important, so that they would have an opportunity of studying the reactions of the bodies concerned with the report, bodies such as those representing our farming interests, our industrial interests, our trade union interests and the various other social areas that are vitally concerned in this. I made that point as strongly as I could on the last occasion to indicate that it was not just the convenience of the House that was at issue here. This report is not just a report to the Members of the House, though basically in format it is that, but is a report of the development of the European Communities and our progress within those Communities. If this debate is to mean anything, such an interim period must elapse between the publication of the report and the debate here.

The Minister has explained the reasons, of which he was not fully aware and for which he certainly was not responsible. I had assumed, on the basis of the clear statement of the Minister on the last occasion, that the question of this debate being held this week or even next week would not even be contemplated in the light of the fact that the report was published last Friday or Saturday. I got a copy of the report for the first time, due to other activities, last Monday. The Minister said on the last occasion:

I think we could publish the main report on a date which would give the House several weeks to consider it and then, at the time of the debate, there could be published a brief note of anything that has happened in the intervening two or three weeks.

I accepted what the Minister said on that occasion. While I accept the Minister's personal statement and explanation today, I am very dissatisfied that this has happened. In the light of the Minister's statement this morning and of his acknowledged intention in this area on the last occasion, how can we be sure that, when the next report comes out, there will not be some other pressing business which a Minister for Foreign Affairs must always attend to? Part of my thesis this morning will be that this may be possibly overstretching the capacity of the Minister and indeed the function of his office. There may well be other matters that will oblige the Minister to be out of the country for two or three weeks on the next occasion and we may again be faced with the same situation. I would ask the Minister to take account of those facts well in advance so that his intentions can be implemented. While I appreciate undertakings and statements of intention I would prefer if the performance matched the intention.

Dr. FitzGerald

Had I appreciated that the Deputy did not receive the report until last Friday I would have consulted with him with a view to seeing whether he would prefer to have the debate in several weeks' time, even if I could not be present. It was because I was not aware of that that this error arose and I will certainly ensure that it does not happen again.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I accept that. Yesterday I made frantic efforts to communicate with the Government Whip. The Government Whip, through our Whip, was not at that initial stage—I appreciate the Minister's last minute intervention—ready to change in view of the fact that, as he implied to us, the Minister wanted this debate to go on now. We were conducting our negotiations through the Whips. This rather surprised me in view of the attitude which the Minister had expressed and has now expressed.

Dr. FitzGerald

A misunderstanding.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister this morning mentioned developments in the Communities since the report was finalised. It is significant that those developments have been mentioned. On the last occasion almost all the Deputies who spoke asked that developments that would occur between the publication of the report and the debate should be included in a separate summary. The Minister said this would be provided in advance. The Minister said at column 1825, Volume 265 of the Official Report of 23rd May, 1973:

I may have misunderstood this. I think it would be advisable, if it were possible, that instead of these late developments being included in the Minister's speech a brief summary could be given perhaps two or three days in advance of the debate.

Mr. Carter

A week surely.

Mr. O'Kennedy

With regard to the report itself, we are talking not in terms of a week or two weeks but several weeks. A minimum of two weeks must elapse between publication of the report and the debate.

Mr. Carter

I am referring to the summary.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister will accept that some time should be given. As the Minister mentioned, this report is very comprehensive and of its nature must be so. The Minister said on the last occasion that the report covered a period far in excess of the six months which would be covered in the subsequent report. This report covers broadly the same areas as the last one but it is more detailed. The importance of the consideration of such a report cannot be overstressed. To do justice to its contents would involve much consultation with interested bodies. I am glad to note that some of the suggestions put forward by Deputies on the last occasion as to the format of the report have been adopted. When I made suggestions in this regard I said that they were not of great significance but that they would make the report more readable. In this context the inclusion of the reference to various Community documents mentioned in the report is to be welcomed. On the last occasion, too, I suggested that in addition to there being information as to the visits to this country by Commissioners of the Community and by others from the various offices of the Commission there should be included a note of the visits to the European institutions of Ministers and other Parliamentarians here. I made that suggestion because of the vital importance of informing our people of what is being done on their behalf and also that they might have an opportunity of assessing the extent of the burden of our membership of the Community because our membership, in addition to being an opportunity, is also a burden. I am glad to note that my suggestion in this regard has been adopted. No doubt the Minister will have noted that the Press have commented on this aspect in the sense of its being an indication of the energy expended by the representatives involved. It is only right that it be presented in this way. Perhaps there might be a more comprehensive list next time of visits undertaken at all levels to the Community institutions.

As the Minister has said, there have been some major developments since the last debate here on Community developments. One important development so far as this House is concerned has been the establishment of the all-Party committee on the EEC. At page 103 of the report of the committee we are told that:

The Government were concerned to show that Ireland's commitment to parliamentary democracy is a genuine and compelling one both at the national and Community level...

In view of the experience of the committee, I must question the accuracy of that statement and ask whether the facilities that have been made available to them so far are to be taken as evidence of the Government's commitment to parliamentary democracy and whether their commitment is a genuine and compelling one both at national and Community level. I speak now not only as a representative of the committee but as Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition. Perhaps during this debate other members of the committee will express their views in regard to facilities. I regret to say that the intention has not been matched by performance. When this matter was being discussed I accepted, as I accept now, that the Minister had the intention of providing every reasonable facility for the committee so that the work they would undertake in examining the secondary legislation of the Community and in making recommendations to the Government—recommendations that the Government would be free to accept or reject—would be undertaken with the aid of the best advice and facilities available.

On the occasion of the last debate on this subject, I went into considerable detail to point out the advantages that other countries had already in regard to committees of this kind and I emphasised the necessity of ensuring that our committee would be backed up by the best advice and the best secretarial and other facilities available. I said then in regard to the establishing of a committee that one would not wish to set up what would appear to be a group of people who would pose as experts on European affairs because they could not be experts on European affairs merely by virtue of being members of the committee. I take issue with the report where it says that at the second stage a committee can examine the Acts of the Council and of the Commission with a view to considering how Ireland's obligation might best be implemented. This, the report tells us, enables the expertise of the Oireachtas through the joint committee to be brought to bear on the measures which the Government might take on the implementation of Community legislation.

I wonder whether Members of this House, regardless of whether we serve on the committee, should pose as experts. On the occasion of the last debate I said that no such committee could be experts because of the wide area which they must cover. In other countries Community business is not a matter for one committee but for a number. I quoted Germany, Belgium and Italy where there are committees on industry, on agriculture, on foreign affairs and other aspects of Government activity. One committee cannot be expert in all the matters coming before them in relation to governmental activity and to the implications of the secondary legislation of the Community. Therefore, one must question the Government in presenting the establishment of the committee as being an opportunity to some extent for the expertise of the committee to be brought to bear on this House.

I do not think any Member of the House would suggest that any one of us has either the time or the capacity to discharge our functions effectively unless we are backed up by an effective service. I must put it to the Minister that the experience of that committee in so far as I can ascertain is that the Minister's intentions in respect of backing up services have not been matched by performance. I acknowledge the Minister's intention in the commitment he gave when he spoke on this matter during the present Government's time in opposition, the commitment which he gave to me personally in the House. However, somewhere along the line some other element in the Government seems to have taken a different view. It may be that the Minister's expressed enthusiasm for these commitments is not the view of the Government and that his enthusiasm is not shared. If that is so, we had better be told, so that we can face the realities of the situation.

On the last occasion the Minister used what I found to be an interesting expression when he said that certain matters which were then arising and which would arise in 1975 were beyond "the normal vision of the Department of Finance".

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please let us have the reference?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have not got the reference at the moment but I can supply it later. I have just been commenting on the phrase used. The Minister was speaking about the burdens this country would face in 1975 in reference to the Presidency of the Council of Minister and he said that the obligations would be beyond the normal vision of the Department of Finance. Is the effective functioning of this committee also to be beyond the normal vision of the Department of Finance?

Might I ask whether the backing-up services of this omnibus committee— other countries have several committees—is also beyond the normal vision of the Department of Finance? Might I ask is it beyond the normal vision of the Minister for Finance or if there is a difference of opinion between the Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs on this issue at this time? It is important that this committee would not any longer be left in any doubt as to the services that will be available to them so that they may bring some element of expertise to bear on the question presented to them which they have not been able to do so far, even allowing for the enthusiasm and the capacity of many of the members.

I presume the Minister will have an opportunity to have special consultations with the chairman and members of that committee, but in the meantime it is important that there would be no illusions as to how effective that committee can be in present circumstances or equally what the potential of that committee is if given the necessary services. It is as well that the country should know that they are not being given these services and that the Government are not being serious in this matter.

I should like to mention one of the anomalies mentioned during the proceedings of the committee, as reported. Under the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973, the committee have power to recommend to the Oireachtas to annul regulations which have been passed under the Act, and if a regulation is recommended to be annulled by the Dáil within one year it is thereby annulled. It is significant for some reason of which we are not aware that there is the power of annulment but the power to make amendments to regulations is not included in the scope of the Act. One could assume that if one has power to annul one must ipso facto have power to amend. If there is power to annul regulations in this House, some consideration should be given to giving of power to amend regulations.

There is just one last point I wish to make in regard to the committee. The Minister stated that the committee could 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 Irish people in general could identify. That is a fine statement of principle and this report is characterised by such fine broad statements of principle, but in this area broad statements of principle not backed up and matched by effective action are to no purpose except to deceive all of us and to create an impression of effectiveness where it does not, in fact, exist. If we want to talk in terms of Irish people identifying themselves with the institutions and activities of the European Communities, I do not think we can point to the activities of this committee for such an indication.

A development which has taken place since the last debate here is that in relation to the regional policy proposals of the Community and at this point may I refer to column 1849 of the Official Report for 23rd May, 1973 where in reply to points I had made earlier in regard to the principle of a juste retour in this area the Minister said:

...I am glad to see that this principle is not being pressed. It was thought at one time that the United Kingdom Government might try to operate on this principle. They have made it clear this is not their intention, that they do not see it working that way in regard to regional policy or otherwise, and I do not think there is a major issue here...

That debate took place very soon after the issue of the guidelines of the European Communities on regional policy which we all found equally acceptable and consistent with the principles of the Paris Summit. It was in that light that I welcomed the guidelines. It was only some days in advance of their subsequent rejection and it was in that light that the UK Government were pressing their intentions. I wonder if the Minister's experience meanwhile has indicated to him that he was being rather naïve in accepting from whichever source the intention of the UK Government. It does not seem to be a happy omen that the Minister could so freely accept this from a source which has since become so questionable as to their principles and intentions towards the regional policy.

