Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Feb 1974

Vol. 270 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Development 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. Staunton

When I reported progress I was referring to the fact that during the debate on the EEC at the time we joined the European Economic Community there were certain aspects of EEC policy which we pointed to as being of the utmost importance to this country. I pointed out that at the level of the lowest common denominator we suggested we did not have any choice in regard to the matter in the sense that our markets were in joining the EEC and it seemed there might have been dire consequences for this country if we decided to opt out and stay alone on the fringes of Europe. We also pointed out, pragmatically, that there were two other items of major significance which it seemed to us should be of value to our country. These were the common agricultural policy, which has been implemented and which we have availed of to a very considerable extent in terms of finance during the past 12 months, and the regional policy.

We must, in general, be reasonably pleased with the situation where agriculture is concerned and especially when we see the extent to which the Exchequer has benefited from a common agricultural policy. The regional question and the inconclusiveness within the EEC in regard to formulating and finally deciding on regional policy, has led to quite a lot of cynicism in the country. I believe this will be resolved very shortly and it is probable that the fact that a British general election is taking place at this time is one of the principal reasons why a meeting has not taken place within the past two weeks in an attempt to conclude that particular issue.

I would like to re-echo to an extent one or two remarks made by Deputy Herbert who spoke just before me. I read at a distance certain remarks which he made a few months ago in the European Parliament in regard to a regional policy and the reasons why, if Europe had a true regional philosophy, Ireland must benfit from such a policy. I compliment him for those remarks, although there are other items to which he referred on which I will join issue with him shortly. I agree with Deputy Herbert to the extent that there is an issue looming, apart altogether from the international question and the national issue of Ireland's benefiting from a regional fund and our argument to Europe that we are one of the lesser developed countries, and as the least developed country within the EEC we would suggest that proportionately we must get a very large slice of that fund, a sentiment which we re-echo completely.

There is a problem in so far as regional development is concerned because within the country there are great imbalances of development between east and west. I believe it will be necessary when a decision has been reached in Europe about Ireland's position, when we know to an extent the amount of funds we will get in a given year, and when we see the criteria which will be available, to look within this country and to see how we will spend that fund within Ireland. In that context I want to revert briefly to the agricultural picture because there is a major problem in the EEC agricultural policy where the west of Ireland is concerned. We know that as a nation we have benefited to the tune of £40 million or £50 million. We know that is a good thing. At the same time when we see the areas of the country to which the massive injection of funds from Europe has gone we see that to a very great extent the regions which have benefited have been the east, parts of the south and the south-east. We see a major problem in agricultural policies where the western counties are concerned. When we look at counties like Mayo we see that the average size of a holding is in the region of 20 acres, a situation which is not very different from that which applies in many parts of Galway, all of Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo, Donegal and other western counties.

In these areas they are finding that there will be area of EEC support policy in the form of grants for agricultural production and for farmers who will come under the umbrella of the development schemes in agriculture but they are finding also that due to the farm structure in the west and the small size of the farms compared with any national statistic within this country, or international comparison within the EEC, many of these farmers on these very small holdings will not be in a position to get State aid to support their development.

We should try to see if something can be done about this matter. It pertains to the regional fund directly in the sense that Europe takes cognisance of this fact and the lesser level of development in certain areas by arranging special policies of aid for the areas they believe to be the most depressed and the most underdeveloped in the community. It is in this context that the west would hope to gain from the regional policy and from spending the regional fund within the country. In the referendum this was one of the major selling points in that part of the country just as, internationally, we have argued that if there is an undue dilution of the regional fund through areas we would not call depressed by a European definition in comparison with certain regions of Germany, France, Belgium and Holland, and where we argue that that is not a true regional philosophy, it would seem that we should apply this same yardstick when we seek to spend the fund in this country. There will never be any redress of the boundaries within this country or of the levels of development between east and west if that fund is to be diluted through the Twenty-six Counties. No attempt can be made to redress that imbalance unless in the expenditure of the regional EEC fund very special consideration is given to western priorities.

I hope in this regard that we will have the sympathy of legislators from other parts of the country because of the very severe problems we have in the western regions. The criteria which were mentioned a few months ago in regard to the regional policy are not altogether satisfactory. I am not certain of the present state of that particular ball game because it seems to have been going back and forth for months. Certainly a situation where a member state was limited to using a maximum of 50 per cent of the total investment of the project from the regional source for industry would not be satisfactory in a country as little developed as we are. Sometimes we do not have the resources to the extent we would require them within the State to fund the type of operations that are necessary. Traditionally, in the infrastructural area a limiting of a member state to 30 per cent of the regional fund relative to the national input would not, in my view, be satisfactory. I believe that so far as our country is concerned there should be a fairly unlimited opportunity to use that fund proportionate to the extent that we believe it to be necessary.

I want to take Deputy Herbert to task on one or two remarks of his. He spoke of the present Government's position and tended to criticise them for what he believed was not satisfactory regional policy and for dilatoriness, if you like, in suggesting to Europe the areas in which we want to see developments. I think I am quoting him when I say that he said that the Fianna Fáil policy was well balanced for the past 16 years and had been meeting with great success between the east coast and the rest of the country. He spoke about Fianna Fáil's pursuit of a regional policy for the past 16 years to correct the imbalance. I am not attempting to speak in a contentious way but, obviously, if I follow somebody who has spoken in this vein and if I disagree with his sentiments, I may be forgiven if I take him to task in that area.

It is possible that, living in the Limerick region, when he looks at the level of development that has taken place in the greater Limerick-Shannon region one could suggest that there has been striking success in redressing the development between east and west. That, in fairness would be true if the discussion related to the mid-west region but one of the big mistakes of the previous Government was that while they developed a successful venture in the mid-west region in the SFADCO organisation which was an autonomous company with decision-making within the region, liberally financed from the Exchequer in a region where the grant per head of the population in terms of IDA statistics was many times greater than the rest of the entire western seaboard from north Clare to Donegal, this posed certain questions for regional development in the rest of the country and it was sad that the lesson was not learned and that, to an extent, similar models were not developed in western areas. Instead, we saw a proliferation of regional branch offices of national organisations but no regional policy, no decentralisation and no effective decision making in any region other than the Shannon region.

If I talk of the past 15 years in relation to Mayo it is a county that lost about 15,000 people in that time. You can, in relative terms, say the same about the population of Leitrim, Roscommon, parts of Sligo and Donegal and other midland counties. To talk of meeting this problem as between east and west is nonsense if we refer to the past 15 years: it is valid if it refers to the mid-west region. I do not have to cite any biased statistics to prove this. The statistics are available in our population figures and if anybody wants to read last year's OECD report on Ireland he would find that despite what we tend to learn from the media of our own country, about developments in western areas, the OECD report stated that in its opinion, rather than getting closer together in levels of development, the gap at this time is widening between east and west and that the massive development in Dublin city is simply walking away from the rest of the country. There is an objective, responsible, international organisation discussing this particular problem and in context it tends to make Deputy Herbert's remarks untenable.

Deputy Herbert also spoke of the regional development organisations and their plans and asked if they had been consulted and if there was coordination. I am aware that the RDO in my region, Mayo-Galway, has prepared plans or is in the course of doing so. I also know that many local authorities and national bodies have prepared plans seeking funds from the regional fund and that at present these plans are being examined within the Department of Finance. So far as Government policy is concerned in regard to this fundamental issue of regional development I should like to point out that Deputy Ryan, speaking as Minister for the Public Service in Cork about two weeks ago stated that one of the principal aims being pursued vigorously at this time by the Department of the Public Service is this question of regional development and the anomaly of this multiplicity of extensions of central organisations throughout the country. He said that the Department were seeking ways to reduce this type of thing so as to evolve structures within regions which were satisfactory for the regions' development. In addition. I know that priority is being given to a study of the western position at this time when we speak of regional development.

It would be my hope that if the structure, as a result of these studies, was to develop in western areas it would take the form of some type of development board and that the development of such a structure would point within Europe to the particular area within Europe which has the greatest need of development. I would hope development of such a structure would act as a sort of catalyst in Europe to make people within the EEC aware of the fact that within our country there is this part of the country which requires very special aid. Statistics were produced some time ago of what were termed the peripheral regions of the EEC which tended to compare by various denominators the situation that exists in the Mezzogiorno, with the west of Ireland, with Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, with parts of Brittany and France and with Jutland, off Denmark, and such regions. One frightening result of this at a conference at which all of these so called peripheral regions were lobbying for support and for special EEC considerations was that of all the regions which took part in that conference, even including the Mezzogiorno in Southern Italy—about the poverty of which we read so much— the statistics of the west of Ireland were the worst and most depressing. There was a situation in which people from Schleswig-Holstein were complaining that their major problem was that they had too many people still working on the land. The percentage of people living on the land there is about 11 or 12 and when we equated this with the west of Ireland situation where our statistics show today that we still have between 40 per cent or 50 per cent of our people engaged in this primary employment on these small farms, we can begin to see the extent of that problem.

