Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Feb 1974

Vol. 270 No. 9

Developments in the European Communities—Second Report: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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

—(Minister for Foreign Affairs.)

Mr. Wilson

I have made the major part of my contribution on this Second Report on Developments in the EEC, and I have only a few brief remarks to make in conclusion. I concentrated mainly on the section dealing with education and, in particular, on the reference in the report to a report which was commissioned by Professor Henri Janne. Therefore, I shall conclude on the question of education in the Community by suggesting that some initiative should be taken, not an Irish, French or German initiative, but an initiative known to be a Community initiative in education. After all, it is only quite recently that the EEC decided they would drop one of the Es and concentrate both in terminology and in fact on the idea of it being a European Community, not merely an economic community.

I have a suggestion to make, not a well-formed one at the moment, but one which would deserve study and which has been mentioned on occasions by various people already in Europe, that some kind of European education institute should be established. Professor Janne in his report did say that one of the places where the Community should be very strong in the educational field is in that of modern language teaching. The languages are there; the experience and the expertise should be there. What I am suggesting is this—and I may do something about it by way of motion later on—a European educational institute where a concentration could be made on the teaching of modern languages, particularly the European ones, and European languages spoken outside the existing Community as well. I am glad to say that comments generally by the experts in the Janne report also took in other countries which are not now and may not be members of the Community.

This institute could also develop educational technology generally, but particularly the technology that is now in use in the teaching of modern languages. It could also be developed into a fine centre for a European library, a library, that is to say, for books which, through a liaison with the national libraries in the various countries of the Community, could be very useful. It could also act as a library for films of one kind or another, not purely educational in the narrow or professional sense. It could also quite usefully engage in mounting itinerant exhibitions of paintings, for example. I know there is a difficulty about this. We discussed this already in another context, and the question of security and expense is one that has to be taken into consideration. However, if we are to believe what we said ourselves and what other Europeans said, that it was not for the money bags situation that the Community was developed, we could spend some money in this line too.

Incidentally, I would like either the Community Commission or the Community itself to get out some kind of handbook in which there would be a glossary of the terms that are in use, not merely for the general public but for people who are interested in the various legislative assemblies. There is a rash of initials, dots and capital letters, and it is very difficult to pick one's way through them. It is only a minor point but one that occurred to me on reading the reports.

The whole purpose of my advocacy of this type of institute is, as I said, to give some kind of educative European dimension to the educational scene in Europe. I know there was a proposition already for a European centre for educational development, and I believe a commission was set up —I am a little vague on this; there is no reference to it in the report as far as I remember—and people were asked to develop a programme of action in this field. Perhaps we could hear something about how it is getting on, if I am right in thinking that is the case.

Our Minister here could take some kind of European initiative. We do not have to wait on Mr. Darnedorf or any of the Ministers in the various other member countries. We could do this as an earnest of our interest in the EEC. There has been great concentration on economics and on the social and regional policies. I do not wish to be pessimistic about our progress in regard to regional policy but it has been bad and very disheartening. If achievement in some other field could be put before the people the pessimism which will inevitably set in if the monetary and economic union problem and the problems concerning the regional policy are not solved could be lessened.

I have not much more to say about this second report. I have a little to say in reference to paragraph 7 (1) of the Second Report, and on page 8 paragraph 24, and on page 9 paragraph 28 of the supplementary report which was circulated, and also in relation to directives Nos. 160 and 161. Directive No. 160 deals with the cessation of farming and Directive No. 161 deals with the socio-economic guidance to be provided for farmers. I should like to say a few words about this. Paragraph 28 of the supplementary report says that the socio-economic guidance will be by way of expansion of existing facilities. It is rather difficult to make out what that is. I am sure there is a document which has been submitted and I should like to be able to read such a document some time. Does this mean purely economic guidance? We have not got a highly-developed social guidance team. Does this mean the people who are directly employed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Lands, or does it mean that money may be provided for organisations such as Macra na Tuaithe and Macra na Feirme which are involved in educational work of this particular type?

Directive No. 160 refers to the people who will be persuaded to leave farming. This is purely an educational question. That is why I am raising it here at all. It says that the people who opt to lease or sell their land so that it may become available to development farmers will not be allowed to keep much land. The area of the land they keep will be limited. They will not be encouraged to produce in marketable quantities from the amount of land left to them. I am reasonably familiar with the rural scene and I see serious problems in this proposal. The human problem must be dealt with. Most people engaged in agriculture work long days and work every day. They work very hard. If they are to be persuaded to leave most of their land in the pool for development farmers, it would be wrong to deprive them of the power to engage in horticulture. I will define how this is relevant.

A person who ceases to be involved in intensive activities will be lost and will not know what to do with himself. This is a serious social problem for a person of 55 to 60 years of age. I understand that 55 years will be the relevant age in Ireland. If such a man has a small plot of land, approximately an acre, left to him it is quite possible that he could derive a great deal of human fulfilment from using that acre or so for the production of vegetables. Quite often such a man does not know very much about the intensive cultivation of vegetables. In this instance the socio-economic guidance could be brought to bear on the scene. There could be someone who would instruct the man. The social problem could be dealt with and the farmer could develop his acre or half-acre of garden. It would be ridiculous if he were allowed to develop it but not to sell the produce. There are both social and educational problems here.

I do not know whether we have power to amend or change a directive. I am sure we were not involved in the formulation of the directive. Consequently we could not have brought this idea to the Commission when the directive was being formulated. This is a problem which should get attention. The fact that it is a social problem and that education is also involved to a certain extent means that it is a Community problem. This would also enrich the country. In rural areas vegetables have often to be brought from the capital city to the small towns. Developments in this regard could take place. In Russia it is well-known that the collective farms are not totally satisfying to the people who work them but the Soviet authorities allowed patches of land for individual, private cultivation and as a result great quantities of horticultural produce came on the market and enriched the State.