At column 1808 of the same report I had stated:

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

I quoted from the report and said that the acceptance of that principle —the principle referred to was that the fund would have to concentrate its expenditure very largely in those regions most in need—would be the test on which the regional policy would stand or fall. I am not satisfied that the test has been passed and I am not satisfied that our interests in that policy and in its application had been presented as urgently and effectively as they might have been.

It is interesting to note the arguments presented by the Minister to the Council of Ministers meeting on 15th October, 1973. The Minister may not be aware that they were almost a verbatim report of what I said in this House. I said the fund would have to concentrate its expenditure very largely in those regions that are most in need in relation to the Community as a whole, in other words, that there must be standards to ensure that the means available to the fund are used in a manner quite independent of any criterion of juste retour and which reflect the size and urgency of the regional problems facing the Community. I said that the acceptance of this principle will be an important test of Community solidarity.

This was the second argument the Minister states he presented to the Council of Ministers on 15th October. It was stated by me in this House on 23rd May, 1973, using the same quotation from the same guidelines. The Minister presented these arguments a little late in connection with the eventual proposals made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers.

The significant thing is that subsequent to the publication of the guidelines, to the debate in this House and to my welcome for the principles stated in the guidelines, in the intervening months of June and July, this House, the nation and the media were rife with rumours, hints and speculation regarding a change of attitude by the Commission. The air was thick with suggestions from "informed sources" of a change of attitude, that the principles enunciated in the guidelines were being departed from, that the actual proposals which would be presented by the Commission to the Council of Ministers would not be consistent with the principles set out in the guidelines, with the statement of intent at the Paris Summit and with the Treaty of Rome.

At that time there was great concern about what was happening and at this remove from the institutions of Brussels it was important and necessary that the Minister should tell the House what was happening and also at that stage to undertake discussions with representatives of the Commission because obviously there was a change of mind for reasons unknown to this House and to the country.

For that reason Fianna Fáil convened a special meeting during the summer break to make a statement on the matter. Since publication of the guidelines there had been no statement from the Minister or the Government. We made a special statement on the European regional policy and the importance of having the principles of that policy accepted and implemented. The arguments we put forward in August were exactly the same as those which the Minister now says he presented to the Council of Ministers in October.

The Government and the Minister are at great pains in this report to spell out in two pages the arguments he made to the Council of Ministers meeting on 15th October 1973. When I have my copy in a few moments I think I will be able to show the House that the arguments the Minister presents as being the cogent arguments he made to the Council were made two months before that by the Fianna Fáil committee who issued a public statement at a time when the Minister and the Government were silent.

Dr. FitzGerald

Will the Deputy give the reference and the date of the Fianna Fáil statement?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I hope to have a copy of that statement in a few moments to show the paragraphs of that statement which coincide almost exactly with the statements set out in greater detail here as being the statements made by the Minister. I have indicated within the last few months that I thought the Government, and the Minister in particular, reacted too late. He reacted when the die was cast, and when he reacted he took the wrong course, particularly when he went to the European capitals. It is significant that on page 82 of the report there is the following short paragraph:

15.17. During September 1973 the Minister for Foreign Affairs undertook a series of visits to the capitals of the Community for the purpose of discussing the Commission's proposals.

It was obviously to the Foreign Ministers, as the Minister indicated to me in reply to a question. The paragraph continues:

He expressed the view that the Commission's proposed regulations, as they stood, indicated that the resources that might be made available to Ireland would be inadequate in relation to the intensity of our problems, our relative ability to solve them ourselves and the prospects of moving towards Economic and Monetary Union.

That is all that has been said of the meetings with the various Ministers. We are more concerned about the response of the Ministers to the requests, interventions or proposals made. The Minister has not at any time since given any indication of the response to his visits beyond saying he was satisfied with them or that some of the proposals were accepted in principle. However, there is no clear indication of the precise response he got from any of the Ministers that would show the effectiveness or otherwise of these rather belated, rushed and hasty visits to the capitals of the European Communities.

Did the Minister get any indication from the Ministers he visited of any associations they might have had with the Commission since the publication of the guidelines in May? The Minister, myself and others have had discussions with Commissioner Thomson. Nothing Commissioner Thomson said to me in April or May gave any indication that the presentation of the regional fund proposals subsequent to the publication of the guidelines would be as they were eventually outlined, having regard in particular to the criteria to be applied.

The Commission presents proposals to the Council. The Council may accept or reject these proposals. If a veto is applied, or a compromise is reached which might not be in the best interests of this country, we would have to accept that this is in accordance with the operations of the institutions of the Community. We would not accept it if the Commission appeared to be a front or an agency for the interests of some member nations of the European Community. The proposals, which the Minister criticised in the report, were not consistent with the guidelines they presented. Therefore, the only deduction one can make, if one makes a deduction on the basis of normal commonsense and judgment, is that the Commission were somehow suborned and the interests of some member states were seen to be presented to the Commission in a manner which pressured them and forced them to go back on the principles they enunciated.

That is a very dangerous precedent for the Community. While it applies to an area that has absolute importance to the country, it is particularly dangerous that some months later the proposals from the Commission should be literally turned upside down. I acknowledge the Minister's energy and capacity. He was at fault during May to September because this country was aware of rumours and suggestions and he did not state his position in the House or take us into his confidence, or get public opinion behind him until it was too late. If the Minister could give evidence of statements he made during that period I would be glad to acknowledge them. My clear impression of that period was that there seemed to be no sense of urgency. That was why Fianna Fáil issued their statement.

I will now deal with the statement issued by the Fianna Fáil Party on regional policy. I know these arguments are commonplace but they are not significant arguments as the Minister claimed. They were presented at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 15th October. They were stated by the Fianna Fáil Party six weeks earlier.

The first argument was that it was inconsistent with the principles at the Paris Summit.

The Commission proposals failed to give adequate expression to the aims of the Community as set out in the Preamble to the Treaty, to the objectives of the Paris Summit and to the guidelines in the Commission's own report on the regional problems in the enlarged Community.

That was stated in the Fianna Fáil statement two months earlier.

At the Summit meeting held in Paris from the 19th to the 21st of October, 1972, Ireland being represented by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, TD, the heads of State and Government decided to set up an EEC regional Development Fund which would be used to correct the regional economic imbalances and disparities within the Community.

On the 3rd May of this year the European Commission issued a Report containing guidelines for a European Regional Policy. These guidelines were based on the fundamental principle that a genuine European Regional Policy must result in a transfer of resources from the rich to the less developed regions.

The Minister sets out one of the guidelines of the Commission's report and he quotes the same paragraph which I quoted in this House on 23rd May, 1973. That argument could have been made months earlier. Another argument was:

...far from proposing that the Fund should "aid those regions which are most in need in relation to the Community as a whole" the Commission proposed that the Fund should aid areas covering over half of the Community and containing one-third of the population.

On that point we said:

The less developed areas of the Community do not, and will not have in the foreseeable future the resources or growth which would enable them to close the prosperity gap between them and the richer areas. If anything, the gap may tend to become greater.

This policy statement was issued at a time when the actual areas to benefit had not been published. Almost every area mentioned in the argument presented by the Minister to the Council of Ministers on 15th October has been covered in the statement of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not suggesting that this was an inspired piece of presentation by Fianna Fáil but I am saying that the arguments were there many months in advance of the presentation of these arguments. We in this country were in limbo on the development of the European Regional Policy, guessing, wondering, relying on informed sources, and all that time no clear, definite, comprehensive statement was issued by the Government. No effective action was taken. I exclude from "effective action" the hasty visits the Minister took to the capitals of the European Community. We always stressed that it was not necessary to make submissions to representatives on the Council in order to get our entitlement from the EEC. Our entitlement derived from the statements and principles of the policy itself and not from any attitude of begging, or cringing or suggesting that we were looking for something other than our entitlement. We did not need to present our case on the basis "that the resources which might be made available to Ireland would be inadequate in relation to the intensity of our problems." The more important argument would have been that they were inconsistent with the proposals. If we were to get our entitlement the proposals would have to be changed and adjusted.

Mr. Esmonde

Would the Deputy give us the record of where that policy statement was made by his party?

Mr. O'Kennedy

It was issued to the Press.

Mr. Esmonde

On what date?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I will let the Deputy and the Minister have the date before I finish my speech. It appeared in the Press sometime in late August.

Mr. Esmonde

It would be useful to have the exact date.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Fianna Fáil, when they wish to ascertain details of Government proposals, have to rely on statements made to law schools, university debating societies and news bulletins. We have to rely on this type of informed hint, statements from the Press, radio statements, or statements to university debating societies either here or in America. We deserve more. The Minister might take us into his confidence in areas such as those I have been dealing with. If he did so he might find that we had something to contribute. We might have an element of judgment which may be lacking in the Government. We would not be so naïve as to accept statements, which the Minister has accepted on the last occasion, that the British Government are not insisting on the principle of juste retour. In fact, we might be able to advance the national interest of the country. As long as this Government insist on doing it their own way, which is their privilege and one which they have been using, the results may not be to the advantage of this country. It would be better to have consultation with the Opposition through the channels of communication which are available to them.

It is equally our privilege to criticise what is being done and the difference between the intention and the achievement and between the commitment and performance. We are only interested in performance. I say that in relation to the regional policy of the EEC. I hope that by the time there is another debate in this connection we will have seen a significant change in the pattern. We are now again in "limbo" in relation to the regional policy. Within the last week we heard suggestions that the size of the fund would be restricted in proportion to the restrictions of the areas which would benefit. Perhaps the Minister would disclose whether there is any truth in these suggestions about the restriction of the areas. We would welcome his disclosures. Is there any suggestion about the restriction of the areas and, in conjunction with that, restriction on the size of the fund? This latter would not be to the advantage of this country. These suggestions are typical of the rumours we hear, but we have no way of checking on them unless the Minister tells us whether there is any truth in them. If we are given information too late we can do nothing to assist in promoting the national interest. I hope the Minister will tell us of the position in so far as he knows it so that the proposals now being considered may be examined to the best advantage of the country.

In particular I would like the Minister to tell us the response he got from his visits to the European Parliament. We are interested in knowing the arguments the Minister presented. The Minister has given us three pages of his arguments. These arguments were prepared by others in advance. We would be much more interested in seeing even one half-page of the response to the three pages of argument. We are interested in performance and not just intention.

In regard to regional policy, we had thought that one of the matters contained in it would be that a certain proportion of the fund would be retained by the Commission, in accordance with their earlier intentions— although this was not separately referred to in any Community document—for application in border areas where two countries could jointly promote a programme for development under the aegis of the European Community. We clearly welcomed that proposal. I received in this regard an indication from Commissioner Thomson on visits to Brussels. His thinking was in that direction. There does not now seem to be any evidence of the implementation of such thinking. I would be glad to hear from the Minister or from any other source, that such intention was to be implemented.

