Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1977

Vol. 298 No. 12

Developments in the European Communities—Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight and Ninth Reports: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the reports: Developments in the Communities—Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Reports.

—(Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.)

Ruairí Brugha

First, I should like to refer to a matter that has been mentioned already, that is, the length of time that has elapsed since developments in the European Communities have been the subject of discussion in the House. We have before us now five reports in respect of 1975 and 1976. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed regret that a discussion of this kind has not taken place for more than two years and he indicated that in future the problem may be solved by reason of the reports coinciding with the office of each presidency. However, I do not accept that as a solution. As there are approximately three reports each year, the introduction of the precedent suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary would mean simply that the next debate would not take place for another two years, when instead of having five reports before us we would have four. It is not possible to have so many reports dealt with adequately at the same time. In saying that, I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister's situation, having regard to his obligation to travel abroad frequently. However, discussion of these reports enable the Dáil and, consequently, the people, to understand what is taking place in Europe. The absence of such debates is creating an even greater gap in terms of understanding developments within the Community.

Before dealing with the contents of the reports, I should like to draw attention to the absence in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech of any reference to the impact on our situation of the company law proposals. We must adopt and apply regulations as they come to us by way of the various directives agreed by the Council of Ministers. According to the recent bulletin of the CFI, the first directive in regard to company law is the only one to be implemented so far in Ireland. The second directive has been agreed by the Council of Ministers and is awaiting implementation while Directives Nos. 3 to 8 are at the proposal stage. It is noted that the fourth directive, which would be radical for Ireland, might be passed by the end of 1977. I am drawing attention to this matter here lest there be people in industry and business who may not be aware of these developments. The second directive sets out regulations to govern the minimum size of capital required in respect of a public company. It outlines rules aimed at ensuring the maintenance of such capital and includes regulations also for establishing minimum capital for a public company to the extent of 25,000 units of account. It provides also that 25 per cent of capital must be paid up fully.

It should be noted that the first directive included the requirement to publish accounts but that in our case this has been postponed so far as private companies are concerned. It should be noted by private companies that this requirement might have to be implemented by the end of this year and that this would have a significant impact on the many private companies employing numbers of people.

The reports before us deal with the period from the first six months of 1975, in other words the report of August, 1975, to January, 1977. The first half of the 1975 report relates to the period during which Ireland held the presidency. In that respect I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the initiative and drive he applied to his work during that period. There were some commendable innovations during those six months and the Minister made a serious effort to have Community structures put into operation. One of the innovations was the decision to have parliamentary questions answered in the European Parliament. The Minister's presidency, too, represented a period during which the first meeting of the European Council took place and there was also the signing of the Lomé Convention. In addition it was during that period that Britain's membership of the Community was renegotiated. It is fair comment to say that that renegotiation to some extent represented a weakening of the European situation in that it was found necessary to change the terms of membership of an existing member in order to keep that member within the Community.

Another move that was initiated during that period was the bringing forward of a date for direct elections. Unlike the Governments of other members of the Community, our Government did not consult with the Opposition in regard to the setting-up of constituencies. Consultation in that connection would have been good. We should be able to approach this whole question on a more agreeable basis. It would have been best to have some form of independent commission.

In relation to direct elections, I note that the British Government agreed that proportional representation should be used in Northern Ireland. This was a step forward since it should ensure representation of both sides of the divided community there. I am puzzled by a report that the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. William Whitelaw, has opted against proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. If the report is correct, one wonders if Mr. Whitelaw has lost interest in the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland or if this is a question of the danger of the principle of proportional representation being accepted by the Conservative Party could affect their home situation. It is unfortunate that this should be the view of Mr. Whitelaw, a prominent member of the Conservative Party.

It is necessary to emphasise that the question of direct elections faces us with the problems of eventual European rule and direction. This is why debates of this kind should take place at six-monthly intervals and not every two years. We must ensure that our people have an understanding of the changes that will be involved. We must be prepared for an effective Parliament with the degrees of sovereignty which the direct elections will give. This will involve our acceptance of the fact that the major partners in Europe, through their size and the proportion of seats they will hold, will be able to direct us. I am sure that everybody in Ireland appreciates what one may describe as the apparent irrelevance of the 16 seats allocated to us and the three seats which will be held by representatives of the Northern Ireland area—19 seats in all for Ireland.

I welcome the reference in one of the reports to the setting-up of a committee to propose measures to deal with the taking of hostages. I have not been able to find any follow-up to that and I should like to know if there has been any further development. We have introduced legislation here but I should like to know what has been done by other European countries.

There is reference in the report to the question of movement of persons and I should like to know how this affects the movement of doctors among the member states of the EEC.

On the question of energy policy, I note that the proposals in the earlier reports were to the effect that by 1985 consumption would be 15 per cent below that of 1973 and that by 1985 it was intended to reduce Community dependence on imported energy to 40 per cent of the amount for 1973. I should like to know what progress has been made on this. The Eighth Report contains a very skimpy reference to energy. In Chapter 16 the Ninth and final Report which we are dealing with goes into more practical detail and I should like to spell out what the programme involves.