I will conclude by saying that there has been much disappointment along the road to economic and monetary union. Would full economic and monetary union suit this country if we had it? There has been much disappointment about the regional policy. We feel that the Community were not "putting their money where their mouths were", when we were advocating joining the Community. Some initiative that would succeed in the educational world would be a great boost to the whole idea of the Community.

In the supplementary document reference was made to scientific and technological matters. I would hope that we might get some help also about such matters. There seems to be considerable discontent about the involvement of the country in higher technological education. There are rumblings from the Dublin Higher Technological Colleges in Bolton Street and in Kevin Street and also in the College of Commerce in Rathmines. In developing these colleges we should try to take note of the European dimension.

In this regard I hope there will be no false antithesis posed by anybody between the Dublin colleges and the regional technological colleges. Some person in a rather important position has started this and is stating that the regional technical colleges will get all the money and the Dublin ones will not. I hope this will die a sudden death in our own community as well as in the context of the European Economic Community.

There is a reference in the supplementary report to cross-Border co-operation. I should like to make a brief reference to the submission which, I think, the Minister for Foreign Affairs got from Mr. Simpson of Queen's University in which a plan for the development of the Monaghan-Fermanagh region was tentatively outlined. I am sure I do not have to ask the Minister to have a look at the map and to see that the large Cavan panhandle comes in between Fermanagh and Leitrim, both of which counties are mentioned. Mr. Simpson, for some reason, seems to have skipped over the western part of my native county and constituency. I am sure I can rely on the Minister, as a favour, to make sure that part of the constituency is taken into account if there is to be development in that region—I hope there is—as well as in the Derry-Donegal region.

Dr. Thornley

I wonder if you will permit me, Sir, to descend to a level which is at once more mundane and in some ways more precisely concerned with Ireland's contribution to Europe than the previous speaker.

Mr. Wilson

I am very mundane and down to earth.

Dr. Thornley

I did not mean that rudely. I meant that I should like, with your permission, Sir, to make a contribution from a specific point of view: that of someone who has been engaged with the others as a representative of this country in the European Parliament for the last nine months and to give those present in the House and the Minister the benefit of whatever lessons I have learned or mistakes I have made. That is all I meant. I did not mean to be in any way impertinent or offensive to the Deputy.

This is the first opportunity I have had to contribute to the debate because for most of the time it was debated I was in Europe or buckled into one of the seats of EI 647 on the way to or from Europe and consequently not in a position to give my views. Even at this moment I should be at a meeting of the very enlarged committee to which the Deputy refers. I am not able to do so because I cannot be in two places at once. Thereby hangs a tale, one with which the Minister will be familiar, and one which I want to recount.

Mr. Wilson

The tale of the impossible.

Dr. Thornley

Exactly. Not even I could do that. Only Deputy Gibbons has mastered the feat of being in two places at the same time, according to the newspapers. I want to say something specific about the contribution we can make in Europe and the contribution Europe can make to us. Frankly, after nine months' membership of the European Parliament I am struck very sharply and very depressingly by the feeling that all of us are totally unprepared for accepting the obligations of European membership. I do not think we are ready for it; I do not think the Civil Service are ready for it; I do not think Deputies are ready for it and I do not think I am ready for it. That does not mean that I am making a philosophical argument that we ought to withdraw from it. I think that is quite impossible. On the contrary, having entered it, I think we should gear ourselves as rapidly as possible to it but I do not think we have succeeded in doing this.

The present status of Ireland in the European Economic Community is akin to that of a donkey entered for the Grand National. Even when Deputies have finished talking about technological education and things like that, even in regard to such facilities as fluency in a second language this country positively disgraces itself by comparison with the other eight member states—every one of them, particularly the Scandinavian States. There is not a single member of the Irish delegation of ten who could conduct any kind of technical, sophisticated dialogue about anything in any other language than English. The most any one of the ten of us can do is order a meal. This is an appalling reflection on ourselves and on our educational system. This is one of the things I want to get off my chest here today.

Say a serious technical discussion comes up and Walter Scheel, the German Foreign Minister, is present. If the speaker is talking in English, French or German he takes off his instantaneous translation headphones and listens to what they are saying, whether they are talking about the "snake in the tunnel", the floating of the French franc or nuclear disarmament. There is not a single Irishman in Europe from this Parliament who can do this. I cannot do it. I am probably the best French speaker of the five members of the Coalition Government and my French is diabolical. That, in the first instance, is a reflection on us.

Secondly—I want to get this one off my chest, too—when we are all finished debating the mass of consequent legislation from the European Parliament we should bear in mind that the vast majority of the time of the members of the European Parliament is spent getting to and from the places in which it is meeting. Aer Lingus, in their wisdom, deem the European Parliament to be so trivial that they are incapable of sustaining a direct service to Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg with the consequence that the taxpayers' money, which sustains me and my colleagues in this representative position, is largely expended by my sitting in London Heathrow Airport waiting for connections to bring me to Strasbourg, Brussels or Luxembourg, if I am lucky enough to have one of those connections arrive on time. If I am not there is always the hovercraft, which one of my colleagues had the good fortune to travel in from Ramsgate to Calais, arriving at midnight after a 12 hours' journey, not exactly in the best intellectual condition to make a massive contribution on the floating of the French franc.

In these circumstances Ireland—I am being deliberately sarcastic here; I mean this and am not being funny— should again take a close look, and the Minister should also take a close look, at whether or not we are really in Europe. Do we mean business? The European entry campaign was sold by people who enthused about the importance of our European involvement. Is this importance being adequately reflected when overworked and tired men, like all ten of us—I include my colleagues on the other side of the House as much as my colleagues on this side of the House— are sent to Europe in a cumbersome, complicated and dilatory manner, inadequately briefed and in many respects unaware of what our obligations are and unable to make an adequate contribution?