In that context we would like to see a strong regional fund developing from Europe and consideration being given within this country to ensuring that the fund is proportionately spent where the need is greatest in this country just as we would say within Europe where it should largely be spent.

We have certain problems regarding involvement in the EEC. Intense interest was taken in the debate here before our entry. At that time we were all stimulated by what we believed would be the fruits of entry. There was debate in which the leading figures in the country took part and many people throughout the country knew a great deal about the European situation. I do not know that the position is as happy in that sense today. It seems there is a great deal of ignorance in the country as to what Europe is about and what its institutions are about. The attitude of some people seems to be that they stopped at that time; we joined the EEC and Europe will sort out the problems from here on. In my view which must be the view of all Deputies it is an ongoing business and as such while the Dáil and the Legislature are important within the country, equally if we are to be involved in Europe the European Parliament and the institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg are possibly not equally important but are nearly equally important to us. It is all the more serious today when so much of our sources of finance are in Europe and so many of the regulations, down to the most mundane nuts and bolts activity within the country, is decided in Brussels.

It is very important that the people throughout the country are au fait with what is happening. In that regard I would welcome much more direct contact from the provinces with Europe. It is necessary that our senior civil servants, Government Ministers should go to Brussels and the members of the European Parliament should attend its meetings. These should be backed up with fairly frequent visits from community leaders, members of local authorities from the provinces as well as people from Dublin, so that there will not be a slanted debate in which the “elitist” people—for want of a better word— have all the information available.

I would welcome also the funding of modest trips for the right type of people from different parts of the country so that they, too, begin to live in the European context. My first visit to Brussels was an experience in that it seemed to be an entirely different institution to that which I had been reading about. To visit these places is enlightening, stimulating and, I think, necessary. I do not seek to be contentious but I would hope that reason would prevail so far as pairing arrangements are concerned. Individual Deputies should have the opportunity to go to Europe as frequently as they think necessary for their own enlightenment, for the benefit of their constituencies or for what they think their contribution might be in the area of national policy.

The European Report is a biweekly journal. It gives an excellent synopsis of the activities within the EEC. It is taken by many Departments of State. Yet we find it is not in the Oireachtas Library, probably due to the constraints of funds. If we are to have the primacy of politics here, if our legislators are to be concerned with the running of the country and if their opinions are to be weighed and valued, support, back-up services and knowledge are available.

I was very glad to see that the European Investment Bank has lent a considerable sum of money to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for telecommunications development. This is a top priority matter. One of the things which has stunned me since I became a Deputy is this. I thought that the telephone problem in Mayo was serious. It has been a revelation to realise that it is even worse in Dublin city. Obviously this money is extremely necessary.

Deputy Herbert took the Minister for Foreign Affairs to task. He claimed that the IDA should be advertising the fact that 50 per cent grants are available in the industrial arena from the Regional Fund. He suggested that the Minister was concealing this information. I respectfully submit that this is totally unacceptable. The Regional Fund has not yet been set up. When it is, the message with regard to the availability of funds will be loud and clear. Before there is a decision in Europe as to whether there will be a fund, apart from the extent to which we will benefit from it, it would seem to me to be foolhardy in the extreme to advertise anything specific in relation to that fund.

The recent energy crisis has rent the Community. Mr. Simonet, Vice-President of the Energy Commission, made a speech to the European Parliament on the energy crisis. He said:

Action must be taken to ensure the full development of any energy source, which in economically and socially acceptable conditions could replace the utilisation of petroleum.

We should give some consideration to the development of the turf industry. Machinery has developed to a greater extent that previously. Technology is better than it has been. Machines are available which can be used to develop bogs which would previously have been very difficult to develop. Some time ago the priorities were to develop certain bogs because of their ease of access and flat land. There are many other marginal areas which could be developed at minimal cost to the nation at the present time. In these areas machines are not very expensive. Turf is a native resource. Its use will be of direct benefit to the country in that it will mean a lesser usage of petroleum products.

If horticulture is to develop, it will be necessary to skim the top off these bogs. Within the European context this is a matter which should be considered with particular urgency. I am not certain if EEC grants are available for such work. Simple as this product is, it is worth pursuing in the national interest.

I want to compliment the Minister on the work he has done in his Department, particularly in relation to the EEC. My view, and the view of a great many unprejudiced people in the country, is that he is doing a very good job. It has been suggested from political sources that he has been less than diligent in the area of the regional policy. The record shows that he has been very interested in getting for this country the highest possible level of support from the EEC and he has stressed at all times the falseness in some of the arguments which were propounded. I hope he continues to do this until the fund emerges. I wish him success.

Mr. Nolan

Deputy Thornley spoke earlier this evening. I always admired him as a good orator, either in this Parliament or in the European Parliament. As usual he criticised Fianna Fáil and the decisions of the Irish people to join the European Economic Community. He said that he, Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Keating campaigned against our entry into Europe. In my view when Deputy Keating was in Telefís Éireann no man put a better case across than he as to why we should enter Europe. Subsequently, when he joined the Labour Party—at this stage he may have been under the Whip—he encouraged people to vote "No" but he did not have the same sincerity he had when he was in the television service. I presume that if the truth was known, or if we could see his vote, he voted "Yes" to go into Europe.

When Deputy Thornley mentioned this he seemed to imply that if the same situation arose again and we had another referendum he would ask the Irish people not to vote to go into Europe. However, he did not qualify it by stating what would happen if we pulled out of Europe. The first problem we would have to face in that event would be a financial one. The net gain to the Exchequer as a result of our joining the EEC last year was £36 million. What would the Minister for Finance do if we had to find an extra £36 million for agricultural subsidies in the next budget? The Minister for Finance has enough problems preparing the next budget without having to face that one.

I should now like to refer to certain experiences I have had as a Member of the European Parliament. I was glad to see the interest the Confederation of Irish Industries had following our entry into Europe. This group, in combination with the trade union movement, has done great work to increase our exports to the European Market. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. FitzGerald, on a television programme, stated that our exports to Europe increased 100 per cent in our first year of membership. That is a great tribute to those involved in that drive.

I met the representative in Europe of the confederation, Mr. Patrick Jordan, with the other members of the European Parliament and we had a discussion. We were all impressed by his interest in Europe, the hard work he is doing there and the information he gave to us when requested. Every Member of this House receives the newsletter which is published by the Confederation periodically. In my view that document gives a concise and simple synopsis of activities in Europe. When people come to me seeking information I refer them to it. That document clearly points out what the regional policy is all about and how it affects us.

Deputy Thornley, in an amusing way, referred to what he described as the "marriage" we have with the French Gaullists. As the House is aware, there are 11 members of the Gaullist Party and five members of the Fianna Fáil Party. These members within the groupings of the European Parliament, form the European Progressive Democrats. Deputy Thornley feels we have not the same strength as he and his colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, have in the Socialists group. They are two out of 51 and in that 51 there are Socialists from Italy, Germany and France. They have many different languages to contend with as well as different views. In our group we have only two languages to contend with as against the six the Socialists must deal with.

It should also be considered that France, an agricultural country, has far more in common with Ireland than any other country in the Community. France played a big part in the formation of the Common Agricultural Policy. Deputy Herbert referred to a mistake in the Seanad Report on Development in the European Communities: when he said the Irish Delegation to the Parliament proposed an amendment. Deputy Herbert did not say that and for that reason it is no harm for me to explain the position again.

This was a decision moved by the five Irish members at a meeting of the European Progressive Democrats. That amendment was unanimously accepted by the European Progressive Democrats. For the record it read:

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

In Germany, which has big industrial areas, if they wish to give aid to places like Bavaria they can draw from their own internal resources. However, because Ireland has no large industrial area on which to draw resources for the development of the west or other areas, we will be designated—the whole of the country including Dublin —an area to qualify for regional aid.

The amount of capital we would require for the proper development of this nation and the use of all of its resources could not be obtained from Dublin or anywhere else or from agriculture. Therefore we have to depend on the regional fund and that is one of the reasons apart from agriculture and other matters why we went into Europe.

There is some pessimism being expressed at present but, as a member of the European Parliament, I am not pessimistic. I am as sure as I am standing here that the regional fund will be adopted. There are problems in getting the fund off the ground. Originally the regional fund was mentioned as 500 million units of account, which represents about £250,000, and was to include parts of all the nine member countries. This problem came up in Parliament because we pointed out that there was no reason why some of the richer areas of Europe should get money from what was considered, in the context of Europe, a small fund. We pointed out that the areas most in need of assistance should be picked out and that the Community should do away with the imbalance that existed in the Community.

We were happy that the Commission, and the Council of Ministers, agreed that the fund should apply only to Southern Italy, the whole of Ireland, Great Britain and Greenland. If we can get the fund off the ground it will benefit this country. When a new policy has to be got off the ground it is very difficult for parliamentarians to sell it to their constituents. We all remember the position that arose in regard to turnover tax and VAT.

We should bear in mind the position of Germany in this regard. That country will have to pay most of that fund but will get nothing from it. The German parliamentarians will have difficulty in explaining to their constituents why such an amount of money is being taken out of their pockets and used to develop areas like Ireland. These are the realities of the situation.