The report states:

At its meeting on 21 December, 1976 the Council approved this Community work programme for 1977 and called on the Commission to submit relevant proposals and documentation as soon as possible so that the time limits could be met.

The programme is as follows:

First half of 1977

(a) rational use of energy and energy savings

(b) protection and promotion of energy investments

(c) energy pricing

(d) promotion of the use of coal in electrical power stations

(e) aid for stockpiling of coal

(f) oil refining policy including

—the problem of surplus refining capacity and of adapting capacities to the structure of demand and

—the problem of protecting refineries against products imported from non-member countries

(g) security stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products including

—the problem of multilateral agreements concerning stocks held on the territory of a member State on behalf of undertakings established in other member States and

—the problem of financing security stocks

Second half of 1977

(h) examination of national programmes and Community objectives

(i) nuclear fuel supply and the nuclear fuel cycle, including the problem of radioactive waste

(j) technological projects of interest to the Community in the hydrocarbons sector, i.e., distribution of support for Community projects (third round) with reference to the application of Regulation 3056/76²

(k) hydrocarbons exploration

(l) coal gasification.

I should like to know what progress we have made in endeavouring to implement a national energy reduction policy. The energy problem arose in 1973 and so far as one can see from reading the Reports it was not until December of last year that the Council approved a programme. All of us must be aware, as has been said by President Carter, that a major problem in relation to energy and energy conservation is facing the world.

Mention was made last week by a Deputy of the election of Senator Yeats as Vice-President and of the failure to elect him as President of the Council of Europe. The Deputy in question was right to criticise the action of some of the Members of our Parliament in Europe who voted against Senator Yeats. One does not want to make comparisions between people, but there can be no question in anybody's mind that, as a candidate for that position, Senator Yeats must have surpassed any other candidate in the field. Deputy Thornley said in his experience when we go abroad we are Irish. It is very unfortunate to find that the Fine Gael members of the European Parliament did not support the Irish candidate in this instance. Deputies representing this Parliament in Europe must make an effort to be a good deal more mature and to think less of internal party politics within this State when they are in Europe.

It is quite obvious that in Ireland agriculture is the main beneficiary from the European Communities. It is also quite obvious that problems are beginning to arise in this area because of the fact that farm prices of essential commodities are escalating to the consumer. A couple of days ago the Government had no alternative—especially in view of the fact that this may be an election year—but to announce subsides to try to deal with increasing costs of some essential foodstuffs. So far as I can gather, the Government have not yet clarified who exactly will pay for these additional subsidies and how much they will amount to. People are asking: are these subsidies an additional charge on the Irish taxpayers? Leaving that aside, there is no doubt membership of the Community has been and is of considerable benefit to our agricultural sector.

Reference has been made in this debate to the question of the social funds and how the money provided for AnCO is being used. The Government need to examine how the grants for retraining are being used. There is an absence of a planned approach to this problem on the part of the Government. Retraining grants should not be looked on as an easy way to keep redundant people off the unemployment queue. They should be geared towards the possibility of providing employment. We need from the Government more evidence of a planned programme for the use of retraining funds in conjunction with IDA projects and in conjunction with possibilities of employment. It has been suggested and it is believed that some of the AnCO funds are being used to retrain people in duplication or in areas where there is no prospect of employment.

One of the areas next in line to benefit, if I may put it that way, from the European Communities is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The Department and the Minister are very fortunate to be getting so many millions of pounds on loan at a low rate of interest to re-equip and expand our telephone system. If we have not got a good telephone system in a few years time, it will not be the fault of the European Investment Bank or the European Community.

Our membership has been of great benefit to us but so far as one can gauge the situation, there has not been progress in the efforts to redress the discrepancy between rich and poor within the community. It may take some considerable time, but this is an area in which we should be able to contribute by way of criticism and proposal. To some extent, the problem may lie in the absence of a greater effort in recent years on the part of less developed EEC members such as ourselves and Italy to avail of funds for development. It may also lie in the failure of some members to cope with and control the cost of living and inflation, notable examples being ourselves and Britain. In this area we appear to be among the weaker members of the Community.

I should like to sound a note of warning in connection with our own general attitude towards the European Communities. It relates perhaps, to some degree, to the absence of debate, to the failure by the Minister to arrange to have debates on these reports at regular intervals. Whatever the reason may be, our general attitude in Ireland tends to be to evaluate our membership of the European Communities from the point of view of how much we can benefit from it. Like a citizen of any State whose personal contribution to society is an obligation in addition to the benefits he receives from that society, our aim as a member of the EEC must be to contribute to the idea and the ideals of Europe in addition to benefiting from membership.

Mr. Herbert

The greatest sin committed by this Government, and they have committed many, is their total mishandling of our EEC involvement. In 1972 the Irish people in what was their most important decision since the foundation of the State voted 84 per cent in favour of entry into Europe. If the nation after four years got a second chance, I doubt if there would be even a small majority in favour of membership. The country would not opt for membership of the EEC.