The Minister should be able to achieve something very significant for us now if such proposals were to emerge, particularly having regard to the discussions which will take place next week in regard to the Council of Ireland. As I said some months ago, even if a cross-Border council did not exist here, one might have to consider the necessity of establishing such a council for the purpose of implementing the regional policy of the EEC as it was presented initially. This might be necessary between any two countries such as France and Germany, France and Italy, Germany and Holland or elsewhere. The fact that discussions are taking place with a view to establishing the council is even more significant. We may have an advantage over other countries who may not have such an institution for applying programmes to the benefit of both sides of a territorial boundary.

It is particularly important that the deprived areas along our Border should be given special consideration. Those of us who have spent a few weeks in Monaghan recently have been struck by the fact that it is very much in a backwater by virtue of the existence of the Border beside it, apart altogether from the political attitudes there. We have all spent some time on the other side of the Border and realise that because of the Border the whole area is an economic backwater. There may be other similar areas but I do not want to overstate the position now. Wherever such an area exists, whether on the Irish scene or otherwise, there are obvious disadvantages.

The experience of the last 50 years here has resulted in disadvantages to the areas on both sides of the political divide. It is obvious that the proposals of the regional policy must pay special attention to that area. Even if this meant that the rest of this country were in some way to shed some of its entitlement, all of us in this House would be quite ready and willing to say that, if such were to be the price of a greater allocation for these Border areas on either side, we would be ready and willing to concede some portion of our entitlement, although I do not think such a position should arise. These Border areas have been cut off in many ways and they should be allowed to develop a normal and effective economic environment as soon as possible. One of the areas where difficulties may occur is that dealing with the question of effective road networks through the area, and the whole question of access to the houses in that area, wherever they may be. There are so many obvious areas where the regions on both sides of the Border could come in for special consideration that I do not think I need to spell them out at this stage.

In that connection also let me say that we here at the moment have a great responsibility to the rest of the country in the North of Ireland to ensure that we will in so far as possible represent their interests as effectively as possible in the institutions of the European Community. It must be clear to them that that part of the country is very under-represented in the European Parliament although I might say, under-represented though it is, the representative they have, Mr. Rafton Pounder, is certainly doing as much as any one man could do to represent the interests of Northern Ireland in the Parliament but when one considers that this portion of the country has ten to the one from that end it can be seen that, first, we have an obligation wherever possible to advance the interests of the whole country, I might even say to advance the interests in particular of that part of the country even though, in a crunch situation, it might be at the expense of the short-term interests of this part. That is something our representatives in the European Parliament, the Minister or anyone of us, would be very glad to do so that it can be seen that we who are so much better represented both numerically and otherwise will face up to this responsibility in a generous and effective way.

This brings me to the question of where we go from here and how we present our positions and attitudes in the European Parliament. It brings me in particular to the European Progressive Democrats which this party jointly formed with the Gaullist group in France. I was privileged, with Senator Lenihan, to conduct the negotiations that finally gave rise to the establishment of this group in Paris some months ago. Having regard to the discussions that we had, we were naturally very satisfied that the French and ourselves had many areas of common interest, that we had, apart from the traditional and historic associations which were very strong between our two countries, in the economic areas, whether one talks in terms of the common agricultural policy, the regional policy and many other areas and the structures of our societies and the attitudes of our people, much in common. We were naturally a little disappointed, though not greatly surprised, to see some of the cynical reaction at that time to the establishment of that group on the basis, almost, that one could hardly expect anything significant from Fianna Fáil at this time, that the best one could expect would be that we would tie ourselves to what was being presented as a reactionary, hidebound and restricting factor in the European Community, namely, the French representatives in the Parliament. Experience has taught everybody that the opposite has proved to be the case. It is interesting now to look at the same columnists and the same commentators who, rather prematurely, laughed at the suggestions and laughed at what the leader of the socialist group very inappropriately and very foolishly, might I say, called a mad marriage. They now have had reason to change their view of the effectiveness of this group and of the manner in which it can promote the interests of this country in the European Parliament.

I was privileged to have been involved in the establishment of the group. Everything which it has achieved since has proved that our decision then was the right one and what it will achieve in future will prove it even more. Even the Minister may acknowledge that this grouping in the Parliament has acted in the interests of this country and that it has acted positively and effectively and efficiently in the interests of this country in so many ways. May I quote some examples? They have been most diligent in presenting amendments to, in particular, the major issue coming before this House in this connection, the regional policy, both in their own right as a group and as individual members of the group, as rapporteurs of the committees of the Parliament. When the regional fund was discussed and the Delmotte Report on the regional fund came before the Parliament, 16 of the 33 amendments that were put down were presented by the members of the European Progressive Democrat group in their own right or as rapporteurs of committees of the Parliament. This is an indication of the teamwork and the effectiveness of the team work. At that time, I remember in one of those connections the Labour Party representatives in the Parliament voted against the amendments being taken individually and suggested and agreed with the proposal that they be referred back to the committee itself for full consideration.

I raised this question in this House at the time, if it was in the interests of this nation that these proposals should have been rejected in that sense and transferred back in bulk, as they had been presented individually. I asked the Minister—and I am sure he will recall this; I cannot immediately refer to the record but it is on the record—if he would take steps to ensure that our representatives in the European Parliament would act at all times in accordance with the interests of this country. The reply I got from the Minister on that occasion—and here I suppose I may have to get the record if the Minister does not accept what I say—was that it was not the function of the Government to direct our representatives in the European Parliament—the representatives of the Government Party—as to how they should vote or as to how they should, in fact, promote the interests of this country.

I want to say to the Minister that I totally reject that statement. I did then and I do now. I do so particularly now in the light of what has happened since with the Fine Gael representatives in the Parliament. I said then to the Minister that we in Fianna Fáil would ensure that it was certainly our function to consult with our representatives in that Parliament to ensure that nothing they said or did in that Parliament would not be in accordance with our views in the party at large and certainly would not be in accordance with the national interests. I am quite certain that our representatives—there is one of them in the House, Deputy Tom Nolan— recognise that we have confidence in them for the reason that we consult together in this area when these matters are coming up, that nothing they do could be against our wishes and if it did happen that it was against our wishes they would accept that we would certainly very soon tell them that they had better change their tune and promote the interests of the party and the country. That, I feel confident, cannot happen, will not happen, with the Fianna Fáil representatives in the European Progressive Democrats group because of the consultation that we have in advance and because of the understanding that they have that they are not there just to express an ad hoc or a personal view on any occasion; they are there as representatives of this party, representatives of this country's interests.

I say to the Minister that the representatives of the Fine Gael and Labour interests of this Coalition Government in the European Parliament must be subject to the same regulations and the same discipline. We do not want this Government to speak, not just with two tongues, but with three tongues, the Minister promoting one element of foreign policy at home, the Labour Party representatives in the European Parliament taking another view and the Fine Gael Party representatives taking a third view. This may be democracy in practice in one sense, if one looks at it that way, that everyone has the right to express a view. It is not the reality of a political exercise, particularly the political exercise that derives from our involvement in the EEC. I found it inexplicable that our Fine Gael colleagues in the European Parliament should have taken the attitude they took on the amendment which was recently presented to the Parliament to abolish the veto in the Council of Ministers with regard to the list of areas to benefit; I accept the qualifications.

When this matter was brought to the notice of the public, it was not, as suggested by the Fine Gael group, in their reply, brought to their notice by Fianna Fáil or the Fianna Fáil representatives in the European Parliament. In fact, it was presented, in the first instance, by an organ that could hardly be described as an agency of Fianna Fáil opinion, namely, the political correspondent of the Sunday Independent. Even Deputies opposite will hardly recognise that as the official newspaper of Fianna Fáil.

Dr. FitzGerald

Or any other party.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That may be. However, the attitude was taken against the wishes of the following significant views in the Parliament on that occasion: against the wishes of Commissioner Thomson, who advised that the amendment was not one that would commend itself to him and should not be supported; against the advice of the rapporteur on regional matters, Mr. Delmottee; against the advice of the Chairman of the Regional Committee; and, would you believe, against the statements of either Deputy Kavanagh or Deputy Thornley—I am not sure which; against the statements of the Labour Party, that they would break in this instance from the Socialist Group bloc to support Ireland's interests. Against all that, the Fine Gael representatives saw fit to vote against the veto on the areas to be benefited under the European Fund. What struck me as extremely amusing was their statement in reply—apart from the fact that they implied the whole thing derived from Fianna Fáil misrepresentation—which I quote.

Had we voted against our groups' amendment the result would still be exactly the same, and this decision does not change the veto.

"Had we voted against the amendment the result would be the same": Did you ever hear such nonsense? It implies that they were going to win anyway, and it made no difference. If they take up that attitude in the European Parliament, that our votes will not be of any significance, maybe they had better recast their attitude in that Parliament; or possibly the Government—and here I come back to what I said to the Minister—should ensure, not just by consultation but by direction, if necessary, that the two faces of this Coalition Government in the European Parliament will, despite the obvious disadvantage they have in being members of opposing groups with opposing principles, come together in the national interest and that it will not be left to the spontaneous reaction and ill-judgment, as it now has proved to be, of the representatives involved in some instances.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sure they always would come together if the national interest were involved.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister would recognise that it is not just a matter of major national crises. There are many steps on the road to major national interest, and this particular step was a significant one.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is the Deputy's opinion.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We may hear a different opinion from the Minister, and this would then clearly determine the issue between us. If we do hear a different opinion from the Minister about how significant it was, it may even put a different gloss on what the Fine Gael representatives said.

Dr. FitzGerald

There are pros and cons. Not everything is black or white.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I appreciate that, but there are no agencies better able to present the white for their purpose than the agencies of this Government at this time. If I present a little of the black it may serve to balance the picture just a little.

Dr. FitzGerald

Some grey matter could be useful.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Again we do suffer from this disadvantage that we are not endowed with those elements of grey matter and omniscience and whatever else the members of the present Government have.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister is referring to grey matter. Sometimes a little sound commonsense could be added to what is regarded as the intellectual capacity of this Government, and it is in this area that this Government have shown themselves as being less than effective.