I do not for a moment want to enter into party politics. I have no reputation in this House for being somebody who makes party points out of a relatively technical report, such as the kind we have before us. I will, however, make the point that the Labour Party was the only party of the three parties in this House to to oppose membership ab initio. We argued against my friends in Fine Gael who said that entry into the Common Market would be followed by a bonanza to the farmers from the common agricultural policy and to the workers from the regional and social funds. We said this was impossible. We said Europe was already overproducing primary goods. We said that the Germans would not continually pick up the price bill for the regional and social funds. We said the honeymoon was coming to an end.

The honeymoon is coming to an end and Europe, as everybody admits —the Minister mentioned this in his speech last night—is facing one of the most difficult and dangerous periods since the inception of the Common Market. The honeymoon is coming to an end and owing to a series of coincidences, like the election in North Tipperary which led to a general election, the gentlemen who negotiated the protocol of accession now find themselves in opposition. They are, therefore, arguing that the consequences which were predicted by people like Deputy Kavanagh, Deputy Keating and myself are in some way the result of our neglect. They are nothing of the kind. They are the consequences we predicted would in fact take place.

I simply do not know how the stress could be placed on the imminent bonanza deriving from the common agricultural policy in the context of a situation where the French farmers are holding a sit-in in Strasbourg, complaining that they are not receiving adequate return for their products. How in these circumstances we can anticipate that the other eight countries are going to act as a charitable institution towards Irish agriculture, I cannot understand.

I was attacked in Ireland for a vote which I made on support prices for a certain agricultural product. That vote was on a technicality, that an urgency motion should be accepted. I was not voting on principle against the acceptance of the form of support prices envisaged by those who supported the permission to have a vote of urgency. I simply saw no point in having the urgency vote when Commissioner Lardinois had made the statement he made. Having said that, let me say— and no politician should say it—it is possible that in that instance I made a mistake. I submit this, not so much because it is in any way damaging to me but because I want to underline the point that Irish delegates to the European Parliamentary Assembly from both sides of the House will continue to make mistakes while they are expected to be walking encyclopaedias on every aspect of European policy almost totally unsupported by any form of specialist information, at least until very recently. Inevitably, we may make mistakes on both sides of the House; let us be honest and admit this.

The other countries go to the European Parliament armed with support staffs. I am not weeping and demanding ten secretaries or an executive jet but I am making the point that as everybody who goes to the Common Market Parliament knows—and every Deputy here who goes will bear me out on this—the volume of material that comes in our post every day of the working week is so incredibly great that it would be beyond the capabilities of Einstein to decipher that part of it which is relevant to Irish needs as against the great 99 per cent of it which is not. As a result, we are led into making instantaneous judgments and, perhaps, these judgments in some cases on both sides have been wrong. If we continue in this amateurish attitude towards the European Parliament they will continue to be wrong from time to time.

I also want to stress the illusion that some people have about membership of the European Parliament. To many people the European Parliament is a slightly more lucrative extension of the Council of Europe to which one goes for the occasional trip, as it is so euphemistically called here, bringing the wife if one can wangle her in at 50 per cent in Aer Lingus. It is nothing of the kind; it is virtually a full-time job. The Fianna Fáil Gaullist who is, I think vice-President of the Progressive Democrats, M. Cousté, referred to us the other day as exhausted men at a meeting in Berlin. This is perfectly correct and in Europe there is increasing discussion of the whole concept of the dual mandate and whether it is possible for people like the eight of us who are Members of the Dáil to sustain our role in which we make a meaningful intellectual contribution to the European Parliament over a vast range of topics of vital importance both to Irish industry and agriculture and at the same time at weekends look over our shoulders to see if we can hang on to our seats at constituency level. This problem applies not only to me, or even to the eight of us, but to the French, the Italians, the British and everybody else. Deputy Kavanagh has just interrupted me to add "the British". On our last trip to Europe the Parliament was barren of Britons because the Britons were back at home making sure that they would be back there again—if you follow my logic.

Joking apart—I know I have a rather flippant style—it is an impossible situation where you run what is technically the Parliament of nine nations in this kind of haphazard, backwards and forwards manner. What the ultimate solution is I do not know but it will certainly involve a vast increase in back-up services at home. Until we—or our successors when we drop, are sacked or are dead —have people saying to us before we go: "This or that is a matter of vital Irish urgency" we will be unable to do our jobs effectively.

Whatever rumours may have appeared to the contrary in the Press the ten delegates who go to Europe act, in the main, as a team in a very united and friendly fashion and we discuss all issues between ourselves. There are occasional divergencies, more often arising from misunderstanding owing to incapacity to communicate in an enormous building seating some 400 people. In the main, we tend to act together as a unit in the interests of the Irish nation and I think my Fianna Fáil friends will agree on this. I should like to see more of this, a point to which I shall return.

Deputy Wilson, I think, raised a tremendous argument about increasing technological education here. Let me say: For heaven's sake, will the Minister communicate with the utmost urgency to his colleague, the Minister for Education, the necessity to take a cold, hard look at the curriculum in primary and secondary education in order to ensure that Irish people have a facility in at least one European language because with the growing possibility of an axis of emigration aiming not so much towards England but towards the Continent, the prospects for our ordinary people are extremely bleak. England may have done us a great deal of harm—I think she did; I know that is not a popular view now—but at least she taught us the language of the conqueror so that when we go to England we are virtually undetectable except, perhaps, by our social habits in the Finchley Road. At least we can get work. If we are going to work in Dusseldorf or Frankfurt it could be a very different situation. The ordinary barman in a hotel in Brussels has a greater fluency in three languages than I have as a university professor. This is a terrible state of affairs. Even if it means the savage battering of some items in the secondary school curriculum like, for example Irish, I am afraid, it may be necessary to do this in order to make sure that children carry at least one Continental language with them in a fresh migratory situation. Already, as the Minister knows, Europe is deeply concerned about the fate of migrant workers in the Ruhr of, say, Turkish, Hungarian or Czechoslovakian extraction. I should hate to think that Irishmen, who can speak only English or, perhaps, rusty Irish, will find themselves lumped in the same sort of living conditions in which people from eastern Europe and parts of Italy at present find themselves in the Ruhr.