Irrespective of all the pessimism I am satisfied that the European Community will survive and that the Regional Fund will become a reality in the not too distant future and that we will get our share of it.

One of the major reasons why 83 per cent of the people of this country voted to go into Europe was because we are basically an agricultural country. It can be said that half of the population of the city of Dublin come from a rural community. They are sons and daughters of agricultural labourers, or road workers, or farmers, or small business people. I am not saying that half of them got a one-way ticket from Cork, but they have an agricultural background.

We were getting to the stage where we were not able to pay the agricultural subsidies and £36 million pounds was a lot of money to have to pay out in a year. It was a growing sum. This is one of the reasons why the Irish people voted to go into Europe where farmers would get better prices, where we would have a market of 150 million people instead of a market of 50 million people in Britain. As far as I know, and as far as my constituents tell me, all Britain ever wanted from this country was cheap food and cheap labour. That is why I was so enthusiastic in my efforts to influence people to vote "Yes" to go into Europe.

Reference was made here today to the problem of workers, the problem of industry and the problem of languages. Deputy Thornley said that the Minister for Education should have a look at the curriculum in our primary schools with a view to having one continental language taught. This is most important. When our people emigrated they went to America or Britain because of the common language. People from southern Italy emigrated to the big industrial areas in Germany. They did not intermingle with the people as the Irish did in America and Britain. They went into colonies because of the language difficulty. Like nomads or gypsies they remained there for a while, went back home in the winter and returned again the following summer. One of the reasons why Irish industry did not break into the European market prior to our entry into the EEC was the language problem. Men and women set up small industries in the backyard, perhaps, and expanded and got to the stage where they could export. They and their salesmen had this language difficulty and they concentrated on areas with a common language such as Britain, America or Canada.

I am very disappointed at the lack of a common agricultural policy on sheep. There are many farmers in Wicklow, on the borders of Carlow-Wexford and in the mountainous areas in the west who have problems because there is no common agricultural policy on sheep. The European market opens and closes and this is one of the problems. In January or February of last year I asked Mr. Lardinois when he expected a proposal on this problem. He promised he would have a proposal about it in November or December. To date I have not seen it. We must have it if our sheep industry is to survive. I hope the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will pursue this matter.

We know that at present there is chaos in the livestock industry and people say some of it can be blamed on the EEC. There is a lack of information from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and his Department explaining clearly what the position is as regards beef prices. When there was a world beef shortage last year—and even before we went into Europe—beef prices went far above the intervention price in Europe. When world prices of beef started to drop, farmers started to retain their cattle because they thought the price would rise again, but in Europe the intervention price is a fixed price.

Once the beef cattle are not being sold the store cattle cannot be sold because the man of the beef cattle has not cleared them, and if the man with the store cattle has not sold them, the man with the calves cannot sell them. The sooner the beef cattle are sold off to make way for the stores and then for the calves, the sooner the cattle trade will come right again. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, not the Minister for Foreign Affairs, should clarify this position in a public statement because the farmers I talk to do not know whether they should switch back to tillage or continue in grass. There is no doubt that there is a problem and I am not saying that to make a political point.

VAT has not been mentioned in this debate. In the recent Prices Commission document it is stated that the removal of VAT from food did not in any way affect the price of food. At that time costs were going up so much that if you took off VAT you would have to add it on to other costs. In the document 360/73, dated 14th February, 1974, which is a report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Budgets by Mr. Notenboom it is stated at page 41 under the heading Abolition of Zero-Rating:

The transitional provisions (Article 28 of the proposed directive) provide that zero-rates may be maintained temporarily if they do not conflict with the commitments of the own resources system. They must, however, be abolished at the latest by the date on which the charging of tax on imports and the remitting of tax on exports in trade between the Member States is abolished.

They seem to forget that we have no tax on food because they go on to mention the United Kingdom only. Whether we like it or not this Government will now have to turn turtle in a year or two—or maybe we will be in Government and they can blame it on us—and bring back VAT on food. The document I referred to is from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council, Document 144/73.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

May I ask the Deputy is that a Commission proposal or a Community directive?

Mr. Nolan

It is a proposal from the Commission.

Dr. FitzGerald

It has not been adopted by the Council of Ministers yet.

Mr. Nolan

I know. Most of the countries in Europe have no zero-rating on food. Britain has, and we have because the Government changed it. The point I am making in all sincerity is that, if the decision is that there is to be no zero-rating, the Government will have to bring back VAT on food again to conform with the directive.

Dr. FitzGerald

It seems a good reason for not taking the decision.

Mr. Nolan

It is a good reason why the Government should not have taken it off. They took it off and there was no reduction in the price of food. Now they will have to put it on again and there will be an excuse for another big round of price increases.

Deputy Thornley referred at length to the dual mandate of the Parliamentarians of Europe. Deputy McDonald, Senator Yeats and I are the three senior Members of the European Parliament. There were seven casualties, or changes, since we went out there. Deputy Thornley said that when we went out there we had no back-up service. I agree that we had not. I am sure that Deputy McDonald found too in discussions with parliamentarians from other countries that they were rather amazed at the knowledge we had of the institutions of the Community, of how the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the CAP work. The reason was a simple one which we subsequently discovered, namely, we had a referendum and we were involved. As a result of having a referendum we had to do our homework and, in fact, we were in Brussels long before it was held. It surprised European parliamentarians that we had such a knowledge of the institutions. When Mr. Bourges, President of the European Progressive Democrats, referred to Irish parliamentarians in general he said words to the effect that we were a charming lot, that we talked a lot to other parliamentarians at committee meetings and so on but that before they were aware of it we had our hands in their pockets.

The matter of education is one that the Minister should take up with the Minister for Education. It is important that children in primary schools are taught an extra language so that, in addition to English and Irish, they might have French or German. It is important for the future of our children now that we have such contacts with Europe——

Mr. Ahern

What we are hearing from Deputy Nolan and Deputy McDonald is something new. Why do they not give us——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must wait his turn and allow Deputy Nolan to continue without interruption.

Mr. Ahern

I do not agree with it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a question of disagreeing or otherwise. The Deputy must await his turn.

Mr. Nolan

This nation did not go cap in hand to Europe, as some people seem to think. For centuries Irish men and women and Irish soldiers have gone to Europe and America to play their part in building those nations. In Paris there are many famous streets called after Irishmen, while in Brussels and elsewhere throughout the Continent there are many monuments to Irish people. We are a small nation but these people played their part in Europe; Ireland is doing that today and will continue on that course.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to compliment the Department of Foreign Affairs on the way they have tackled the task of informing the Oireachtas and the people regarding the implications of membership of the Community. The information before the House is extensive and the Department have imparted the data in a remarkable way. It is invaluable to the Members to be able to follow the rapid changes that are taking place, to see the progress made and to know how we are faring in the new environment of Europe.

In our first year in the Community we have done extremely well. Figures have been quoted stating we benefited to the extent of £54 million. From my examination I think we benefited to the tune of £76 million and some two or three weeks ago the Economist quoted a figure in this region. While that may seem a sizeable amount Denmark, one of the new entrants, did even better. Nevertheless, our first year has been successful and our economy has come out of the general world depression exceptionally well. Even though we are only approximately one-fifth through the transitional period we were lucky to have taken the decision to enter the Community.

In retrospect most people will agree it was a pity we did not go it alone in 1963. At that time membership of the EEC was very much in the minds of the people and had we entered we would be a much wealthier nation now.

Mr. Ahern

That is questionable. Deputy Thornley made that very clear and I agree with what he said.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to compliment the Minister on his work as Foreign Minister. I think I can speak for my nine colleagues in the European Parliament when I state we were glad to note the cordial and warm reception that Parliament gave him last November when he represented the President of the Council of Ministers at the plenary session of the European Parliament. All of us were very impressed by his work and we look forward to his coming back there again. Obviously his fame in Europe had preceded him and most of our European colleagues were waiting for him.

Only a united Europe can fight inflation, rising prices, unemployment and the oil crisis. The population must understand the situation, nationally and on the European and world plane. No country is capable of tackling these problems alone in the new environment of increased prices for raw materials from Third Counties. Some Governments have been losing credibility on many of these issues and they must correct this.

I should like to call on the Council of Ministers to respect decisions taken by the heads of state or Government at the various summit meetings, especially the October summit meeting at Paris and the meeting last year at The Hague. Until these decisions are implemented and pending European union from the economic, political and monetary point of view there should be respect for the Treaty of Rome.

Every effort must be made to revert to decisions at the Council of Ministers level by majority effort as enshrined in the Treaty of Rome. If we could revert to that, there is a strong lobby which says that small countries such as ours should have this veto. I put it to the House, however, that we are too weak in all respects to be able to wield that kind of power and that our best hope lies in having the strongest possible team at all levels in Europe to argue our case and to ensure that our country will get, through coherent argument, the best possible deal our negotiators can achieve.