Mr. Esmonde

I think some members of the Opposition are very publicity-conscious, and that before anything else.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy should cast his mind back a little to the days when the Minister present in the House was asked a question on helicopter landings. Facing the Press gallery he said he could not be responsible for the fact that the Fianna Fáil Opposition were not able to put their supplementary questions properly. Deputy Esmonde is telling us we are Press-conscious. I have been in this House quite a while and I hope I shall always have the opportunity and the responsibility to speak to the House and not to the Press Gallery, as the Minister so clearly did on that occasion, for whatever purpose. Apparently some comments were made in the previous day's Press which seemed to be backing up the Minister's view that the Fianna Fáil Front Bench could not ask supplementary questions. In fact he was enlisting their aid on that occasion.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy might talk to some other member of his party.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I shall talk to this House, and the Press can take any view they like as a result of what I say. As long as I am in this House I will never change my attitude by reference to what some commentators may say. I have my responsibility; they have theirs. I will never, by know-towing to them, give the impression that I go along with what they say in any comments they have to make.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should not interrupt the Deputy in possession.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I can recall clearly what I saw on that occasion.

Dr. FitzGerald

He is speaking urbi et orbi.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We will rely on performance, as we always have done, and not on Press projection. Coming to the question as to where our national interest may lie in connection with the veto the Minister says:

Our long-term interest will best be served by an evolution of the Community towards a more democratic structure involving strengthening the powers of the Parliament and moving towards a qualified majority voting system in the Council.

That is a fairly clear statement of Government policy. First of all, I want to question the advisability of stating that at this time. The Minister and Deputies over there will accept that it may be desirable in our short-term interests to rely on the power of veto which already resides in the Council of Ministers. We are, after all, a small nation, a new member of the Community, and I do not think we should let our enthusiasm run riot, but should wait until we see the effect of the powers that at present reside in these institutions, until such time as we see whether or not it is in our interest to move towards a change in the present position. This test has not arisen just yet. It may well arise in connection with the regional policy or with the steps towards economic and monetary union. For that reason I question the advisability of stating as has been stated that our long-term interests will best be served by an evolution of the Community towards a more democratic structure involving strengthening the powers of the Parliament and moving towards a qualified majority voting system in the Council.

While that statement in principle might be all right, I wonder whether it is advisable that we should adopt that attitude until such time as we know that the qualified majority voting system would promote our interests, first, as a nation and, secondly, promote the interests of the European Community as a community. There will be a couple of crunch issues coming up which may indicate that we will have for a long time to rely on the power of the veto which we have. There is a suggestion that the qualified majority voting system cannot be used by the big countries to the disadvantage of the small ones, and we accept that this is the basis on which the qualified majority works at the Council of Ministers, but there are many areas in which the small countries so-called—Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg—do not have a common interest with us and in those areas we could hardly expect that, if they were promoting their national interests exclusively, we could rely on their support under a qualified majority voting system.

The regional policy is one such area. If there was a qualified majority voting system when that came before the Council of Ministers and if people looked to their own national interest, I am afraid we would be on our own as far as those small countries are concerned and would have to turn to Italy and to France. I say to the Minister there is a need for caution in this area. One cannot rely on the fact that the big will not outvote the small. It sometimes happens that the small in size may be big in economic power and certainly may not have common and coincidental interests with us in those areas.

The area of the development of the common agricultural policy is obviously a matter of great consideration at this time. I would like to be assured that when that policy comes up for discussion we, through our Minister, will have the power, if necessary, to veto anything which would be against our national interest. For that reason I question the advisability of mentioning at this time that we should be moving towards a qualified majority voting system in the Council.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy will appreciate that vetoes can be used by other people. It is, therefore, a matter of judgment in each case whether a veto is to our advantage or not.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I appreciate that, but the Minister will equally appreciate that one cannot make a broad judgment so much in advance of what the issues in any particular case may be. I think that that statement is just a little too broad in the circumstances.

In regard to the European Parliament, I do not think we need to reiterate what we said on the last occasion from all sides. We are clearly and definitely committed to an increase in the powers of that Parliament and indeed to the implementation of direct elections to that as soon as may be. At the same time, I would like to make the point that in the move towards direct elections, and indeed it will be a slow, tedious and painstaking road, one must take into account that, if there is any suggestion that our numerical representation in the Parliament would suffer as a result of that, we must indeed be very cautious. Also, having regard to the fact that geographically we are further removed from the institutions of Parliament than most of the Community countries, indeed than any of them, we should at least be entitled to a higher tolerance of representation than other countries somewhat nearer. That was a principle which many parliaments operated until very recently.

A proposal was introduced in this House by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Local Government, which appears to suggest that the further you are from the seat of Government the lower the representation you will be entitled to expect in accordance with your population. That is a new principle which has been introduced. We can only hope that it is not a principle that will be adopted in regard to representation in the European Parliament.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Kennedy

I can assure Deputy Kavanagh that our group, so far as representation at the European Parliament is concerned, will implement the wishes of this party and will not be given the free hand that his party and their Coalition colleagues, represented as they are on two different groups, two opposing groups with opposing principles, have been given to the detriment of the nation.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy in possession make his case? Others may speak later.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We believe in responsibility.

Dr. FitzGerald

By direction.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Direction after consultation, if direction is necessary. If the Minister thinks his representatives out there can act freely without any direction, even against the interests of the nation, his idea of democratic responsibility and mine are different.

Mr. Esmonde

Is the Deputy advocating discipline within his party?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Freedom involves discipline at every level. If there is freedom it must be exercised subject to discipline. The concept of discipline is fundamental to the whole human experience.

It will be very important, if the question of direct election comes up, to ensure that the northern part of this country will be fully and effectively represented and will not have to rely on what might be called the ad hoc assistance or representation by the Members of the European Parliament from the Twenty-six Counties in the meantime. They are, in fact, under-represented and I would hope that in any move in that direction it will be made quite clear that the strength of the representation from that area will be significantly increased.

Speaking of the Community institutions, if the people here are to be expected to identify with the Community, to feel that their interests are being advanced and promoted by this Community, there must obviously be a case for seeing the physical evidence of this Community here in this country. There could be a case for the establishment of some institutions of this Community in this country or even for having meetings of some institutions of the Community in this country at this time.

On the occasion of the last debate I suggested the establishment in Dublin of such institutions as physical evidence of our involvement in the EEC. In reply the Minister said that he had this in mind but that the body he had in mind was different from that suggested by me. I had suggested a European centre for the development of education or some such cultural body. I would like to know whether in the intervening six months the Minister has changed his mind in this regard or, more important, whether he has been able to achieve any success towards capturing one of these institutions for this country. For obvious and valid reasons it is imperative that as soon as possible we can make available here physical evidence of the Community. Any associations we might have in this capital with our European colleagues would help to give us a better understanding of the European way of life and consequently, would help us in becoming better members of the Community to which we are irrevocably committed and of promoting effectively the expertise which one can have only from association with the institutions of the Community. For those and for many other reasons I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to this aspect of our membership. It is not a subject that one might mention in the same way as one would refer to the acquisition of an industry for one's local town and then to leave the matter at that. The issue is one that must be stressed emphatically.

Another significant element of our involvement in the Community is that when we applied for membership we were a non-aligned country and were recognised as such by the Foreign Ministers of the then Six, including M. Schumann of France. Our nonalignment was accepted by these Ministers as being proof that we were not a politically aligned group. They accepted that a neutral, non-aligned country could play a full role in the development of the Community.

We are non-aligned in relation to foreign policy, in relation to our defence commitment and in relation to many other matters that arise on the international scene at this time. Therefore, I question the statement, at pages 7 and 8 of the report, issued by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine in relation to the Middle East situation and the full text of which is published in the report. In this regard I ask whether that statement derives from our obligations under the Treaty of Rome and whether, if so, such a statement is outside the framework of the Treaty of Rome. I suspect the answer to the first part of the question is "no" and, accordingly, that the answer to the second part is "yes". If that is the case, was there not at least an awareness that a precedent was being established here, that we were undertaking an obligation that we would be required to undertake on any other occasion on which similar circumstances might arise? Were we undertaking a commitment that we were not obliged to undertake under the terms of the Treaty of Rome?

This matter was one that called for some caution. It was one which required detailed discussion and sound judgment. I am not concerned particularly with the implications of the statement, but there may be cause for some anxiety in so far as a dangerous precedent has been created which may mean an acceptance by us of obligations in the area of foreign policy, obligations that we are not obliged to accept as a non-aligned country. Are we to accept freely obligations in the area of defence which we are not obliged to accept? There are real dangers inherent in going beyond the obligations that are necessary for one to accept. I do not think any country would expect us to undertake commitments outside the scope of what we are obliged to accept. In regard to the Middle East could our position not have been reserved, especially since we already had troops in the area? Surely it would have been accepted that Ireland was in a special position, not being a member of NATO and since we had troops in the UN Peace Keeping Force in the Middle East at that time. It may have been important that we should have qualified our position. Such qualification may have been accepted by the Ministers of the other countries concerned. It is my opinion that that would have been a better way of dealing with the matter.

I am concerned that we have freely and spontaneously involved ourselves in a position that is well beyond the scope of our obligations as a member of the Community. I can understand the enthusiasm which the Minister might have in relation to such a situation, but one must always temper enthusiasm with caution. Equally, one must temper reason with judgment, but I am not sure whether the two qualities of caution and judgment have been applied effectively on this occasion. I hope that I shall be proved wrong. At page 7 of the report we are told that:

A wide range of topics has been discussed by the Political Committee. These consultations in the field of foreign policy...

Most of us were surprised to know of these consultations. We knew of the machinery for them but we were not aware that the consultations have been taking place to such a significant extent.

...have been valuable in arriving at a common position among the member States on such matters as the preparation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

It goes on to say that the consultations resulted also in a statement on the Middle East. How extensive were the consultations that resulted in that statement? Did this Government give long and considered discussion to our position? How much opportunity did the Minister and his advisers have, and how detailed were these consultations that took place, before that statement was issued, or was it, as some people seem to think, an ad hoc decision or attitude to a rather critical fuel situation? That may be understandable, but I should like to think that if consultations take place on such matters there will be full meaningful discussions and not rushed and hasty ones because of an immediate urgency at any given time.

I should like the Minister to tell me in his reply how detailed these consultations were and how agreement was reached. All of us realise we must be particularly cautious not to compromise our traditional non-aligned role which has given us a very effective voice in the other international institutions. If we are seen to compromise it, our views may not be as effective in the future in the interests of world peace as they have been in the past.

I want to turn at this stage to some incidental matters which I consider to be worthy of mention. At page 99 of the report there is a paragraph on education. I agree entirely with the details and the general attitude presented in the report that it has been realised for some time that there is not obviously the same co-ordination in the educational areas as is required in the social, agricultural and other areas, for the reason that education in any country derives from the experience and characteristics of the young people and of each nation. For instance, you cannot, and I hope we will not, get to a stage where we could so co-ordinate education throughout the Community to the point where we would endeavour to treat the enthusiastic young Italian in the same way as the diligent young German.