It may be suggested that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. It is valid to say: Deputy Thornley is a member of the European Parliament which is a lucrative position— in the main, it is. It is also membership of an institution which has no power except the residual power to pass a vote of no confidence in the Commission. There is a grain of honesty in that and yet, as I am sure the Minister knows, the sort of moral influence which the European Parliament exercises over the Commission and the Council of Ministers is quite extraordinary and is bound to grow. As a relatively young man I am quite terrified at the lack of understanding of the significance of Europe that the ordinary man-in-the-street in Ireland has at present. We are a tiny country and if we are defeated on things like the common agricultural policy, the regional policy or the social fund, the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Irish people will be qualitively affected, possibly as they have not been affected since the Famine. This must be brought home to the people and it has not yet been done.

Some day an Irish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will rise and say: "I am doing it this way". An Irish Minister for Finance will rise and say: "I am awfully sorry, we are giving up direct taxation and going straight over to value-added tax." An Irish Minister for Social Welfare will say: "I am sorry, we are proceeding to a certain footing of insurance schemes in the future". Then what a certain political commentator would call "the pundits", will scream and say: "Why wasn't it done differently?". The Minister will have to say: "I did not do it differently because under protocol PE/374, subsection X/Y of 1974, I have no alternative but to do it this way". Then and only then will the ordinary voter realise how important this exercise was. This is why Deputy Kavanagh and I, who both opposed entry to the Common Market—indeed, as far as I recall Deputy Kavanagh's constituency returned the highest vote against the referendum—now being Members of the Parliament, feel that it is our duty to put the maximum amount of endeavour and effort on behalf of our country into that institution.

In this we would like and ask for two things: The support of the Minister of back-up services of one kind or another and—despite any apparent altercations which have taken place between Fianna Fáil delegates and I in Europe—the support of the Fianna Fáil Party. Europe is facing an extremely delicate and difficult economic situation which is in no way the result of any action taken by the Government. It is inevitable that prices have risen and will rise further. I will explain why this is relevant in a moment.

If there is an election in three years time I foresee that it will be inevitable that somebody like Deputy Nolan will go to my constituency and say: "The price of steak was Xp per pound in 1972 and it is 2Xp in 1976. That is what Coalition Government does for you". I shall say: "This is the situation. Because the snake escaped from the tunnel, France floated the franc, which was a form of concealed devaluation, Kissinger, in turn, in alliance with France, endeavoured to divide the Common Market, the German Social Democrats became hostile at picking up 80 per cent of the bill, and the energy crisis so altered the terms of trade unfavourably to Ireland that there was no other consequence but that prices would go up." I am inclined to think that the electorate will listen to the shorter explanation rather than the longer one. Nevertheless the longer one would be more correct.

We should give attention to a point which is passing through the European Parliament at the moment and that is the control of multi-national corporations. I am frightened that the minority of Irish firms which had geared themselves to genuine competition will be in serious danger over the next decade or two. I foresee a very unpleasant future for Irish industry. Firms fall into two kinds: those which have ignored the CIO report and did not prepare themselves for free competition and those, such as Irish Distillers, which have prepared themselves for free competition but are in danger of growing to such a competitive level that almost inevitably they will be taken over by larger international groupings.

I should like to discuss how the European Parliament works. Whatever the report may say about the control of legislation, the fundamental work of the Parliament, as any member of it on either side of the House knows, is done through groups and committees, particularly committees. This is unspectacular work. It does not get any publicity, nor does it get any kudos on the home front. Deputy Kavanagh and I, in the main, but not in every case, have taken the view that we should work through our group, the group of Social Democrats which is the largest group of 51 members. Since it is the most disciplined group and the one which, in many ways represents the Government, that is the German Social Democratic Government which is paying for the Regional Fund, we have taken the view that it is more effective for us to be influential within that group rather than endlessly to be making political gimmickry as individuals on behalf of Ireland. This has led us into some difficulties about the common agricultural policy. I will not argue the point as to whether a larger proportion of a smaller regional fund, or a juste retour of a larger regional fund, would be more equitable for Ireland than a smaller share of a larger fund based on the principle of juste retour. I am inclined to the first view, with which I think the Minister will be sympathetic. If membership of the Parliament gives us any advantages it is possible that it will allow us to by-pass our traditional dependence on the British market and open up allies in both France and Germany. This is the line which Deputy Kavanagh and I have tended to take with our group which is largely dominated by the German Social Democrats. We have very good friendly and influential relationships with this group.

It would be wrong if party politics were played between the two groups. Deputy Kavanagh and I are two of a group of 51, representing all nine countries. The Fianna Fáil delegates are five of a group of 16, representing two countries. If they will forgive my apparent rudeness, I think it is common knowledge that their group— of Fianna Fáil delegates and Gaullists —was brought into existence to qualify for secretariat assistance under the then Rules of Accession. All that both groups have in common is that both arose out of war situations and are dedicated to the memory of great leaders——

Mr. Crowley

That is a disgraceful thing to say.

Dr. Thornley

It would be a great pity if we were to compare the two groups in a childish way. As the Minister brought out correctly last night, while it is possible to attack the Germans for arguing that they have an urban orientated frame of mind, it is also arguable to say that French nationalism has held back the real development of the Common Market more in the last few years than any other single factor. I say it is "arguable" because nobody knows at the moment who is responsible for the present state of the Common Market. The Washington Conference and the independent decision to float the franc have not exactly done this country any good. I do not think that my Fianna Fáil friends should boast too much about their close links with the Gaullist Party.