Especially now during this difficult period I submit there must be stringent respect for the Treaty of Rome on the part of all Governments. European identity will be found only on the unshakeable solidarity of member states. I therefore appeal to all political forces, to all Governments and peoples of Europe to assist with the speedy democratisation of the European institutions. This is important because the European Government needs to take on a personality which will make itself manifest to all the peoples in Europe. The great difficulty which was shown up during the oil crisis was that we did not have this unity of purpose, especially at ministerial level.

I compliment the Minister for the efforts he has consistently made to reach consensus with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers. We must press for some form of direct elections to the European Parliament. The new mandate will be a problem. Everybody elected to Dáil Éireann is anxious to represent the people who returned them here to the best possible advantage. The work that the Irish members of the European Parliament are doing is not readily appreciated here. During the winter months we have to endure the disadvantage of the European new time. The Europeans start rather earlier than us and we find ourselves beginning at 7.45 a.m. and, seeing that we are there only a few days each week, we are in a constant state of flux to readjust ourselves between our time and theirs. We start very early in the morning, we must have working lunches which are not ideal for the digestion, and the Parliament endeavours to fit in as much work as possible into the week—they want to do a month's parliamentary work in a week and in a parliamentary week we can expect to work all night. During the last year, on one occasion we did not conclude until 7 a.m. and we began again at 10 a.m.

It is all very well to say that a person need not go there but there is no excuse for a member if he is not present when some item is debated which may be of interest to our country as a whole. In other words, membership of the European Parliament has not been the holiday some people thought it might be. I can speak for all my colleagues in Europe when I say we have done our best to represent the interests of our people. The fact that we are members of three different European groupings has been of tremendous benefit in getting the Irish viewpoint across.

My Fine Gael colleagues and I joined the European Christian Democrat group, mainly because since the late 1940s when our people first went to the Council of Europe they have consistently sat with that group. That group were the founding fathers of the European Community and at present they are the strongest group numerically. We have colleagues in seven of the nine member countries and that gives the three Fine Gael members an opportunity of expressing a definite viewpoint on every item on the agenda. There are many things such as wine, olives and citrus in which we may not have any great interest but we have to operate a system of quid pro quo.

It has taken me eleven months to get to grips with the new environment in which we find ourselves working. Indeed, we seem to be head bottlewashers because although our Departments have done their best to brief us on many things, it is very difficult to find time to attend at the Departments for such briefings. It takes me one and a half hours to come up from my home and the same time to return. Therefore, if a briefing is for one hour it takes me four hours to do it. When one spends from two to five days on the Continent it does not leave much time to attend to constituency chores, quite apart from giving some time to one's family and to one's profession.

What many people fail to realise is that at every parliamentary committee meeting in Brussels the appropriate Commissioner is in attendance and this gives us an opportunity to express the Irish view. The more often these Commissioners hear the way the various documents affect the Irish way of life the better. It is very important we should be there at all times to do this. On a couple of occasions during the year there may have been differences in voting as between our three groups but they were on technicalities and not on items affecting our policy. I hope we will be able to continue in this spirit of co-operation because it is only in that way we can be of assistance to the team of Ministers whose job it is to serve on the Council of Ministers.

As I have said, I suggest there must be direct election to the European Parliament because a community such as that cannot stagnate. It cannot sit there—it must progress. Most of us would hope to see that Parliament progress into a more democratic institution. This is very important because I think the EEC must be the most unpopular community in the world. The Americans want to wreck it and the Russians on the other side stop just short of force to wreck it.

It is surprising the number of people in all the countries within the Community who are against it themselves. I think the main reason for that is that there is not sufficient information flowing within the Community itself on the work and on the progress of the United Europe. Even though we are there for a year, the Community itself is so vast—in the Parliament alone there are somewhere around 1,500 of staff to serve 208 Members—that it is very hard to find out what goes on everywhere in the short space of time.

Recently, however, I came across a scheme whereby the parliamentary information section are only too happy to grant-aid groups of people, especially students, politicians, and councillors, who would like to see the Parliament in session and to learn more about the democratic process of Europe. I have arranged to bring the first group of Irish citizens, the French classes of the Portlaoise Vocational School to the April session of the European Parliament. I am also hoping they will be able to see the institutions in Brussels, and they will have a couple of days rest in Paris. The Parliament is prepared to pay £35 per head towards the cost of the trip, which is more than 50 per cent of the cost of the fares. This is a rather generous contribution. We would hope to see Irish groups at every single meeting of the European Parliament. Aer Lingus, who are always looking for new business, should have seen this clause before. If there was a charter run direct to Strasbourg or Luxembourg, it would be possible to fly a school out and back in one day, and the Parliament would probably pay the entire fare. This is something that should be advertised. I would hope that teachers and others in charge of younger people, perhaps youth leaders, would investigate the possibility of availing of these facilities.

Coming back to direct elections, I would ask the Minister to press the Council of Ministers for some system of direct election. I have been looking at this problem for the past few weeks. There are a number of reports coming before the European Parliament. There are the Schuljt Report, the Berthrand Report and the Petijn Report, all dealing with the development of the European structures, the Petijn Report dealing with direct elections.

The Dutch system might be the most appropriate for us here in Ireland. It should be possible, without very much difficulty, to have the maximum number of members elected directly to the European Parliament on the same day as a general election. Unless we do that, it is going to be very difficult to have the country represented to the fullest advantage in Europe. It is not fair to expect Members of this House to go indefinitely on a sort of suicide mission. It is not possible to serve two masters. The work in Europe is escalating so much and it is so important to the wellbeing of our country, that we just cannot afford to do a half-job. The House here is being unfair to the members of the European Parliament, first, in not providing them with an adequate back-up service and secondly, in not looking after their interests. Our German colleagues, for example, have the benefit of a political assistant, whose qualification has to be a doctorate in either law or economics, plus two private secretaries, one at home and one at the Parliament.

It is very hard for Fianna Fáil, Labour and Fine Gael Deputies to compete with people like that without the same kind of back-up service. However, I must confess that at the many Commission meetings I have attended with our colleagues, they have always held their own with all these Europeans, and I should like to compliment them on their performance over the past year. We have had the difficulty of trying to come to grips with the new committee system, with which we are not familiar in this House, and I would hope that the Government would proceed with all haste in bringing in whatever legislation is necessary to meet the new situation in which we find ourselves. It is something that cannot be left on the long finger.

As the Government members of the Parliament we are in the difficulty that we do not know whether it will be possible for us to attend our meeting this week, next week or the week after. Apart from the fact that this is an inconvenience and a nuisance to the five members concerned, it is not an appropriate way to have the country represented. We were recalled from the agricultural debate in Strasbourg two weeks ago, although three of us were down to speak in that all-important debate. The Agricultural Estimate accounts for 83 per cent of the entire Community budget. What we in Ireland fail to comprehend is the magnitude of the Community of which we are now members. The agricultural guaranteed prices are worth 52,000 million units of account, which is over £21,000 million.

Our interest in the retention of CAP is obvious when one considers the high percentage of the entire budget which is concerned with agriculture. It is a shame that the five Government members should have been pulled out of that debate. I had been given the task of speaking in that debate on behalf of the Christian Democrat Group. This is something that it would be difficult for an Irishman to get for another couple of years because there are seven different countries represented in that group. If one of our Italian colleagues was assigned to speak in that debate he would be speaking on olive oil, wine or citrus fruits and not on pigs, beef and barley. These would not be his priorities. When such opportunities present themselves, I regret if we are not able to avail of them.

We have got to get down to the problem of making provision for dovetailing the work of the Dáil with that of the European Parliament in as far as the ten Irish members of the European Parliament are concerned. At the end of January there was a meeting of the European Parliament and the Associated African States and Madagascar. These meetings between parliamentarians from the EEC and the 19 Associated States, which are the 19 African countries with trading associations with the EEC, and also the 23 Associated States, are held twice a year and this meeting was in Rome. That conference represented over one-fifth of the world's population. The main reason why both the Americans and the Russians dislike the European Community is because it is the biggest economic bloc. The regrettable thing is that it does not have the political power that should go with its importance in world affairs. I hope that the Community will not only take on monetary union at the earliest possible date but that they will have a commitment to take on a political dimension as well. This is important.

The Government here should seek clarification on the policy of the defence of Europe. We should have a look at our present situation vis-a-vis the defence of Europe. Perhaps we might have some discussion on that later on. Over the past few months many people in this country have been laying the blame for all our ills on the fact that we joined the EEC.

Mr. Cunningham

We are blaming the Government for some of our ills.

Mr. McDonald

We are at the start of the transitional period. We will not be full members of the Community until the end of the transitional period in 1977. When agricultural prices are announced showing increases of 8 per cent in the price of the average pig in Europe it should be remembered that that is 8 per cent of a price of £50 and that it is a reasonable increase for the European farmer, but in our price structure, which has not reached European standards we must add the 8 per cent on to a price of £30. People should be patient while working and trying to get the most out of the new situation in which we find ourselves.