There is just one matter I should like to refer to in this area. It deals particularly with higher education, especially in the universities. It has been appreciated for some time in the Departments here and by those who are aware of the machinery in these Departments that if there is one area more than another where they are at a disadvantage it is in the availability of qualified lawyers experienced in European law and in the EEC legal institutions. I should like to ask the Minister if he can indicate what legal advisory services are available to Departments as to the effects of European laws in the areas within the responsibilities of these Departments. What advisory services of any nature are available to these Departments in the matter of their involvement in the European Community attitudes? What, for instance, exists in the Department of Education, in the Department of Transport and Power, in other Departments, to ensure that the people in them are not only aware but also confident of their role in the evolution of the EEC? I suspect we are not nearly as well staffed and serviced in that area as we should like to be.

Therefore, it is particularly important that our law schools should give special attention to the provision of curricula or programmes of study in the area of European law—the laws of the individual countries and also the law of the Community itself. It is particularly important that the Incorporated Law Society and the benchers of Kings Inns should pay particular attention to this because the potential and the scope are great. Most of our delegates who have visited the EEC institutions will acknowledge we are not adequately advised on the implications of the harmonisation of the laws in many areas, whether one talks about road transport, agriculture or any other area. Our experience is bad by comparison with some of the specialist advice available to deputations from other countries. That is the unanimous experience of all our delegations and while each will acknowledge the great effort made by those who are endeavouring to provide these services, all will acknowledge equally that by comparison with other delegations these are non-existent.

I was disturbed to hear that in UCD this year they have made international law an optional rather than a required subject. The consequence of this has been that only eight students are now studying international law. This is no discredit on the judgment of the students. That number compares with 90 last year when it appears to have been a required subject. The Minister will have an opportunity to check this in detail.

Our universities have a responsibility here. The professional law schools, King's Inns and the Incorporated Law Society, have responsibilities but, even more, they have a great opportunity because students who will have the benefit of studies in these areas in the near future will find avenues open to them in European as well as international law which will be interesting and rewarding. It is vitally important this should be stated at this time. If, as I suspect, we are ill advised, perhaps not in quality but in quantity, in the matter of advisory personnel in the various Departments, obviously a major recruiting drive must be undertaken so that in our Departments we will establish an element of European experience, particularly in legal matters. There has not been any such sign of urgency up to the present time.

All of us in this House, particularly those who promoted our membership in the EEC—the Labour Party had a different view then but that is all forgotten at this happy stage—were probably guilty when we pointed out the advantages of the Community. We should have pointed out that it also gives rise to obligations and burdens and that it will cost a significant amount of money to provide the services. Perhaps we should not have spoken so frequently of all the funds that we suggested might be available for relief and assistance in the welfare areas. We might have said that we start at a great disadvantage. We have not had the normal European experience of other countries and we certainly have not the experience of the specialised research facilities available in many of the institutions in the EEC countries. We will be required to discharge our responsibilities not only for the six months in 1975, when the Minister will be President of the Council of Ministers, but will have to do so over a continuous period. We must ensure that nothing but the best will be made available in the areas of specialist advice; to do that, nothing but the best must be made available in the training programmes.

It is rather an irony that farming organisations and the Confederation of Irish Industry seem to be better serviced in the specialist areas which are obviously of great concern to them than are some of our departmental deputations who represent the national interest. If this is the case it should not be allowed to continue——

Mr. Carter

It is certainly the case.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy gave figures about UCD in connection with international law. Do they include night classes? Can he state his source?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not think they do. My source is from the academic staff of UCD. I would be very glad to hear I was wrong in what I said.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy could, perhaps, consult the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach on that point.

Mr. O'Kennedy

My information was that international law was a required subject last year and that it is an optional subject this year.

Dr. FitzGerald

Without prejudice to this discussion, very often when looking for specialists it is better to have an optional subject studied in depth by specialists rather than 90 students taking it as one in a number of other subjects. It does not necessarily follow that what has been done is disadvantageous, but I am not saying it does not need to be looked at.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I appreciate what the Minister has said but, at the same time, specialists do not develop in a vacuum. To have specialists, there must be a broad range of study from which the specialists emerge.

Dr. FitzGerald

That could be.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It might be well to have the back-up from the involvement of other students also. With regard to the question of the environment, the EEC may not be the most effective agency of the international organisations with which we are involved. In other words, it will not be the answer to all our problems. We are members of other organisations and probably some of them are better equipped to deal with some of the areas referred to in this report. I will not go into the matter of the environment in detail but it is evident that the Council of Europe have been concerned about this matter for a considerable time. My impression, until someone disabuses me, is that it is the more appropriate body to deal with the preservation of the environment and to ensure that any abuses will be restricted and punished. First, it is more widely representative than the EEC and, secondly, the source of the pollution may come from outside the Community countries. The pollution may come from rivers flowing through Austria, Italy or Germany to the north or it may be from the Rhone in Switzerland. The only thing the Community can do is to take up a bargaining position with the other countries who may be the polluting countries although when it comes to polluting it would be difficult to outdo the effectiveness of some members of the EEC at the moment.

There is a great need for co-ordination in this area. It may be surprising to some to learn that NATO are concerning themselves with the whole question of the environment and, of course, the United Nations are concerned about the matter. It seems everyone is concerned but it is the old story of what is everyone's business. I turns out to be nobody's business. I suggest the Community is too small a body geographically to do anything very effective on an international level in this area. We are becoming more conscious every day of the effects of international pollution as distinct from the native variety which we practice very effectively. It is difficult for small countries to have the necessary services to deal with problems like this. I know there is great enthusiasm in the secretariat of the Council of Europe in regard to this matter. I attended at committees of Ministers meetings on several occasions as deputy for Dr. Hillery, former Minister for Foreign Affairs and I know they recognise there is need for coordination. We will be happy to support the Minister in the presentation of that view. I made this point as an illustration of the fact that the European Community may not be the answer to everything.

While I may have been critical of the Minister's performance and judgment, I certainly do not doubt his capacity, energy, commitment and intentions—I do not think anyone could. Nevertheless, I must say that I wish the performance matched the intention, that the judgement in connection with some areas to which I referred matched the capacity.

I remember when Dr. Hillery was Minister for Foreign Affairs I became something of a schizophrenic at that time; I had some responsibilities for education but I was involved as an assistant in other areas also. I attended as deputy for Dr. Hillery on numerous occasions, representing Ireland at ministerial meetings at the Council of Europe and the OECD. I do not know how the Minister can discharge single-handed the real and onerous functions of his office—and some others which I am not quite sure he should be involved in to the same degree, such as the presentation of our attitudes in American universities and elsewhere. Perhaps one of the Parliamentary Secretaries who is not challenged to the extent of his capacity as he might be, who may be more of a rubber stamp than an effective administrator, could be allocated as an assistant to the Minister. I think a re-allocation of the present personnel would serve the purpose of giving the Minister the necessary assistance.

I hope the remarks I made at the beginning of my speech about the absolute necessity for a moratorium between the date of publication and debate, which was accepted by the Minister on the last occasion, will not only be accepted by him now but that the intention will be matched by the performance and that on the next occasion we will have at least two weeks after publication in which to consider the reports.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

We have just heard a long and comprehensive speech which on occasion showed a great deal of bias, political bias and otherwise. The bias marred a very real appreciation of the Minister's work and worth. He redeemed himself when he paid tribute to the Minister. I do not know whether he wanted to pat the Minister on the head or to give him a mild kick for his success. Obviously the Minister is to be congratulated. This report is a model of what such reports should be. It shows the work which was put into it by various Government Departments and the high success they attained in making it a condensed, comprehensive and readable document. I think the Minister and congratulate him very sincerely for it.

The development of the European Community covers so wide a field that it is impossible to cover all the ground in one speech. The media should play their part, as they usually do, in presenting to the public in as clear a form as possible the very great difficulties and complexities involved in the working of the EEC. We in the Dáil find it very difficult, and the general public must find it even more difficult to understand just what the EEC is all about. Reports issued from time to time by the Commission on the working of the Community must get publicity if the ordinary man in the street is ever to know what it is all about.

Education was mentioned earlier. A report and policy, drawn up by Profesor Henri Janne, were published in October of this year. In it were details of the action proposed by the Community. They want to see introduced into ordinary schools the purpose and aims of the Community.

Our political opponents question whether our representatives have done their best in the circumstances. This keeps the public representatives on their toes. The reason for my interjection at this level is that we are apt to forget what we must give to the Community. We must make sure that our children learn as much as possible of the workings of the EEC. In that way they will better understand what Ireland can gain, financially and culturally, from membership. I am very glad to see that this proposal is being taken up by the Committee on Education. It is proposed to correct the history books with a view to ex-purging or amending nationalistic biased passages or those of a kind which would create hostile or erroneous judgments.

People have held divergent views on this subject. Nobody would wish that the youth of any country should learn history from biased textbooks. Everybody knows the terrible effects extreme nationalism—I say "extreme nationalism"—has had on Europe. Many people consider that the two major world wars started because of an excess of nationalism. That is one side of what entering the Community entails. We will not be expected to give up any of our nationalistic views. But we must realise at what point nationalism becomes a selfish desire and at what point it may be to the detriment of society and the community in which we live. That is one of the fine things the Community can do.

It is not just a question of looking for how much money each country should get or what should be given. Higher idealism should be stressed at the level which can make all this easier to understand for our people and for the other peoples of the Community.

There is also the question of the recognition of degrees. In most professions this recognition is jealously guarded by different countries. If the Community is to mean anything eventually there must be more pooling of intellectual resources and a bigger exchange of intellectual ideas, teachers and professors, just as the exchange of labour, money and industries will take place to an even greater extent in the future.

The speaker for the Opposition spoke about the lack of information from the Minister. I must take up the cudgels on behalf of the Minister. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is, in my experience, one of the most outspoken and informative people who has ever held that office. Not only is he outspoken and informative in matters dealing with Foreign Affairs, but he is very outspoken and most anxious to give all the information that can be given to the general public. The Opposition speaker's opinion is completely erroneous and unfounded. Perhaps it has only been given in the context of political opportunism. It may be something which has cropped up during a political speech. It has no basis in fact. I know of people who consider that the Minister is outspoken to the point of indiscretion. I do not think anyone in his same senses could say that this most outspoken of all Ministers which we have—and which we have had in my political experience in this House which goes back a long time—has been anything but most informative.