Mr. Nolan

Does the Deputy want to lose his nationality?

Dr. Thornley

I am endeavouring to talk seriously about the manner in which the European Parliament is run and I will not be drawn into a slagging match as to who wants to lose his nationality.

Mr. Nolan

Who started the slagging?

Dr. Thornley

I am being extremely detached and, if I may say so, academic about the condition of European politics.

Mr. Nolan

For the past five minutes the Deputy has been criticising——

Dr. Thornley

If I thought that for Deputy Kavanagh, Deputy Dunne, Deputy McDonald, Deputy Creed and I to go to Europe and stand in the European Parliament and scream "Ireland, Ireland, Ireland" every five minutes would get us anywhere, I would be the first to advocate doing it. From my experience of the European Parliament I know that such an attitude would not be particularly successful. It would be akin to the speeches that used be made about partition in the United Nations some 30 years ago, which, when I last looked, had not achieved any productive result.

With due respect to Deputy Nolan there is a point here which we must look into. There is a tug between the urban and rural concept of the European Parliament. There are those in the European Parliament, and they are not confined to the socialist group, who envisage farming as virtually a redundant form of activity and would like to see agricultural services reduced by any manner possible to the detriment, ultimately, of the Irish people. When I see that danger coming from those people I will be the first to consult with Deputies Nolan, Gibbons and Herbert in an effort to arrest that. I admit such people exist but I do not think they are confined to the socialist group. It is a problem of European dimensions and must be treated on that scale.

Unless we bend ourselves to this very great problem of European involvement with a seriousness which we have not shown, at least where the Parliament is concerned, over the last nine months, I see a very grim future for this country. I want to place on the record of this House the future I see for this country unless we are successful in winning allies in Europe, and more specifically in Germany, since the cost to that country of a substantial contribution to the regional and social fund would be so small in terms of the German Exchequer that it would hardly matter. Unless we make friends on the Continent, and particularly in Germany, I see a prospect of an Ireland in which some two million people will live in Dublin and Cork, employed by multi-national corporations, threequarters of a million will live on large farms in the midlands while the rest will be scattered around picturesque areas of the west and south-west in order that they may be photographed by continental and American tourists leaning against the doors of white-washed cottages preserved by An Taisce.

That is not an Ireland in which I particularly want to live. If I have made any mistakes vis-à-vis my Fianna Fáil friends on the Continent, I apologise for them now. The areas in which we should look with a single voice from this country are the areas of regional policy, social policy, common agricultural policy, monetary policy and, ultimately, the significance to this country of the inevitable, if delayed, emergence of direct elections.

Mr. Herbert

I should like to make a brief contribution to this important debate. The report before us deals with the second period of the first year of our accession to the EEC which is by far the more important of the two periods. Starting from the Paris summit of October, 1972, the Community was preoccupied with the commencement of its second stage of evolution, its humanising stage. The two sectors most involved in this operation were the social affairs sector and the regional policy sector. Under the able guidance of Dr. Hillery and Mr. Thomson, Commissioners who have done an excellent job, the deadlines set down by the Paris summit will be met.

If the Commissioners worked hard so also has the European Parliament. The area I am most conversant with is that dealing with regional policy and in this regard the European Parliament worked very hard under their adverse conditions and in a hurried fashion due to delays in other institutions. That Parliament passed four important reports. The European Parliament has a good tradition, a strong history in the field of regional policy. They were the forerunner in advocating a genuine regional policy. In 1966 they adopted the Berujani Report and sent it to the Commission but, unfortunately, the Community did not take heed of Parliament's thinking in this regard with the result that today the gap between the richest area in the Community and the poorest is in the ratio of 5:1.

Be that as it may, the Parliament has performed admirably over the past six months in this field. I should like to place on the record of this House the activities of the European Parliament in this field; it would be more appropriate for me to say the appropriate committee of that Parliament, the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport. On 16th May the Council of Ministers forwarded to the European Parliament document No. 1150, the Thomson Report on Guidelines For a Community Regional Policy. This report was sent to the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport and, after many hours and weeks of in-depth study and serious deliberation, the Parliament, through their rapporteur, submitted their first report contained in document 120/73.

That document endorsed the idealistic motivation of the Paris summit. Not merely did it endorse the guidelines of the Thomson Report but in many ways it strengthened it. Even a casual study of the motions in the resolution of this report will illustrate clearly Parliament's deep commitment to a genuine regional policy. The main theme of that report was that the funds should be concentrated in the areas where the need was greatest. It rejected the principle of juste retour. Paragraph 10 of this motion was of great importance to Ireland. I should like to quote the paragraph of this resolution:

The European Parliament considers that in the case of development regions extending beyond an internal frontier of the Community binding forms of co-operation should be established and be legally binding in the member States concerned.

I am glad to see that this has been referred to in the report before us. In reference to paragraph 10, I should like to tell the House that in my speech to the European Parliament contained in volume 164 of the official debates of the European Parliament I said:

Paragraph 10 of the motion refers to cross-border co-operation. This is of great importance to a number of Member States which, for one reason or another, were unable to synchronise development in their cross-border areas and are now faced with serious problems in these areas.

For us in Ireland—and when I say "Ireland" I mean all Ireland ...—section 5, paragraph 9, is of very special importance. Unfortunately, a boundary exists in our country. Whatever may be said for its existence politically, it most certainly has no justification from an economic viewpoint. When the border was drawn its draftsmen completely ignored economic and social considerations, and, consequently natural and homogeneous regions that should have developed simultaneously during the past 50 years have economically drawn apart not merely to their own detriment but to the serious impairment of the economy of the entire country. Consequently, these areas are the most depressed in the entire Community. ...I draw these areas to the special notice of Commissioner Thomson and ask him to ensure that regional policies are co-ordinated by both Dublin and Westminster in the implementation of regional policy in Ireland.