From my experience of the last 11 months in Europe our greatest handicap was our lack of preparedness for entry into Europe. The last Administration failed to build up the European sections in our Departments of State to the extent we would have expected them to have done. Our Mission in Brussels this time last year was very small. In the last 11 months the staff there has been at least doubled. My opinion is that it should have been doubled before the referendum. The last Government should have taken steps to prepare the country for entry, on the assumption of the people opting to join the EEC. I do not know whether that is a democratic thing to say, but at least the other countries did it. Britain did not have a referendum so they did not have to worry about such arrangements. Our Government's failure to prepare for entry has affected us. The Government had only six months to prepare for entry into Europe.

Mr. Cunningham

What about the vacant Labour benches in the Dáil?

Mr. McDonald

Deputy Herbert earlier mentioned that we did not get the maximum benefit from the FEOGA grants. I was amazed to find that so very little preparation was done in this respect. I would have thought in the first week of January, 1973, after we had gone in, that the then Government would have had all these applications for the various grants ready to hand into the appropriate Commission office in Brussels. The present Government had only three or four months in which to muster up these applications. By the closing date, towards the end of June last year, they had succeeded in having £13 million worth in.

Mr. Wilson

Four months.

Mr. McDonald

It sounds rather hollow from Opposition spokesmen to blame it all on the Government. The Northern Ireland Government, which could claim that they were in a state of siege or civil disorder, were able to have their applications in and got grants to the tune of £21 million. Fianna Fáil must shoulder blame.

Mr. Wilson

And the Labour Party.

Mr. McDonald

Fianna Fáil did not have their homework done. They did not have the applications in. We should be able to avail of the maximum benefit under these grants because they exist to benefit the areas of the Community that need them. That is the whole philosophy behind the co-operation in Europe and behind the Community as a whole. That is why I said that Fianna Fáil should have geared the nation for entry on the assumption that the electorate were going to vote for entry in the referendum on the 10th May, 1972.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy O.J. Flanagan did not want Ireland to enter the EEC either.

Mr. McDonald

The Government waited until after May 10th and that gave them six months. That was just not enough. I hope that the present Government will not follow the bad example of Fianna Fáil, but that they will press ahead and prepare our country for this time next year when our Minister for Foreign Affairs will be on the Council of Ministers. This will put extra work on his broad shoulders and also on his Department. I hope that the Board of Works will provide ample and suitable accommodation for meetings and I hope that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs by then will be able to provide a direct link dialling service to all the capitals of Europe.

Mr. Browne

They cannot do that to all the towns of Ireland.

Mr. Cunningham

I could not even get Donegal today although I waited for half an hour.

Mr. McDonald

We certainly need it to Europe because we will have Foreign Ministers from all those countries here next year. The Deputy's Government were 16 years tinkering with the telephone service and did not put the forward planning into it. Fianna Fáil failed to plan. They opened a new telephone exchange in Portlaoise five years ago and the place is now not able to take the business. It is not possible to get a new phone there because the forward planning in Fianna Fáil was chaotic.

Mr. Wilson

That is a garrulous constituency.

Mr. McDonald

Anybody who would spend £1 million on building a telephone exchange that only lasted for five years should have his head examined.

Mr. Wilson

Will meetings be held in Portlaoise? There is a big house there.

Mr. McDonald

Because Fianna Fáil did nothing about providing cold storage in this country we find that for the past three months——

Mr. Cunningham

What about the 14-point plan?

Mr. Wilson

We were selling the beef.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Wilson has spoken and Deputy Cunningham may speak later if he wishes. Deputy McDonald without interruption please on the EEC.

Mr. Cunningham

He is inviting interruptions.

Mr. McDonald

Under the last administration we did not have sufficient cold storage facilities in this country. We had the spectacle of our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries having to hire cold storage space in Europe.

Mr. Wilson

Is cold storage space being provided now?

Mr. McDonald

I hope it is. I hope plans are already ahead for the provision of adequate cold storage. Seeing that it took the Fianna Fáil administration 16 years to do nothing, our people must at least be given 16 months to try to get the thing straightened out.

Mr. Wilson

The people were eating beef in our time.

Mr. McDonald

I would like to say to the progressive Irish industrial firms that they might consider briefing the ten Irish parliamentarians on the problems they have in complying with the provisions of the EEC. One or two of the more progressive firms have been very helpful and enabled us to fight regulations which were discriminating against Irish products. Too few of our Irish firms are awake to the fact that we can speak for them and that—I speak for my nine colleagues —we are only too anxious to fight their cause in Europe. We cannot be expected to be experts in everything in the EEC without being briefed beforehand. The fact that we are in three separate groupings in the European Parliament gives us an opportunity of being able to tackle each Irish problem from three angles. We have been striving at this, not without some success, over the past 11 months. I would like to compliment the few Irish firms who have been awake to this situation and have given us the opportunity of working for them.

It gives one a sense of satisfaction to be able to work in the European parliamentary commissions on behalf of Irish firms and workers and know that we can go out there and achieve something. We can very often come back and report tangible results. We have discussed documents on various matters. Sir Anthony Esmonde did a report on aerosols some time last year and Deputy Thronley brought out a report on eels. This shows a complete cross section of life in Europe. If any Irish firms want to enter European markets, we should be only too happy to help out and provide whatever assistance we can.

I would like to say to the Minister for Education that he should not only keep the Irish language alive but that he should step up the teaching of European languages in our schools. When one goes to the Benelux countries, Belgium, Holland and Denmark, one finds everybody speaks English as well as French and German. You can inquire your way on the street from ordinary workers and you will be answered in English especially in Holland. Children go through the ordinary second level education in at least two languages in those countries. I see no reason why we could not do the same here. I hope that new incentives will be provided for this.

I hope that schools will avail of the European Parliament grants to go across to Europe. I have discussed this with my colleagues at some length and if we could get around Aer Lingus it would be possible to run day trips for some of our schools. The European Parliament insists on 17 years of age so it would only be our senior students who would be able to avail of this. They should be able to avail of a day trip to the European Parliament at no cost to themselves. I hope school managers will consider this. If they require any more information on it, they should discuss the matter with one of my colleagues or myself or with the European Parliament information manager, Joe Fahey. Our people should have a fuller appreciation of democratic institutions in Europe.

Mr. Cunningham

Would the Deputy not like to invite some of us out?

Mr. McDonald

I hope the Members of this House will go out to visit the European Parliament. If the Whips get into good humour again, it should be possible to have every Member of the House out. The same generous grants would apply there and it would be possible to sample the hospitality not only of our Belgian friends but our French friends. I am sure all Deputies would be very welcome. We should like to have 20 or 30 of our colleagues out at a time. When they come we hope that the weather is bad and that they are knocked about in the aircraft because sometimes it has taken us 16 hours to get from here to Strasbourg. One would visualise being able to make that journey as fast in an old sail ship. If Deputies visit the European Parliament they will appreciate the difficulties under which we work. Perhaps we will then get greater support from them in the Dáil. It is a great honour to work in the European Parliament but it is a lot of hard work.

Mr. Callanan

I sat here since 4 o'clock today and I am disappointed there are not more Deputies present. In this country we know very little about what is happening in Brussels and we know very little about the directives and legislation being sent over here. Very little explanation is given to us. This Parliament is very irrelevant as far as Brussels is concerned. That is why, in order to get all the information I possibly can for my particular region that I sat here since 4 o'clock and listened to the Deputies who are members of the European Parliament.

I read this document and it explains much of what is happening in Europe but personally I cannot understand some things about the Treaty of Rome because when I first studied the treaty, a good while ago, I understood that it was very democratic but as things are being run in Brussels now, there is not much democracy about it. First, I think somebody should raise the question of the national parliament being relevant in some way and not just being told that such a decision has been made by the Council of Ministers on a take-it-or-importan leave-it basis. You cannot even debate it. In fact, I think this is the only chance we have to debate any of the directives from Europe and that is why I am joining in this debate. I do not intend to make a political football of anything but I must make a joke about Deputy McDonald's remarks about the people not being allowed to come home. Little as I know about Europe I think the people on the opposite side of the House when they last voted in Europe on agriculture voted the wrong way. They might have been as well off at home on that occasion.

Mr. McDonald

Nonsense.

Mr. Callanan

That is only a joke which I had to make because of the great regrets expressed that they were not in Europe for the debate on agriculture. Deputy Thornley spoke about not having a proper back-up service and about all the material they had to read. That goes even for Members of this House. People may vote irresponsibly because they do not know enough about an issue. This can happen anywhere if you have not a proper back-up service or if you have not debated an issue before you debate it, say, at Council level, where a decision will be made.

As regards Europe, I should like there to be some way in which the agenda, say, for the European Parliament meeting in a month's time, could be placed before the national parliaments of participating countries and discussed so that members going to Europe would be briefed as to their national parliaments' views on some decision to be made in the near future. We are all in this now and whether we have reservations or not we must make the best of it and politics should not be played with something so important to the life of our people. I tried to raise a matter concerning certain directives issued recently and the Minister informed me that the decision had been made and that it could not be debated. I am not blaming him but I intend to have my say on it this evening. I am sorry to say, without any reflection on the Minister opposite me, I fear he may not know very much about agriculture and I should prefer to raise this with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries because it is relevant in my part of the country.