Mr. Carter

I do not think the Deputy meant it that way.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Deputy spoke in a veiled manner. I did not know when he wanted to pat the Minister on the back and when he wanted to chide him. Perhaps this was one of the occasions on which he had not made up his mind about what he wanted to do.

I hope the public will realise that one of the beneficial effects of our entry into the EEC will be what we get from it. There are many other aspects which are equally important to consider. We have got a loan of £7.5 million at 8½ per cent. That is the cheapest money I have heard of for a long time. It will be used mainly for telephones. We certainly need capital expenditure on our telephones. It is good that we have been able to get that money. Some agricultural Deputy will be able to speak better than I can and at greater length on the help which we will get for the backward farms and the hill farms. Farmers will be able to retire and be paid for doing so. This will make room for the younger people. People will get the ownership of their farms at a younger age. They will be placed in a happier position at an early stage of their lives. This could alter the face of rural Ireland very appreciably for the better.

These two matters are of vital importance to the country. They have come from our participation in the EEC. At the end of the report the Minister referred to the joint EEC Committee. I have the privilege of serving on that committee. Reference was made to the question of staffing that committee and of providing it with all the advice necessary. I know I am pushing an open door in urging the Minister on this matter. It is extremely necessary to the well-being of the country, because without that committee functioning smoothly and with all advice on the various subjects which they will need one can see the position they will be in. The report covers the work of that committee so far. They will have to examine all the matters which have appeared in that report, as well as many more. The report ranges all over the agricultural, educational and legal aspects. Our whole relationship with the EEC countries and the legislation which emanates from the EEC will have to come through that committee. Increasingly they will need expert advice. We are pressing for an increase in the personnel, although we are very well serviced at the present moment; we are very well serviced, but we will be increasingly inadequately serviced. We need all sorts of expert advice and we will be needing it increasingly. So, I would urge the Minister to give attention to that aspect of the joint committee.

In conclusion, I wish again to thank the Minister for producing this very excellent report. I should like personally to congratulate him on the work he has done in explaining to the EEC countries our particular needs and in interpreting to this country the great future which lies ahead of us in the field of co-operating and working with our European friends and colleagues in this great adventure of the European Community.

Ruairí Brugha

On this second report, I should like to express a word of appreciation to all the Members of this House who are attending the various meetings of the European Parliament and committee meetings. At one stage or another some of them might err or not err but the fact is that they are giving very valuable time to a very important project in the interests of our country in its position in the European Community. That, of course, includes Ministers of the former Government, the present Minister and other Ministers who attend so many meetings in this area.

The experience that we had during the year when the Paris Summit of last year directed that a principle in relation to regional funds be adopted and followed through, which was followed by an apparently deliberate shift in policy by the Commission, prompts me to make reference to the first section here relating to European union, if only to illustrate how very broad this entire concept is and to warn ourselves of the many pitfalls that may arise between now and 1975 when it is suggested a report on this subject will be submitted to a later summit conference. I quote:

The objective is to transform before the end of the present decade the whole complex of the relations of member States into a European union.

This is a daunting prospect in the context of the position that we have got in the EEC at the present time. I would be interested in getting some information on the last sentence in the first paragraph:

The Community institutions have made it possible for a number of preliminary ideas to be exchanged on the procedure for drawing up the report.

I refer to that simply because Deputy Dockrell earlier spoke about the lack of communication. In the whole area of the EEC there are so many documents coming to us, so many quarterlies, and so on, that there is a danger that quite a number of things may pass us by without our noticing them. It is vital that from here on we should all try to inform ourselves as well as possible on what is taking place in Europe.

Deputy O'Kennedy has adequately covered the statement issued in relation to the Middle East crisis. I would simply repeat what I said on another occasion in this House in regard to this—that we who have only a small but a fairly independent voice should not hesitate to remind the major powers who created this situation where their real responsibility lies. The tragedy of the Middle East seems to me to be a considerable extent the fact that the major powers did not bother about the thing until it became too dangerous for their interests. Then they were able to step in and bring about at least a cease-fire and there seem to be hopes of a settlement. It is in this area that I think that, although we are very small, we can be useful and effective in Europe and outside Europe because Ireland, small as she may be, has a moral obligation to point out error and wrong where it may apply to world powers or even if it should apply to our fellow members in Europe.

I should like to welcome, as Deputy Dockrell did, the £7½ million loan, at what might today be described as a reasonable rate of interest, from the European Investment Bank, for purposes of providing capital equipment for our telephone system. As we all know, our situation in this area has become increasingly difficult particularly during this year.

One area referred to in the report on which I would like to speak is energy. I am glad to learn that a consultative committee on energy research and development is to be established. Indeed, it might well have been established a long time ago.

There are three known sources of energy—fossil, nuclear and solar—and so far this world has been depending almost entirely on fossil energy in the use of oil, gas and coal. This world is coming near the time—and I am not referring to the immediate oil crisis —when an imaginative approach to the whole question of energy and where we are to find energy will be imperative. Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the question of the environment and suggested this might better be dealt with by other organisations. Nevertheless, the type of energy we are using is drawn from the earth; coal, oil and gas, which, with the possible exception of gas, are the type of energy that are themselves creating pollution.

Pollution can be created in many ways which we may not think of. For example, in the cooling of equipment, the transfer of heated water into rivers is a form of pollution, in that it raises the temperature and thereby affects the different forms of life in that river. There are areas here that we on this small island might look into, as is being done in other countries, for instance, the retention of heated water and its use for providing central heating. We should broaden our minds on this whole subject and take a look at the problems that have been created by the need for energy. We have got our Electricity Supply Board, which should perhaps be named the Energy Supply Board, because the world will have to find other means of providing energy. In the old days there were many institutions here that used windmills and were able to supply adequate electricity for their purposes. Anyone who has spent time on any part of the west coast of Ireland will be conscious of the fact that there may be here a means of providing energy, even at some additional cost.

So far as the wealthier developing nations, particularly our partners in Europe, are concerned, we, through this committee, should encourage further investigation into the possibilities of developing and using solar energy. In some parts of France there are experiments going on at present, and some successful work has been done in the United States in this area. I just wonder if perhaps we here in Ireland might direct some of our inventiveness towards this area rather than leave ourselves in the position, as we seem to be doing, of being dependent on the present source of energy and then concentrating on nuclear energy, because nuclear energy itself is a creator of pollution.

I understand that there are here in the universities quite a number of persons with specialist talents—I am not referring to students but to professionals—who are very eager to do research into the development of alternative sources of energy, including solar energy. If we continue as we are doing in this world, things may come to a standstill. As the increase in the use of energy develops, unless we take appropriate action, we may do irreparable damage to our earthly environment.

It is a good thing to highlight the farm directive in relation to the aid for planned development in agriculture, the 30 per cent grant or the subsidy on interest rates of 5 per cent, starting on 1st January next year, and to draw attention in particular to the condition that farm accounts should be kept. This is a very obvious means of bringing the business side of farming up to date.

I was glad Deputy Dockrell drew attention to the education reference on page 99. I agree with him that extreme nationalism, as seen in Europe and in other places, is something from which we want to try and protect young people in the future— as it says here: "of a kind which would create hostile or erroneous judgments." But we of all people should appreciate that where there is a national wrong in any part of the world, where the people of a nation are being dictated to, truth is important, and closing our eyes to a wrong certainly will not remedy the position or help towards the creation of a better world.

I should like to support what Deputy O'Kennedy said in regard to the efforts made by our party early in the month of August and culminating in October with the conference in Dublin attended by members of the Gaullist group and of the Fianna Fáil group at which the switch I referred to earlier on the part of the Commission in regard to regional aid was initiated. The resolution is at page 85.

I was present and listened to the Irish and French delegates discussing and agreeing on this resolution. It was a very good illustration of getting a fairly influential French group to agree with us in what was certainly in our interests and, as they saw it, in the interests of underdeveloped regions of other member countries, rather than allowing the Commission to have its way in putting the matter on a population or quota basis.

I should like to emphasise what Deputy O'Kennedy said, that it is important to have a document of this nature in time. One needs to sit down and study it and ask questions about it. Having said that, I should like to compliment the Minister on producing it and on the great deal of information contained in it. It is comprehensive and it is very useful to us. I hope it is being circulated to all Deputies.

Mr. Creed

I should like to congratulate the Minister and to wish him well in his Department. His energy, enthusiasm and dedication are appreciated by people on all sides and far outside the confines of this House. The country is lucky in having Deputy FitzGerald as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He has put this country not just on the European map but on the world map.

I welcome this debate. It is necessary to discuss, from time to time, where we are going and what we are doing, and to try to convey to the people the position of our country within the Community. It is perhaps not too easy to explain details but a discussion like this is well worthwhile.

I am pleased with the EEC Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. They meet regularly and do some very valuable work. Deputy Brugha said it is difficult to study in depth all the documentation we get. It is difficult to store it and it is impossible to read it all. In this regard the Joint Committee are doing a very good job. It was an indication of the bigness of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he suggested in this House that a member of the Opposition should be chairman of that very important committee. As a result of his suggestion Deputy Haughey was appointed unanimously as chairman. This set the stage for co-operation on all sides. Regardless of our political differences here we all have one common interest within the Community. We are all dedicated and committed to do what we can in the interests of the people. This was a good move and I should like to compliment the Minister on it.

I am afraid that bigness does not go right through, particularly in relation to the ten members of the European Parliament. The ten members of the Parliament are probably, in their own way, doing the best they can in the interests of the people of this country but there is a great lack of discussion and co-operation between those members. There has been controversy about a vote in the European Parliament, particularly in so far as the three Fine Gael members of the Christian Democrat Group are concerned. If the occasion arose again and if the vote happened to be next week, or tomorrow, or any future date, I, for one, would do exactly the same thing and vote absolutely the same way as I did on this amendment to the Delmotte Report. I want to state my reasons why because some commentators have inferred that it was through ignorance, or because we were that week trying to keep a quorum in this House when there were Opposition Deputies walking in and calling for a quorum every now and then. This was not so. The fact that we arrived there that morning did not in any way prevent us from having a discussion on this important matter. People should read the amendment and bear in mind what is involved in it. The amendment referred to the system that would be devised to determine areas and regions which would benefit from the regional fund, whether it would be unanimity or a qualified majority. After discussion with our group and with our three colleagues we decided that we would vote for a qualified majority because prior to that, Commissioner Thomson stated quite clearly in the Parliament, and produced a map from the Commission's office, that all our territory would qualify for regional aid. This is stated quite clearly on the map. Further to that, in Parliament Commissioner Thomson said that this could be identified in much the same way as an elephant.