I am glad to note that that has been done. The European Parliament forwarded a second report again through its rapporteur, Mr. Delmotte. It is contained in document 178/73, based on Commission documents 11 71, 11 70 and 12 18. The first commission document was a draft directive on the decision to create a committee for regional policy. The second was a financial regulation on special provisions to be applied to the European Development Fund. The third was the regulation establishing the regional development fund.

The second report reiterated the thinking in the first report, namely, that the fund should only intervene where national aid is inadequate to be effective. In paragraph 19 of the explanatory memorandum of that report a practical example is given. Paragraph 19 reads:

The most representative example is that of Ireland which has practically no single region able to make up for the disadvantageous position of the others except for the coastal region which is the most highly industrialised. The per capita is the lowest in the Community. Moreover, the growth rate of the GNP is particularly low, at about 4 per cent. Without Community aid the country would not be able to take on the Community tasks arising from the economic and monetary union.

Resulting from paragraph 19, the Fianna Fáil members of the European Progressive Democrats realised the importance of this paragraph as far as the motion for a resolution was concerned and consequently proposed an amendment to the resolution on November 7th. This resolution read as follows:

In the allocation of regional aid, account must be taken of the unique character of the regional problems in countries which have no developed regions within their borders on which to draw internally for a transfer of resources.

At this point I should like to digress and correct an inaccuracy in the report before us.

Mr. Staunton

On a point of information, what is the page please?

Mr. Herbert

Page 85. It states that it was proposed by the Irish delegation. It was not proposed by the Irish delegation. It was proposed by the European Democratic Group on the initiative of the five Fianna Fáil members. I just say that to correct the record.

The third and final report on the regional policy committee contained in document 276/73, based on the Commission documents 17 50 and 17 51 governing the Areas Maps for the RDF and FEOGA was submitted to the European Parliament by the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport. The report, in the main, rejected the lists of regions as contained in the regulation and the rapporteur stated that the proposed lists must be regarded in a very general framework within which it would be necessary to establish priorities.

When speaking on this report in the European Parliament on 13th December, of last year as reported in volume 169 of the Debates of the European Parliament I said:

These areas should not be regarded as mendicant areas, and the large financial aid they must receive should not be regarded as a charitable donation. On the contrary, it should be regarded as a Community investment. These areas represent a very substantial opportunity for growth by Community industry. In such areas—I refer specially to Ireland—are to be found the very last sources of Europe's under-employed and unemployed labour, a labour force of a very high quality which is among the most adaptable in the world. In such areas as Ireland are to be found the natural resources necessary for industrial development.

At the conclusion of my contribution on that day, I stated:

When we meet again in plenary session the fund will, I hope, have been established. I pray that our dreams and aspirations will at last be on the road to fulfilment, making Europe a better place for all its people, from the West Coast of Ireland to the southern tip of Sicily.

Alas, that has not happened and the Regional Policy Committee of the European Parliament are naturally very disappointed at the Council's failure to establish a regional fund. They tabled a question to the Council at the last plenary session of the Parliament but the answer was not very satisfactory.

Despite the pessimism regarding the Regional Fund voiced by the two previous speakers, I am optimistic that the fund will be established at the next Council meeting. The Council must regain for the Community their rapidly disappearing credibility. The Community have received many body blows in recent months. There was the artificial oil crisis, two member states were left without Parliaments, Britain and Belgium, with peculiar implications for the Community so far as the British election was concerned, and there was a new Government in Denmark.

All these events and problems did not help the Community in their decision-making. Setting up the fund now would be a much needed symbol of solidarity at a very crucial period. The fund can scarcely be less than 1,400 million units of account, which is approximately 50 per cent of the Commission's demand. On reflection, this is a colossal figure when one considers the thinking of the Community eight months ago. Naturally, we would like to see the largest possible fund but the Committee last week were assured by Commissioner George Thomson that, irrespective of the size of the fund, Ireland and the Mezzogiorno would get their proper share.

At this stage I do not attach all that importance to the size of the fund. What is important is that a fund be established so that the principle and the philosophy behind the fund be accepted freely by all member states. The Regional Fund is not a stop-gap measure or an emergency aid scheme for a period of three years. I am sure it will become a permanent feature of future EEC budgets. I am convinced that if the Commission are given the degree of flexibility they are demanding they can, and will produce a genuine regional policy.

Having placed the endeavours of the European Parliament with regard to regional policy on the record of this House and turning to the report before us, I do not see any signs of preparedness on the part of the Government to avail of aids from the fund. In relation to infrastructural projects and help and guidance to the private sector in industry, have the Government an overall national development plan? Have they consulted the nine RDOs? Have they required them to submit plans for the various regions? Are they co-ordinating these plans into an overall national plan? These matters disturb me. The fund should have been off the ground on 1st January last; if it were operational now the Commissioner would be open to accept projects but yet there is no evidence of an national plan in regard to regional development.

The only evidence is contained in the supplementary report we received this morning. It states vaguely that discussions at official level have been held between the British and Irish authorities on the joint approach by both Governments, with the assistance of the Northern Ireland Executive, to the Commission for a proposed study of the development of cross-Border areas in Ireland. I do not know what agency the Government will use, but perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply. Is it suggested that they use the agency of the Council of Ireland?

Let me tell the House of Unionist thinking in this regard, as expressed by a very close and trusted friend of the CEO of the Executive, Brian Faulkner. This person is Rafton Pounder, Unionist Member for South Belfast, speaking in the European Parliament in relation to the Regional Fund and the proposed Council of Ireland. In Vol. 167 of the official journal of the debates in the European Parliament he stated:

The second point I wish to make concerns specifically the application of the Regional Development Fund to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. As I am the only person in this Parliament who comes from Northern Ireland and quite a number of Representatives from the Irish Republic have already spoken and more are on the list, I should like to make my position absolutely clear on one point which has already been raised.