I did my very best to sell the EEC originally and I sold it on the basis that we were to get a big regional fund and that directives on agriculture were aimed at bringing the nonviable holdings up to viable levels. I regret that some of the directives recently issued have caused me much worry as far as the north-west region is concerned. We have no regional fund so far and we have had two directives from Europe, one in particular which was very vague. I have had two interpretations of it, one from the Department, which I assume I must accept, and the other from the news media, from people who are supposed to be experts, in Brussels. I refer to directives 159 and 160 which are vital to the people in the west of Ireland. I should like the Minister to clarify those two directives in his reply.

The first deals with the farm modernisation scheme, No. 159, which we have had no chance to debate here. Everybody asks what exactly does it mean. Apparently, the farmers will be in three categories, development farmers, commercial farmers and transitional farmers' and from figures given by practically everybody who seems to know anything about it, it appears that 70 per cent of the farmers, particularly in the western area, will fall into the category of transitional farmers. They are called "others" by the Department. I was worried at the beginning. I have now accepted the Department's explanation which I got as late as today that the transitional farmer can never become a development farmer but nowhere in the directive is it written that he cannot. It is very vague. In an article by Mr. Denis Maguire in The Farmers Journal of February 2nd, 1974 — the previous week he wrote on the development farmer — he stated what they are not entitled to. They are entitled to certain grants. He says they are not entitled to any grants for mobile equipment or for extra female staff— this is very important if you are to become a development farmer — and no priority as regards Government loans guaranteed if their own security is insufficient.

These three things are worrying farmers in the west of Ireland. I was also told today that, as far as I could gather, 45 adjustable acres is reckoned to be as near as you can get to being viable. I know all the western region and if 45 adjustable acres means 45 acres of reasonably good land, you could have 100 acres of hills and you would not have 45 adjustable acres which seems to be the figure for viability. That seems to be the farm which they think will yield a labour unit of 1,800. Accepting the Department's figures, labour units only include males; there is nothing for females. No figures will be put on the services of the farmer's wife or daughters. That is all the better for a person who is becoming a development farmer because if his wife were taken into account and even half the labour unit put against her, it would be 2,700 for a man and his wife with no son working for them on the land. It would be harder for that farmer to come up to the standard for a development farm.

This is the Department's opinion and not the opinion of experts. About four or five weeks ago there was a debate between the vice-president of the IFA and the president of the Land League and some other experts and they agreed that 70 per cent of the farmers would fall into that category. They agreed also that there was not much future for that 70 per cent. I would be delighted if the Department's view were correct but I should like to see it written in and spelled out. I should like to see it spelled out that some of the 70 per cent will get an opportunity to go into the development category. There is an acreage grant to be given to the development farmer which the transitional farmer cannot get. If he does not get it, how will he become a development farmer and step up into this category?

If a transitional farmer is to get into the development farmer category he must reach the required amount within six years. If the scheme were extended to ten years I would support it. According to the directive the transitional farmer, or "the others" as the Department calls them, will get the support for four or six years. The Minister said that there was a chance that it would be continued but this is a very vague statement. This has annoyed people living along the west coast. I am very worried about these matters.

As reported in today's Irish Press the Minister for Lands, made an announcement last night:

Such a farmer willing to sell would get:

£600 annuity for life and if the husband died the widow would get an annuity of £400 for life;

£12,000 for the sale of the land; plus a further £1,200 cash premium.

There was another valuable second choice in the scheme:

The same farmer may lease his land for a period of 12 years and will get the same income for the 12 years but will retain ownership of the land.

I would like an explanation of this directive. There are a number of farmers who would be prepared to let their land for 12 years but not at the current letting rates because of what happened in the past six years. Land almost doubled in value. That cycle will not continue but no man will let his land for 12 years if he cannot let it at the current price prevailing for land per year. This is a very important point. This year land may not be worth anything like what it was worth last year. These two directives are more important to the people of the west than any other directives which will come from Europe for some time.

I had a letter asking me to go to the Land Commission to try to get an estate divided. This man was worried for his wife and children. He was told by the agricultural adviser yesterday that he would not qualify for any benefits. He had 28 acres. How many farmers are there in County Mayo or County Galway with less? Can our people in Europe use their influence when these directives are being drawn up?

The Land Commission have thousands of acres but not money to divide them. There is no money coming from the EEC for that purpose. The west of Ireland needs drainage and there is no money for that either. This man is anxious to get the 500 or 600 acres divided. The Land Commission have a certain budget and can only divide X number of acres per year. In order to bring the number of farmers into the development category, hundreds of acres of land would need to be divided in one year, or else the farmers will be downgraded into the transitional farmer category. I am very worried about the future of these farmers. I cannot overstress that point.

Seventy per cent of the farmers along the west coast are small farmers. They are the plain people of Ireland. There is no point in saying we are not asking them to leave the land, but we are not giving them any money. Some grants have already been discontinued since 1st February. They will not get a number of the grants which the development farmer will get. Any land got from the pension scheme will be available to the development farmer in preference to the man who has not got the required amount of land to become a development farmer. The only land available for transitional farmers is land already held by the Land Commission. Development farmers are so selective that it is held that they represent only 30 per cent of the farmers of Ireland.

About 15 per cent of our farmers can go into the category of commercial farmers. The development farmer is doing very well out of this deal. He is getting very good acreage grants. I am interested in the 70 per cent of the farmers. I would have thought that if we had any kind of a democracy in Europe, that before such a directive was sent back to us to take it or leave it, there should be an opportunity in the national Parliament of debating such forthcoming decisions. I am not blaming any one man in the European Parliament for this. I imagine that not many of them would understand the situation. If they heard what the people who have lived with it in rural Ireland had to say and went back to their own national parliaments armed with that information, they would be better members of the international parliament.

I am very worried about the European set-up. I studied the Treaty of Rome when I was at a conference of agricultural producers 12 years ago. At that time we were told that the Treaty of Rome specified that there could be no subsidy pricewise but that there was no objection to a subsidy acre-wise or headage-wise. I am endeavouring to see what can be done for the pig industry. We cannot subsidise the price of feeding stuffs. I asked an official of the Department if something could be done to stop people killing pigs. Could a payment per sow be given to farmers to keep these pigs? I was shocked and annoyed when Deputy Thornley also mentioned that some directive might issue shortly stating that we cannot subsidise agriculture. Are these matters in the Treaty of Rome? I do not believe that they can be tied up so tightly: one cannot do this and one cannot do that. We should have as much influence in Europe to tell them what exactly we can and what we cannot subsidise. I am looking for information on certain directives.

I understand that the Treaty of Rome was used when An Bord Gráin was abolished. An Bord Gráin bought all the unmillable wheat and barley. They resold it and subsidised the carriage of it to the west of Ireland and non-grain growing areas. At that time we were told that An Bord Gráin could not exist as a State board but that it would be replaced by a co-operative or some other board. The next thing that happened was that restrictions were withdrawn altogether and now we have a free for all. Everyone is aware that corn is now sold at £40 per ton and barley is between £75 and £80 per ton. There is no control whatsoever, something which is hitting the area I represent.

That board has not been replaced, and no attempt has been made to control the sale of this grain. The Minister, and the members of the European Parliament, should work to get a change in the system that exists at present. I put this request to the Minister, and the members of the European Parliament, because in matters such as this this House is totally irrelevant. On occasions I wonder if we are wasting our time because the vital matters affecting this country are decided in Brussels and we are not told of them until directives are issued. Our way of living is being decided in Brussels. There is something wrong with a treaty which stipulates that such matters must be decided in Brussels first before the member countries are made aware of them. Our members of the European Parliament could do something about such directives if this House was in a position to have a discussion on them before they are implemented.

Mr. McDonald

We can only try to amend such directives.

Mr. Callanan

I accept that, but this cannot be done unless our members of the European Parliament have the views of the Members of this House.

It was stated earlier that agriculture may shortly become irrelevant in the Community and it was suggested that agriculture might not be subsidised any more. I do not know how that could come about in a Community as large as the EEC. If agriculture becomes irrelevant and farmers go out of production, the ordinary people who have to be fed will suffer. For that reason agriculture will never become irrelevant.

Before we entered the Community we heard a lot of talk about the Six and the policies of the Six. I was sick listening to people talking of these policies. We all know that Britain's policy was always one of cheap food and that they were going to make their presence felt in the Community. In any company where three new directors are co-opted the policy of that company always changes. The same was the position when the three new member states joined the EEC.

In my view our members of the European Parliament are not being properly briefed. I am not faulting them and I believe that we have brains on the European Parliament, but if they knew what they should talk about and had the background information they would be in a position to present Ireland's case in a better light. I would not speak at any meeting discussing national policy if I was not aware of the feelings at grass roots level. Because I would not be an authority on such matters I would do as the man did at the dinner dance long ago, stand up, speak up and shut up.