We wanted to make sure that there would not be any barrier placed between our Minister and the implementation of the fund as quickly as possible and the administration of it because we believe this country can gain considerably from this regional fund. Listening to Deputy O'Kennedy one would get the impression that we should be influenced by Sir James Hill or by Commissioner Thomson. I am not influenced by any of those people mentioned by Deputy O'Kennedy but I am influenced by the discussions we have with our colleagues in the Christian Democrat group at the Parliament. It is my opinion that time will prove right the action of our three members in voting for a qualified majority. It is accepted that all of our country will qualify for regional aid. My understanding of the application of the all-powerful instrument of the veto is that such action brings everything to a halt. In this connection there was no question of the Members of this party removing the right of veto from the Minister, but we must remember that a veto would apply also to other members in the Council of Ministers.

We do not wish to see the Fianna Fáil delegates endeavouring to score political points on this issue. It is not in the interests of this country that they should do so. When the Progressive Democrats group came to this country I was disappointed to note that the leader of the Fianna Fáil delegation issued a statement challenging the Irish members of the Socialist group to prove what influence they had within that group that would be in the interests of this country. The same challenge was issued to the Fine Gael members of the Christian Democrat group. It may be all right to score political points at home but we should present a more united front in fighting the Irish cause in the European Parliament. At the time to which I am referring I issued a statement to my local newspaper, which unfortunately was not published, in which I told Senator Lenihan that it would be more in his interest and in the interests of the Irish people to have one common goal in an effort to achieve as much as possible in the European Parliament. I asked him to discontinue trying to score cheap political points.

The document before us is very welcome but there are a few aspects of it which cause me some concern. One of them relates to the farm development plan. I might digress for a moment here to join with Deputies Dockrell and Brugha in welcoming the £7,500,000 loan from the European Investment Bank. We have been able to raise this loan at a very low rate of interest. The money is to be used to help solve the problem of the telephone service. Public representatives are inundated with complaints in regard to this service. It is an area that has been neglected for some time with the result that there is now a huge backlog of applications for the installation of private telephones.

I welcome the proposals for the implementation of the directive on the modernisation of farms, mentioned at paragraph 7.1 of the report and now being submitted to the Commission. Under these proposals development farms—farms capable of development through planning so as to yield a labour income as good as that earned by non-farm workers—will be entitled to a 30 per cent grant or a subsidy on interest rates of 5 per cent on the basis of a detailed comprehensive farm plan designed to provide the required income. As a condition of receiving aid, the farmer must keep accounts. We must ask ourselves whether our farmers are geared to keep accounts. I know there is not much difficulty involved in this regard but there is a certain attitude to bookkeeping on the part of the farming community. There is much work to be done in order to impress on farmers the necessity of keeping accounts. This is an area in which the agricultural advisory service and the county committees of agriculture can be of immense help in informing farmers of the benefits that will accrue to them from the development plan. This plan will help in particular areas like the west of Ireland and other areas that have been neglected for some time. If we can bring our farmers to a realisation of the advantages of the plan we will be going a long way towards solving the problems to which so much lip service has been paid in this House down through the years but in respect of which we have done nothing. The development plan, combined with the regional fund, will be of tremendous help to congested areas.

There are many demands on the Minister but we are confident that he is doing a good job. The type of discussion we are having now is very necessary from time to time so that the public might be informed of developments in the Community and so that the adverse comment that emanates from time to time from sources outside this House will be counteracted. This country should gain considerably from membership of the EEC.

Mr. Kavanagh

At the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister and to the officials of his Department for presenting us with this comprehensive document. Its compilation must have consumed a great deal of their time. The Department of Foreign Affairs is one of the busiest of all Departments. Their activities have expanded greatly during the past few years. They have been involved in many rounds of discussion right from the day on which the idea of our entry to the Community was mooted up to the present. The staff have been working under tremendous pressure to meet deadlines not only in having this document produced on time but also in respect of the huge number of commitments they have in regard to the EEC and many other areas. It is a magnificent tribute to see this document being brought out in time for the second time this year containing information which is up-to-date to the beginning of this month.

The document contains information necessary for everybody who wants to know what is happening in the EEC and who wants to know Ireland's involvement in the Community. It is useful not only for discussion in the House but for the discussion among business and farming interests in the country, to whom I recommend it. It should be on the desk of every businessman and every farming organisation who have interests in Europe. The report, as I have said, is completely up-to-date with the exception of one or two decisions arrived at in the past week or two, especially in relation to hill farming, which obviously could not have been included. The Minister underlined the reason why this is so.

Of particular interest is the statement of Government policy on page 16, set out in three cogent paragraphs which include the one which states that our long-term interests will be best served through the evolution of the Community towards a more democratic structure and movement towards a qualified majority voting system in the Council. This is of particular interest judging by what has been said by the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, and by my colleague in the European Parliament, Deputy Creed. A great deal of publicity has been given to the recent voting pattern on a specific amendment during the regional policy debate in the European Parliament. I do not need to underline what Deputy Creed has said in this respect, of his enunciation of what made him and his two colleagues come to the decision they arrived at.

To me it seems illogical that certain members should feel they should support an amendment which would require a qualified voting system. In the socialist group, Deputy Thornley and I must harp back to our original stand on entry to the EEC. The Opposition Party say that Fine Gael were for it and Labour were against it. I must point out that the Labour Party above all others were committed to Europe long before the matter of entry to the EEC arose. They were the only party which had connections with many of the democratic socialist parties in Europe. When membership of EEC arose we put forward a very clear policy and it must be said again, because the spokesman on Foreign Affairs for Fianna Fáil has mentioned it, that we were for entry to the EEC on the basis of associate membership. We considered it appropriate for a country at our level of development at that time to have associate membership only, and we made that clear to the electorate. Our colleagues in the Government made their position clear, the people decided and we, the Labour Party, accepted that decisions. In doing so we made known our intent to play our part in the Community.

Deputy Corish appointed two Members of our party to the Socialist group of the European Parliament. Since we went into Government, Deputies Cruise-O'Brien and Keating became Ministers in that Government and Deputy Thornley and I have replaced them. We have continued the policy we enunciated last year, the policy to play our part in the EEC institutions.

If there is one small point of criticism I would make of this report it is that there is not some explanation given of the arrangement of the groupings in the European Parliament. That Parliament sits in several groupings which are on ideological bases. Therefore, the ten Irish Parliamentarians find themselves in three different groups. Fine Gael are part of the Christian Democrats, Fianna Fáil have joined the European Democrats for Progress—the Gaullist group —and we are part of the Socialist group. In that way, the Irish delegates are dispersed among two-thirds of the membership.

Many of the commentators from the Irish newspapers who cover the European Parliament have agreed that Deputy Thornley and I have taken the best stand for an Irish delegation to take. It means that this Irish group have influence over a very wide spectrum of European Parliament membership. The Socialist group are representative of all nine countries. It is the second largest group, with 50 members as against 52 for the Christian Democrates, out of a total membership of 198. We therefore reach a large number of members of the Community from all are represented in all nine countries and are members of the Governments of seven of those countries. Surely it is of great benefit to the interests of Ireland that we should have influence through contract with those powerful parties at all levels of the Community. The Irish view is heard at ordinary party level among ordinary party members in all the nine countries. When one realises that perhaps one of the most powerful European Parliamentarians, Dr. Brandt, the Chancellor of West Germany, has 18 members in the Socialist Group one will readily realise the influence we can bring to bear in reaching the ear of that most powerful nation. The criticism this morning of us as Socialists for having joined the Socialist group cannot be sustained if one considers the importance of having influence in that most powerful group. I am sure the Christian Democrats could make a similar statement on their behalf.

It is the professed acknowledgement of most people in Europe that the best advantage for Ireland is that its ten members are dispersed in this way over the entire spectrum of the European Parliament. That should be remembered when people try to make party political advantage out of our membership in the Socialist group and the membership of Fine Gael in the Christian Democrat group. The real interests of this country are not being served by those who are trying to get some party political advantage out of this grouping; indeed, the opposite is the case.

From our point of view the most important event since the first report was published was the publication by the Commission of the European Communities of the document on agriculture—The Improvement of the Common Agricultural Policy (Com (73) 1850 final) dated Brussels 31st October, 1973. This document has been given considerable publicity in the newspapers and it is one of which we must be very wary. Although it is entitled “Improvement of the Common Agricultural Policy” very few farmers here would agree that the objectives laid down in that document will improve matters for them.

There are three main objectives in the document. First, to scale down the disequilibria on certain agricultural markets; secondly, to simplify some of the machinery of the common organisation of the markets; thirdly, and the most important, to cut back expenditure under the guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

Everyone is aware of the argument that has been going on for many years in the Community regarding the need to reduce surpluses as a result of the Common Agricultural Policy. If this document were to be implemented—I do not believe it will be because already there are strong reservations not only from this country but from others in the Council—it would mean a reduction of the subsidy to the FEOGA funds of £217 million for milk and dairy products in one year. In respect of cereals it would have the effect of reducing the fund by £268 million. This is a cut of 26 per cent in the allocation to the FEOGA costs. No one can suggest that this is an improvement as far as we are concerned.

If this change is to occur we are aware of what will happen to milk. When the stocks of butter reach a particular level, a maximum of 2 per cent will be put on the production of milk in excess of 2,200 gallons by any one farmer. This is approximately the yield from two or three cows and it would impinge very strongly on most of the farming units here. The basis of this levy seems to run counter to all good governmental practice by the Commission. It would seem that the most efficient producers would be penalised while the least efficient would not be penalised. I am glad our Minister for Agricultural and Fisheries immediately rejected this suggestion and it appears the proposal will not get off the ground. There were many other areas that Commissioner Lardinois could have examined in order to effect some savings and to reduce surpluses. The suggestions he has put forward appear to indicate that the reductions being effected in agriculture are being achieved simply because there will be extra expenditure in the area of regional and social policies. Any reductions in the area of agriculture will be used in those other areas so that a country like Ireland that would hope to benefit from the CAP and from the social and regional policies would find they would be of no benefits as the farmers would be paying for the regional and social funds.

The attack which is being launched on this document by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and by all members of the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament will, I hope, have the effect of staving off the worst features for this country. In this regard the need for unity among members of the European Parliament is underlined by the fact that irrespective of what grouping we belong to all of us see the dangers involved in a document of this kind. It is well known that the Irish members of the European Parliament will be of one mind on this document and will oppose it at whatever level possible, whether in the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament or in the plenary sessions of that Parliament. It is accepted within each group that where a national issue is involved, if the views of members are at variance with the group they can vote against the interests of the group if it means upholding the national interest. I shall continue to carry out that policy in regard to our voting in the European Parliament when the national interest requires it, and I am sure this will be the view of Deputy Thornley also. I think it is the view of all members of the European Parliament.