I think it was raised by Deputy Nolan. He went on:

In recent weeks and months there has been much talk in Ireland about the possibility of establishing a Council of Ireland which, if and when it is created, should be given certain powers and functions. In certain political circles in Ireland it has been advocated that the Council should be empowered to determine the projects which may attract Community regional assistance. That is a view I totally and utterly reject. I do not wish to see any Council of Ireland involvement in the policy of the Committee. The Commission should decide the projects it will assist. The Commission should establish the procedure for funding and supervising the projects which will arise. It would be wholly wrong for any outside organisation such as the Council of Ireland to act in an agency capacity. I believe passionately in the Regional Fund, but I want to see it administered, financed, organised—everything—through the Commission.

This is Unionist thinking as expressed by its only spokesman in Europe, Mr. Pounder. Irrespective of what Mr. Pounder says about the trans-border areas, 200 miles long and 20 miles deep on either side, involving 250,000 people, it must have immediate access to the Community regional aid or its position will deteriorate further. If this is delegated to the proposed Council of Ireland it may fall a victim to the veto of the Council of Ministers.

In relation to regional aid vis-à-vis the rest of the country, I want to see the correction of the national imbalance rapidly pursued as it was by Fianna Fáil in their last 16 years of office—it was the central plank of our platform in that period. I could quote some figures in support of that but I would briefly refer to the Thomson Report of May 3rd which proves conclusively that in the past 15 years the Government had a well-balanced regional plan and were having great success in correcting the imbalance between the east coast and the rest of the country. I have not the reference but the report is there for anybody who wishes to read it.

It is my contention that the east coast should not qualify for regional aid. It should be given to the areas most in need of it, the south-west, the west and the north-west. If I may be parochial for a moment, I should like to refer to the Lands Use and Transportation Study put forward by the Midwest Regional Development Organisation. This report contains the basic infrastructural requirements for the region. It is in four volumes and is a fine report of its kind, the only one to be embarked on and presented by an RDO in the country. I should like, indeed I insist, that this report be processed immediately by the appropriate Department.

On the matter of help for the private sector of industry, I blame the Government for deliberately hiding or going slow in the matter of regional benefits to that sector. For example, why do the IDA in their literature not state that their aid to this type of industry can be supplemented to the extent of 50 per cent from the EEC Regional Fund? Are the Government wilfully concealing information in order to save money at Community expense to the detriment of Irish industry?

Mr. Staunton

Is the Deputy referring to the EEC Regional Fund?

Mr. Herbert

I am. Speaking of aid to small industrialists under the 50,000 units of account who are precluded by article 4 of the regulation establishing the regional fund, I think such industrialists can qualify for aid from the regional fund from the point of view of sector or region and I should like to hear the Minister's comment on that. I am speaking of the many little men in industry who were so enthusiastic about accession to the EEC and who feel they have been let down.

Recently I visited Sicily as a member of a delegation from the Transport and Regional Policy Committee of the European Parliament and I was shocked to learn of the lack of awareness of the Government and of the Sicilian local authorities. That is one of the most depressed areas in the Community. Having, as it were, a fairy godmother in Brussels leaning over backwards to help them, Sicily slept through it all. I mention this Sicilian experience to alert the Government and others concerned with regional development to the fact that I have invited a similar delegation here for five days, commencing on Monday. They will be spending three days in the South and two in the North. There will be nine parliamentarians and some people from the secretariat of the committee. I spoke to the Minister for Foreign Affairs last week on this and submitted my thoughts on the itinerary of the delegation. I told him of the types of people this delegation should meet and the places they are anxious to see. They will start in Dublin and I would propose that they visit the south-west, the mid-west, the west and the north-west as well as the trans-Border areas. They will cross the Border at Derry. I will accompany the delegation for their two days in the North and my counterpart in the North will accompany them here. I have given details to the Minister who received me very courteously and was very enthusiastic about their visit.

Another defect in this report is the omission of any reference to the FEOGA Guidance Section vis-à-vis Ireland. The country should have full and free access to this fund. The entire country qualifies under the fund's criteria and its importance to us is self-evident. The Guidance Section of FEOGA finances structural reform in farming and improvements in production and marketing methods. The range and scope of the grants covers group water schemes, land reclamation, pig breeding, horticulture, the food processing industry equipment and, of course, marketing. As I have stated, this fund is the agricultural Regional Fund and to it Ireland should have unlimited access.

In 1973 I understand 92 applications were submitted covering the area I have just mentioned. The value of the grant applications exceed £12 million and this certainly is a sizeable figure, a figure not to be treated lightly. But apparently from current correspondence in The Irish Times, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is alleged to have taken this aspect of his work lightly. Fergus Pyle, who is a very well-informed journalist and who always has his finger on the EEC pulse, had a most revealing article in The Irish Times of 29th January, 1974, entitled “Did Ireland Bungle FEOGA Applications?” He states that the applications were badly presented, lacking in vital statistical information and many were returned on this account; consequently, applications for much needed grants will now have their chances of success greatly diminished. The Minister for Local Government is alleged also to be guilty in this respect. If this allegation is true, and I have every reason to believe it is, then the Government are guilty of gross neglect.

However, there is another question in relation to FEOGA which is not being asked, and I am asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs: why was the maximum amount of grant not sought? Is it true that only 25 per cent of a grant was sought for each of the 92 applications? Was it not known to the Ministers concerned that certain projects can qualify for a 45 per cent grant? The certain projects I mention, according to the FEOGA regulations, are production projects within the farm gate. I have examined the FEOGA volume containing the list of successful applications for 1972 and find that all the production projects qualify for a grant of 45 per cent of the amount invested. Why was only 25 per cent sought in the case of our applications? This is something I should like to hear the Minister explain.