I do not know what can be done to improve the briefing of our members on the European Parliament but it is wrong that they should be asked to take part in debates when they have not adequate information. Are the members of the European Parliament told the type of directive to be issued in advance of its publication? If this is the case, arrangements should be made to have them debated in this House before they are debated in the European Parliament.

I was bitterly disappointed that we could not have a debate on these two directives because, as yet, I am as clear as mud about them. I have received a certain amount of clearance from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on them but this is a complete contradiction to what has appeared in the Press and to what has been expressed by people in rural organisations. If the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are correct my mind is eased slightly but if the reports in the newspapers are correct it would mean the elimination of the finest type of people in this country, the underprivileged, the people I have spent my life fighting for.

I am also disappointed that the regional fund has not been brought into operation. If this country benefits from this fund the money should be spent in the west, in counties Mayo, Galway and Leitrim, because if those counties do not get some assistance from such a fund there is a poor future for them. I hope the Minister will succeed in getting a substantial amount for this country from the fund.

If I listened to a debate on city life, about which I know nothing, if I had any intelligence at all I would be able to discuss the city view point in Brussels. These are the points I wanted to get across. I waited since 4 o'clock to get in and I hope I will get some answers. I wish the Minister well and all those who go to the European Parliament. They have a tough job to do and they have my best wishes.

Mr. Coogan

I know that our representatives in Europe have not got a bed of roses. The European Parliament is a far cry from the parish pump. We listen and we learn. Reports like this bring us closer to Europe and inform us on what our interests there are.

Tourism affects our economy. When we get back to the standards we had prior to the strife in the North, there will be more scope for tourism. I would like our representatives to change the image that has been created, not only in Europe but all over the world, that this part of the country is mixed up in that strife. This image has affected one of the greatest arms of our economy, that is, tourism. We do not want to see those problems spilling over and affecting us and I should like the image which has been created to be rebutted at every opportunity by our representatives.

Some time ago I had Dutch visitors in this House at Question Time. The House was fairly full and they asked me: "Which side of the House is the Protestant side and which is the Catholic side?" They were amazed when I told them there was none of that down here. We must eradicate that impression at every opportunity. I want to stress this as it affects the economy of the west. People are not prepared to come to an area which they think is strife torn.

It was amazing to hear members of the Fianna Fáil party trying to say that our members were not in Europe. Quite recently they were the cause of their having to leave Europe to come back here and look after this House due to some very poor activities on the part of the Fianna Fáil Whip.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister's staff for their co-operation with visitors who left my area and went to Brussels. Every effort was made to make their visit worthwhile. I am deeply grateful to the Minister's staff. I have always found them very co-operative.

Deputy Callanan mentioned the regional fund. I should like to reiterate the importance of the regional fund to the west. Along the west coast where the land is poor and has nothing to offer, men give up hope and leave the area. Some people stay on to mind the old people and, by the time they pass on, they themselves are too old to leave and you will have the pattern of old people being in the majority. A regional fund would play a big part in helping the economy along the west coast and especially in west Galway and Mayo. I do not want it to be used as slush money. There is a bit of thinking to be done on how it should be spent, unlike many other funds in the past, from which there was no come back. I should like to wish the Minister every success. He is dynamic. He is worthy of representing us there.

Mr. McDonald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Coogan

I also pay tribute to our representatives from all sides of the House. They are there as a team. They should leave the parish pump and the handle at home and work for the common good of the country.

Mr. Cunningham

Before dealing with directives 159 and 160 on lands I should like to say to the Minister that it is a pity that Members of this House have not got the means of keeping themselves better informed. Speaking to some of the delegates who attend the European Parliament, I find that they, too, find it very difficult to keep abreast with movements there and with all the ramifications of the very many debates, discussions, directives, and so on. It is fair to say that the amount of literature available in the Library to Members of the House is fairly voluminous. I would prefer if, through the Minister's office, we could have a very brief precis of the different items which are of interest to this country. These proposals are not directives until agreement is reached but, leading up to them, we should get a brief indication of the different proposals which are being put forward. When directives are issued we should be much better informed on their content.

I hope the regional fund will be very much to the advantage of this country. I wish the Minister well in his negotiations and in the various discussions which are taking place on the regional fund. The Minister and the Government would be wise to bring all of Dáil Éireann into their confidence and seek the advice of the Opposition on some of the proposals. I know that eventually these things are the Government's responsibility in the same way as all legislation is, but it is not good enough that neither the Opposition nor the public are aware of proposals being put forward. There may be some good reason for it. The views of the Opposition and of the various bodies throughout the country should be obtained before directives are made. This would mean that the Opposition would be aware of the difficulties and, secondly, when the directives were issued we would be able to see they were the best.

I agree with what Deputy Callanan has said. Even in the case of the two directives that have been issued for some time we are still at sea. The public is not aware of the full ramifications of Directives Nos. 159 and 160. The latter refers to lands, land tenure, pensions for farmers, for those who voluntarily sell their lands, and to leasing arrangements. None of these matters is clear to the public. In fact, I plead guilty to being ignorant of some of these matters not through my own fault. With regard to Directive No. 159, which refers to the farm modernisation scheme, I took the trouble of trying to find out from a number of official sources when the directive would come into operation and some of the final details. I was told the final details were not yet hammered out. The Minister for Lands on several occasions in the last three months has spoken outside this House about this scheme and in his latest speech, a copy of which I have before me, he has gone to town in an effort to sell it. The people have been making inquiries through their Deputies and have been writing directly to the Department but they have not been given any comprehensive information.

The purpose of the Regional Fund is to assist the underdeveloped and the less developed peripheral areas of the Community. In assessment of these areas Ireland is regarded as an underdeveloped area and, therefore, the whole island could qualify for benefit from the fund. The Government should ensure that our peripheral areas are given special consideration; it would be unfair if the fund were used globally. As a matter of policy, principle and practice, the Community are giving preference to their peripheral areas and we should establish that principle here. I hope there will not be any objections from the Community if we apply Community principles to the distribution of the fund.

If we do that we will be putting it to the best use because our peripheral areas would have first preference. Many Deputies have spoken about the western regions. These regions need special consideration. There would not be any advantage for this country joining the EEC if a regional fund could not be used for the benefit of the less developed and the peripheral areas. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on this.

The Opposition would like to have more information about the Regional Fund. I know there are times when the Minister cannot show his hand at home because he may not want the cards to be known in Europe. This is natural among nations as well as people but, nevertheless, he should give the House more information. In fact, I should like to compliment the European Deputies who spoke here. I got more detailed information from listening to their contributions today than I have obtained from any Minister who attended the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. This should not be the case. A Minister should be able to give more information to the Dáil than is being given.

As a northern Deputy I hope there will be the closest and fullest co-operation in regional development within the territory of our island with the Northern Assembly and the authorities in the Six-County area. I know members of local authorities in Donegal, Derry and Tyrone met the Minister for Finance and put certain broad principles before him for the recognition of these three counties as a development region. Not alone would it serve the economic interests of the country but it would help that area where development is needed.

Not alone did the officials and members of those local authorities have frequent meetings in their own areas, in Derry and Lifford, but other voluntary organisations such as chambers of commerce have met to discuss joint proposals. Here we should have one of the best examples of cross-Border co-operation, when we see a company like Courtaulds setting up a £25 million factory in Derry and one of similar size and cost in Letterkenny. It shows that companies like that are ignoring the existence of the Border, and when it comes to the distribution of the Regional Fund this region should be considered favourably.

Negotiations are proceeding on benefits from the Social Fund. I have one crib in this respect. It is that it is not and will not be distributed through Government agencies: I think it is a matter for application by individual organisations throughout the country, co-operatives and such like. I am afraid that the opportunities to apply for benefits were not sufficiently publicised. Perhaps I am wrong but I do not think they received very much publicity in the Press. Perhaps the Minister or some Department brought the fund's provisions to the notice of the organisations concerned but my understanding is there were not sufficient applications to the Social Fund, in other words, that information was not made available that all the applications would be met in full. I am not sure and I should like the Minister to deal with this matter.

I listened to Deputy Wilson speak on the educational aspect of the EEC. This is very important and I would urge that opportunities be given to all students, especially at second level, to learn some European languages. This is necessary from an economic point of view apart altogether from the cultural. Of course, it is culturally necessary that we should do it and the economic aspect of the Community is always discussed to such an extent that we tend to lose sight of the fact that we have strong cultural ties with western Europe. Before other steps are taken I hope preparatory ones will be made leading towards the ultimate steps towards a united Europe. Whatever the later steps will be, I suggest that we should recommend to the Council of Ministers, and I am recommending it now to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that we should press on with an educational programme especially in the language field.

Due to the policy of Governments here in the past in regard to education, most young people nowadays have as good an opportunity as most European children to advance educationally as far as language is concerned. However, there are problems and we are behind in language development. I have found that in most European countries pupils and, indeed, adults, can speak three, sometimes four and sometimes many more languages. Therefore, I urge the Minister to see that any barriers there may be in Europe are not language barriers.