The Minister referred to regional policy in his statement. Although all the members of the European Parliament are at one in highlighting the need for the fund to be devoted to concentrated areas, which would include Ireland both north and south, the deprived areas in southern Italy, and perhaps areas in the north of Scotland and parts of Wales, we all condemn the Commission for producing a map that covers 50 per cent of that part of Europe that is contained within the European Communities. We have all condemned this at every level, within our own groups in the European Parliament and at the plenary session. One-third of the population of the European Community are living and working within the 50 per cent covered by the Commission's map where the regional fund can be spent.

Our efforts in the European Parliament have had the effect of bringing home to members the need to concentrate this fund in specific areas. The level of the fund at £1,000 million over three years would be of no significance if it were to be spent on the broad area outlined in the map. Even if it were concentrated within those areas which need it most it would still be too small to do an effective job. Nevertheless, the level of the fund has been put forward and at European Parliament level it was accepted at £1,000 million over the next three years. The amount in the budget for next year is about £220 million. We must ensure that projects which can benefit from this fund are put forward from 1st January. Only in this way will we be able to judge the sincerity of our friends in the European Community. Will we be able to regard them as friends when we put in our projects and see if they will attract the full amount stated in the guidelines laid down in the Commission's policy? I know the Minister will have lined up specific projects to test the sincerity of the Commissioner and his staff in seeing that Ireland benefits from the fund. This is the best way to judge if the fund is sufficiently large and whether Ireland can benefit adequately from it. From discussions with members of the Commission I believe that in order to show their bona fides in this area the Commission will go out of their way to help countries like Ireland when they submit their projects. I wish to underline the fact that I hope sufficient projects will be forthcoming on 1st January.

The social policy is important to this country. We have a particular connection with this area in the Commission. Dr. Hillery, a former Member of this House, is the Commissioner in charge of that area. He has served here for many years in several ministeries. We all know the sincerity he applied to his job here and I am sure he will do the same while he is in the Commission. He outlined a very ambitious programme on which a decision will be taken within the next year. It lays down many projects which we are anxious to see brought about. The main projects are in the field of co-operation between national employment services, the introduction of a national income support system for retaining workers, the achievement of real equality on job markets between men and women which is receiving particular attention from the Government at this time, the social integration of handicapped persons, an action programme on safety at work and social protection for persons not covered under existing schemes, adaptation of social security benefits to income growth, co-operation with member states on pilot schemes to combat poverty, greater use of the Standing Committee on Unemployment at a policy forum and Community assistance for the creation of a European trade union institute. This will require adequate funds. My worry is that adequate funds will not be available for this type of work. I hope to get an opportunity at the next plenary session to address the European Parliament on this subject. I would urge the Minister again to see that sufficient funds are devoted to this very necessary work. It has particular relevance to our situation. I expect that our colleagues in the European Parliament will make every effort to see that this social action programme is supported to the full at every level.

I should like to refer to the education policy and a committee to which I belong, the Cultural Affairs and Youth Committee. This has relevance to the education policy. The first effect of the policy on the enlarged Community was detailed by Commissioner Darendorf at a recent meeting of our Parliamentary Committee. An attempt is being made for the mutual recognition of degrees and diplomas by the Commission throughout the nations of the EEC. To this end, Mr. Darendorf held a meeting of various medical groups. From our recent experience one might say that he tackled one of the toughest areas. If he is successful he can move to every other area for the recognition of degrees and diplomas with every hope and assurance of success.

There is reference in this document to the European School in Luxembourg. Many Irish nationals now live and work in Europe, particularly in Luxembourg. Instead of being counted in their tens and twenties, they are now counted in hundreds. I am aware of the number of families being educated in that school. I was disappointed to learn that at present there are only two Irish teachers there. I hope this number will be increased in order to provide a continuation of the education these children were getting here. Obviously they will have to integrate to a certain degree with the children they are meeting daily. The majority of the families will be in Europe for a few years and then intend coming home. The upheaval of their children's education at a formative level must be a great worry to them. The Minister should ensure that the number of Irish teachers in that school will be increased over the next few years.

I should like to make a reference to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Community. This new committee has its teething troubles. There have been pressures on this House and the Department of Foreign Affairs for staff. This has meant that the work of the committee is not perhaps being as effectively done as it should be. The information service is inadequately staffed. Those of us who have to enunciate policy for this country notice a great lack of information. There is not sufficient personnel to produce quickly documents which are needed on the various aspects of policy within the Community. Those of us who must serve in Europe and also keep our seats in this Parliament must do a great deal of constituency work in the time we are here. There is great need for extra staff for this committee so that we can get some help on documentation. There is a great flood of documentation. It has been mentioned by every speaker in this debate. It comes from the European Parliament and the European Commission. Demands have been made on the Minister. Everybody understands the problems he faces at this time in regard to the extension of his own staff while at the same time providing qualified people for the Joint Parliamentary Committee. I know the Minister has great interest in seeing that the extra staff are provided. Every effort should be made to provide an extension of staff for the Joint Committee as soon as possible.

I would like to add my thanks for the efforts being made by the Minister and his Department to keep us abreast of what is happening with the aid of documentation. Much more has to be done. I believe that, with the Minister we have in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the needs of this House will be met at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Carter

I should like to comment on the Minister's statement on the occasion of the presentation to the House of this Second Report. In this context I agree with Deputy O'Kennedy who said that we should have better communications between those of us who are not in Europe and those who are. I should like to think that those of us at home would be abreast of current events in Europe in the same way as the Deputies who are participating actively there.

There are certain types of communication which I personally, as an observer in this House, feel would work best in the circumstances. I have mentioned this matter in another context and another place. With all the documentation at home and abroad I am afraid we shall find ourselves eventually having to order a mechanical shovel to get us out from under the mountain of paper which will descend on us. That is not the best way to inculcate in our Deputies a knowledge of European affairs or of affairs at home. Is it not time that we looked for ways and means of short-circuiting this type of communication, excellent though it is? Can we not at this stage have a direct briefing method? This does not in any way discount the fact that we should read all the documents we can and try to assimilate them. But, having read them, we should have access to direct briefing.

When we were engaged on the referenda for entry into the EEC, the Minister's predecessor in office was complimented on the presentation of our case. I want to develop this point further and say that, while the personnel unit in the Department may be a small one, there is no reason, if we can find personnel equal to the task, why we should not have, now and again, direct briefing sessions from that unit, especially on matters of vital importance now taking place in Europe.

At present the life of a Deputy is made hardly worth living—to put it in crude terms—by the difficulties he encounters. A good deal of a Deputy's time should be spent working in his constituency. May I say that too much emphasis is laid on representation? We have never found within the party system a proper method for dealing with this aspect of a politician's life. This leads to an overcrowding of a Deputy's time. He may be limited as to the amount of time he can spend in the House. All this tends to create an obstacle to proper communication. All of us know that before we entered the EEC one was hard-pressed at times to keep abreast of the discussions and legislation in the House. There were debates on Estimates and on legislation and Deputies had to try to keep abreast of what was going on. Having regard to all this, I appeal to the Minister to consider direct briefing. This aid has never been used in our Civil Service Departments because it has not been advocated. We are too inclined to follow the British system of staff staying at Whitehall and only communicating when the need arises.

I am not saying that that obtains in Whitehall now but it did in the past. I hope Merrion Street will adopt a different attitude for the future. I would not see anything wrong in a public relations officer in the Minister's Department being seconded to brief the members of all parties in this House on certain aspects of European policy, especially current aspects. Bear in mind the fact that this document contains very serious matter regarding European proposals and legislation.

I am not a member of the European committees and I am not connected with the work in Europe but I recall that when I was a representative to the Council of Europe the first thing that struck me was the lack of help, the lack of briefing, even in the Council of Europe, the lack of secretariat, and so on. Perhaps that was because our income was restricted. I am prepared to argue that in order to make the most of our time in Europe we must have recourse to new methods. Old methods must die. Sometimes they die hard. They must be killed, if necessary, by the Members of this House.

I shall not go into detail in regard to the points discussed by Deputy O'Kennedy who made some very good points. At very short notice, he dealt very well with the subject.

No one will blame the Minister for any omissions which may be mentioned here because often of late the Minister has been inclined to take on a great deal and even if he could crowd 24 working hours into the day it would be humanly impossible to achieve the rate of progress that he has tried to achieve. There should be a more rational approach to this matter. The methods of briefing Deputies on the spot should be improved. An effort should be made to reduce the volume of paper so that there could be better informed opinion as regards Europe.

Let me say straight away that but for the Confederation of Irish Industry I should be almost briefless in regard to Europe. I should like to compliment the CII from the floor of this House, not merely with regard to the present but with regard to the manner in which the CII worked in the past in order to present and document the facts in relation to Europe.

It is customary to issue booklets. Time is a problem with Deputies. How do we make the best use of it? Ways and means of briefing Deputies in connection with Europe must be explored. There are many matters of vital importance referred to in the Minister's statement, matters which pertain to this country, matters in which all Deputies on all sides of the House are interested. Happily, we all subscribe to the one view on foreign policy. There should be the greatest possible communication in regard to these matters. The methods of communication that have obtained to date should be improved.

We have been talking here of better means of communication. The last time I was in Europe I and a few of my colleagues were invited out by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the French Government. At that time the French were very anxious to have an exchange of young persons. The question was how best that could be done. It should not be forgotten that there are some second generation policies mentioned in these documents. How are we to promote better communication for the younger people who possibly will be the politicians, diplomats, commissioners and Council of Ministers of tomorrow? One way of doing it on restricted means would be by twinning towns. It may be a very weak type of suggestion but if we are not able to send children to school in Europe or to send them on long-stay holidays to Europe, we should adopt the French proposal of an exchange of young people on a yearly basis. Towns of similar size could be twinned and the children in these towns could be allowed to spend their holidays in the twin town perhaps for a month or whatever period could reasonably be arranged. I mention this merely as a way in which the European idea could be spread here. In that way the younger people would have a more lively interest in and better appreciation of what is involved.

I should like to refer briefly to the social fund and from there go on to discuss the regional development fund. All of us in this House take a lively interest in social development. When we come to speak of social development we know enough about it to know the problems which we have to deal with here at home, and we know enough about it to know that, under the Treaty of Rome, the European Community and the Government, who represent the European Community, are also very interested in this subject.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 29 Nov 1973

Developments in the European Communities—Second Report: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Nov 1973