In conclusion, I wish to make a number of small points briefly as referred to by Deputy Thornley. Recently I was appointed a rapporteur on a very important EEC draft directive, a directive that will have serious economic and social implications for Ireland. I sought the opinion of the Department of Local Government on this directive. I did it correctly and consulted the Minister's office. I was given a name to contact, which I duly did, to be met with a great degree of caution, reluctance and doubt as to whether the national viewpoint should be taken at the Council level or at the European Parliamentary level.

I now wish to be told in plain language the implications of this statement. Was it due to Civil Service over-caution or was it due to a Government directive, as part of an overall Government strategy vis-à-vis the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, with special emphaasis on the Fianna Fáil Members? From subsequent events in connection with this matter, I am convinced that the latter reason is true, as my queries had been channelled through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the observations came back from that Department—in actual fact the observations amounted to nil. This draft directive, with very serious economic and social implication for Ireland passed through the Council of Ministers and I thought it would be highly desirable from the national viewpoint that this should be opposed at the first available opportunity, which was at Parliamentary level.

I wish to refer, in particular, to paragraph (c) of Article 6 of Commission Document 862 on the harmonisation of laws relating to vehicle driving licences, which provides for:

A medical examination as to the applicant's physical fitness, designed in particular to test his sight, hearing and nervous system, and to ascertain whether he is suffering from any pathological condition which would lead to loss of consciousness or any serious impediment of movement...

Paragraph (d) provides for:

A psychological examination involving a character test as to the applicant's fitness to drive.

Article 8 goes a little bit further and states that people under the age of 50 must present themselves for that type of medical examination every five years, every two years in the case of persons over 50, and every year in the case of persons over the age of 65.

The Department of Local Government had no comment to make on this serious directive. I am convinced that if this directive was applied in Ireland approximately one million licence holders, between mopeds and juggernauts, would be put off the road straightaway. This would be disastrous. Nevertheless, the Department of Local Government had no comment. There was a suggestion of a two-tier system and that member states should issue driving licences to be operated within their own countries. The Department of Local Government comment on that was that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Community.

This was the first occasion on which I had an opportunity of getting Government opinion on a draft directive. I would hate to think that Fianna Fáil Members are being denied the right to express the national viewpoint. Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs acting as chief censor in this regard? Is he giving us as little as possible, when it suits him best? For example, the speech which the Minister made to the Council of Ministers in October mysteriously appeared in the plenary session prior to the debate on the regional policy. This makes one wonder.

Dr. FitzGerald

I did not follow what the Deputy was saying or what his complaint is about the speech being available to him.

Mr. Herbert

I made the point that the Minister gave as little as possible at times which suited him best. I was comparing my lack of briefing from the Department of Local Government to the Minister's speech which appeared mysteriously in the Chamber in Strasbourg.

Mr. McDonald

The Minister invited us to Brussels to meet him before he went to America, but it was not possible for anyone to go.

Mr. Herbert

I am making the point of the inconsistency of the Minister's attitude on that occasion and the attitude at the moment in regard to this directive.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have never consciously withheld any information from the Deputy.

Mr. McDonald

The Minister was not taken up on his offer.

Mr. Herbert

I am surprised and alarmed that this might happen. I had my suspicions from a series of events over the weeks. We were unsure of what would be taken at the Parliament level and what at the Council of Ministers level. The Minister knows the delays at Parliament level.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is the Deputy referring to me?

Mr. Herbert

You are the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Herbert

My query had to be channelled through your Department and the observations made came back through that Department also.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will deal with the Deputy's points in due course.

Mr. Herbert

In conclusion, I should like to refer to Deputy Thornley and his reference to the incompatability between the Fianna Fáil group and the French Gaullists. Let me say here and now that this is one of the most cohesive groups in Parliament. We had studied the political philosophies of the various groupings in the Parliament for six months before we decided to form this group. I am committed to the grouping. We share all common ground in relation to the domestic policies of the market with particular reference to CAP and the regional fund, and the French understand the subtleties of our traditional stand on neutrality. If our opponents appear to be making misjudgments on the various occasions that is not our fault. We are not playing politics in the European Parliament. The European Parliament is an extension of national Parliaments where delegations are looked on not as national delegations but according to their philosophies. They act accordingly.

On important issues, such as the issue of neutrality, CAP, and the regional fund, we have never acted against the national interest. Perhaps Deputy Thornley is in the wrong political department in Europe. I hope that the next Council meeting, which I understand is next week, will have the regional fund on the agenda.

Mr. Staunton

I am glad that I am speaking after Deputy Herbert in the sense that he had much to say about the regional policy in the EEC. I hope to address a few remarks to that topic. We should bear in mind that this debate is taking place at a time when the EEC are under a cloud to a certain extent especially since the recent energy crisis which seem to have had a very traumatic effect within the Community. At the same time I should think that if the EEC face fundamental crises, as they appear to have been doing recently, this gives the opportunity to our Minister for Foreign Affairs to play a disproportionate and highly objective role in the deliberations of the EEC. Our country is in a sense detached from the major countries on the European mainland.

I should like to compliment the Minister on his recent initiatives in Washington during discussions relating to the energy problems and the problems of European unity. The Minister attempted to propose certain solutions. I listened to Deputy Herbert with considerable interest when he spoke about the regional fund of the EEC which is, of course, fundamental. If we look back at the debate that took place in this country when we decided to join the EEC, apart from the emotions and the advantages which emerged in terms of the philosophy of joining Europe, there were certain pragmatic measures which were extremely important. The lowest common denominator of those in favour of entry was that we did not really have a choice. Our major market, Britain, was joining the Community. This would tend to leave us out in the cold. If there was no choice, then we had the obligation to join the EEC. Rising a little above that, and again looking at it pragmatically, there were two particular areas in which it was suggested that it was in the national interest we should become a member of the EEC. One of those areas was a common agricultural policy.

Debate adjourned.