Directive 159 deals with farm modernisation. I am not a farmer but many of my constituents are, and they are worried. I have a question on the Order Paper asking what percentage of Irish farmers will benefit from this scheme. We know that in order to be entitled to the grants from the scheme our Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will have to contribute 75 per cent which means the EEC will pay 25 per cent. Surely, with the money available——

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy will be aware that the directive he is referring to was made two years ago when the Government of his party were in power. That was before we joined the EEC.

Mr. Cunningham

The Government will have to operate this directive and I have written to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to find out its provision. The Department have informed me that the directive on the farm modernisation scheme——

Dr. FitzGerald

I think the Deputy may be confusing the directive of two years ago which laid down certain limits with the scheme which his Government accepted——

Mr. Cunningham

I am talking about farm modernisation.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy was saying we should not be bound. It cannot be done because his Government accepted the directive.

Mr. Cunningham

What I am saying is that the final regulations which have not yet, I understand, been made under the farm modernisation scheme, should not do what a lot of farmers are afraid they are going to do. In other words, the proposals are, I gather, that farmers of over £1,800 a year will qualify for certain grants, that those transitional up to that will qualify for less attractive grants; there may also be a large number of small farmers who will not qualify for grants at all. We would like some clarification on this.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is a bit late two years afterwards.

Mr. Cunningham

If I write to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and am told that the final operation and details of this scheme have not been arrived at yet, what am I to think? Will the Minister tell us all about it?

Dr. FitzGerald

I would love to if I got the chance——

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister will get an opportunity.

Dr. FitzGerald

——but it is irrelevant. It ante-dates the Second Report.

Mr. Cunningham

We are talking about something that is about to come into operation.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is a matter for the Department of Lands. If we are talking about Directive Nos. 159 and 160, they are two years old and I should not really discuss them when I am replying.

Mr. Cunningham

They are not two years old. The arrangement of the grants and the provision for our operation of these——

Dr. FitzGerald

This is a matter for the Minister for Lands. The Deputy can discuss that with him. I cannot speak for him on what regulations he brings in for a scheme on farm modernisation.

Mr. Cunningham

I shall allow the Ceann Comhairle to judge on the relevancy or the order of what I am doing. I shall accept the Minister as Minister for Foreign Affairs, not as Ceann Comhairle of this House.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is fair.

Mr. Cunningham

As I was saying, it is time that clarification should be given on the provisions of the farm modernisation scheme and, in the first place, to allay the fears of those who think that, number one, no grants will be available to certain small farmers — no land projects grants, no grants to develop their farms — because it is significant that from the 1st February, the farm project people are accepting no applications. Farmers are told not to apply and that if they apply they will not get any grants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy dealing with the report that is now before the House?

Mr. Cunningham

I am. At least, I thought I was, because these two items were debated all evening by both sides of the House. I thought I was in order, but I shall accept your guidance in the matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We can only deal with what is the subject matter of the Second Report. The Chair is allowing as wide an interpretation as possible.

Mr. Cunningham

The farm modernisation scheme is specifically mentioned in the document which we are debating. Page 8 says:

A Farm Modernisation Scheme is being introduced in Ireland as from 1st February, 1974. The Council of Ministers has agreed in principle to the first part of the directive——

So it has only been agreed in principle as yet——

——for a special system of aids for farmers in mountain and other less favoured areas.

Therefore, I think it is in order to discuss the farmers in mountainous and less favoured areas.

Dr. FitzGerald

Indeed, but that is not, in fact, the farm modernisation directive that the Deputy was talking about.

Mr. Cunningham

If you want to take this document, revise it and send it out again, all right, but it is here and I am going to speak on it with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Dr. FitzGerald

This directive is not No. 159 or No. 160 of 1972.

Mr. Cunningham

I am discussing farm modernisation and have been from the start.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry if the Deputy is talking about the second paragraph——

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister will have all the time in the world to reply——

Dr. FitzGerald

I am much disturbed over the Deputy's utter confusion in regard to what he is talking about.

Mr. Cunningham

He is the second Minister who is alleging, or has got into the habit of alleging, that on this side of the House we are dopes, we are confused, we are ignorant, we do not know what we are talking about. The Minister for Local Government gave us the same advice last week quite frequently.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have not said anything of the kind for ten hours of this debate. The Deputy is now in a state of great confusion, but there is no use my trying to enlighten him, so I shall stay quiet.

Mr. Cunningham

I started off on that note, that I was confused and that the people of this country were confused, confused, first of all, by the lack of knowledge, secondly, by different statements at different times and from different Ministers. I hope I am not confusing the Minister now. Yes, there is confusion; hence my request for more information. I am not au fait with all the provisions, with all the directives. I started off by asking the Minister to give us more information, to bring this side of the House along with him, to keep us informed about what is happening or what is going to happen in so far as he is allowed to do it.

Dr. FitzGerald

If you will allow me, Sir, I wish to explain that Nos. 159 and 160 are two directives laying down the general shape of possible farm modernisation schemes and limiting what could be done under these schemes two years before we joined. Once we joined we accepted those — they are not open to amendments. A farm modernisation scheme does not and may not go outside those limits, and there is no point in suggesting that it should.

Mr. Cunningham

Is it not the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister for Lands will be dealing with the farm modernisation scheme.

Mr. Cunningham

And the farm pension scheme?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, both 159 and 160. Thirdly the reference here which the Deputy mentioned is to a special system of aid for farmers in mountain and other less favoured areas. That is quite a separate issue. It is not part of the farm modernisation scheme. If the Deputy is being misled because of the heading, I apologise for that. It may be badly drafted, and I think, it is partly our fault. I am sorry about that.

Mr. Cunningham

In an earlier debate towards the end of last year, I did mention the less favoured farms. I am glad the Minister has clarified this for me. There is a distinct difference between the farm modernisation scheme and any scheme which may be introduced for the less favoured farms.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry. It is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who deals with 159, and the Minister for Lands with 160. I regret I misled the Deputy.

Mr. Cunningham

Yes, that is twice. I forgive the Minister, but let it not happen a third time.

Dr. FitzGerald

I shall try not to let it.

Mr. Cunningham

I will now get on to proposed aids for the less favoured farms. In a debate about six months ago I asked the Minister to tell us about some of the proposals he may be putting forward for the less favoured farms of this country. It is a pity we are not told about these things. Would the Minister elaborate now? We should not have to deal with something which is signed, sealed and delivered like the farm modernisation scheme and the pensions for retired farmers. I refer particularly to the aids for the less favoured farms. Negotiations are now going on. Could the Minister tell us what they are, what proposals his Government or the Department of Lands are putting forward, what snags they are running into, what are the other countries trying to do and does that suit this country? If it does not, what action does the Minister propose to take? The Minister may not be allowed to give me answers to all of these questions but I would like to know something about this scheme.

Is the gradient of the land a criterion for getting aid for the less favoured farms? If the Minister for Lands does not fight for bad land which has no gradient at all such land will get no grant. There are bad lands in this country which are less favoured and are flat. The Minister's colleagues should not accept any proposals which would eliminate flat lands and only include lands with high gradient under the less favoured farm scheme.

This scheme is tied up with farm modernisation and with pensions to farmers. Some of the lands which may be relinquished under the less favoured farm grants may qualify for grants under this scheme. Does this apply to land which carries cattle at the moment? It is well known in the west that mountain farms and very badly favoured farms carry cattle and sheep. Is it only sheep farmers who will qualify for grants under this scheme?

The Minister for Lands made announcements on a number of occasions, but he made one especially on 25th February. There is some confusion about farmers under the pension scheme. The Minister took one of the best possible examples when he indicated that a farm of 30 acres would realise £400 per acre, a total of £12,000 and that there would be a life annuity. He said that the wife, if the farmer died would get a life annuity of £600. Would it be in order for me to ask the Minister to clarify page 2, on the question of leasing?

Dr. FitzGerald

Is that page 2 of the supplementary report?

Mr. Cunningham

No, page 2 of the document issued by the Minister for Lands.

Dr. FitzGerald

Will the Deputy give the reference please?

Mr. Cunningham

It is the 25th February, 1974. I would like to ask if there is any co-operation between the Minister and his counterpart in Northern Ireland in the EEC? Does the Minister have discussions on matters of mutual interest to this island with his opposite number? Do meetings take place here where there is full and frank discussions on matters affecting both sides of the Border? Are any agreements made or plans of campaign carried to the ultimate in Europe? Will the Minister give some examples of this?

It is right and necessary that this should happen but, above all, the people should know it is happening and that we are working as representatives of one island which has common problems. Many other countries have such problems but it is wise to show the member states of the Community that the Irish can work in unison. This is important at the moment because we look forward to the European Community providing a mutual meeting ground away from the strifes of the present situation at home. If it can be shown to the people, North and South, especially those in the North who are afraid, that these developments will eventually lead us into one nation, that Ministers from our Government and from the Assembly in the North can work together in the context of a European Parliament, then I think this would be a pointer to the fact that they could work together in a united Irish Parliament.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 27th February, 1974.