Who is to blame for the situation? Is it the European institutions, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament, or is it one member or all of our eight partners? I say that these countries and institutions are blameless. The blame for this loss of confidence by the Irish people in the EEC must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Irish Government, and particularly on the shoulders of the Ministers involved in the Council.

In 1973 at the point of entry the Irish economy had the greatest growth potential of the three acceding nations —the United Kingdom, Denmark and ourselves. The United Kingdom was merely an offshore island of the European mainland and after the expiry of the transition period it would have to conform to the rigid disciplines of the Treaty of Rome. With the expiry of the transition period her Commonwealth trade would have to disappear and when this was allied to the termination of her traditional food policy the economy of the United Kingdom could go only in one direction, namely, to descend.

The Danish economy more or less had reached saturation point and accession to the EEC would not have this tremendous impact. However, our economy even to the most casual observer could go in one direction only—it had to ascend. For the first time since the Act of Union in 1800 we could terminate our over-dependence on a declining British market. Now we had full and free access to a vast and affluent consumer market of 250 million people for agricultural produce which accounts for 40 per cent of our total exports. On this basis alone Ireland within a short few years should have experienced rapid economic expansion making our economy one of the strongest in the EEC. At this point when we are moving towards the expiry of the transition period we should be able to conform to the rigid disciplines of the Snake currencies.

It might be asked what has happened after four years. We are now the most depressed country in the market and we are heading the European league in three vital areas— inflation, prices and unemployment. The imbalance between Ireland and the richest part of the Community, the Hamburg region of West Germany, which stood at 5:1 in 1973 is now standing at 7:1. This is because the economies of the other countries are expanding but tragically our economy is contracting. Unless immediate remedial action is taken that gap will continue to widen and multiply.

What should the Government have done apart from keeping the domestic scene in order? They should and could have activated certain mechanisms in our Treaty of Accession such as Article 139 and they should have sheltered under the broad umbrella of Protocol 30 to protect our vital national interests in the area of employment and industry, both manufacturing and agricultural. The failure of the Government in this regard accounted for the loss of thousands of jobs in 1974 in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The Government's inaction in the beef and livestock sectors of agriculture at the end of 1973 and early 1974 led to the slaughtering of 30 per cent of the national dairy herd. This has led to our continued exclusion from the more lucrative markets on the mainland for our beef. This was brought about by inaction with regard to escalating MCAs, by the absence of a proper meat marketing board and by our failure in the area of proper transport for our exports to the markets of central Europe for agricultural produce and industrial products.

Our remoteness from central European markets, involving long sea journeys—our nearest link being a 22-hour sea journey from Rosslare to Le Havre—makes our exports less competitive. In our special circumstances we would have been justified in seeking a transport subsidy from the Community.

The Commission have powers under Article 80 of the Rome Treaty to do this. Have the Government ever requested them to do it? Last month I tabled a question to Commissioner Burke asking for a subsidy for the transportation of goods from the peripheral areas. I mentioned Ireland as being one of the peripheral areas involved. While the Commissioner acknowledged his powers under Article 80, he was not prepared to act. It is up to the Government to act in this vital field and to seek Community aid in the interests of the economies of deprived peripheral areas.

Reference was made to our six-month's presidency. This was very important for the country. We handled its complex organisation with a very high degree of competence. I know, from my parliamentary experience, that our partners in the other member states were very impressed. Mention was also made of the Lomé Convention. I was privileged to be there last year and was very impressed. Here I commend the EEC for filling an economic vacuum in the APC countries, a vacuum which might otherwise be filled by one or other of the imperialistic programmes.

In the final analysis what did the presidency mean to Ireland? Did we have any influence in the Community as a result of it? The record proves that the net effect was a minus quantity. We presided over the first meeting of the European Council held in Dublin in March, 1975, which bestowed on Britain the extension of Protocol 18, as well as an extension of their imports of dairy products from New Zealand. This created more difficulties for our dairy farmers and added to the EEC butter mountain which has led to the Commission's move to introduce the milk co-responsibility levy to reduce unwanted surpluses. Bord Bainne, to their credit, have never put one pound of butter into Community intervention. Still our producers will now have to pay this levy. I am saying clearly that the decision arrived at in Dublin to extend Protocol 18 of the United Kingdom's Accession Treaty did not help that situation and should have been resisted.

Apart from the common agricultural policy, the next influencing factor on the 84 per cent who voted for entry into Europe was the commitment in the Preamble to the Rome Treaty to the correction of regional disparities in the Community. This had a major influence on the 84 per cent who voted for it, and especially the people in the west of Ireland. The Paris Summit of October, 1972, took the decision to remove these disparities. In March, 1975, the Council, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs presiding, created the regional fund. The fund has been a dismal failure. Our allocation of £35 million for a three-year period should not have been accepted. It was an insult. Should I perhaps more correctly say that the method of distribution should not have been accepted but resisted? The quota system should never have been accepted. The amending of the draft Commission regulation and the insertion of the partial repayments clause was a criminal act pushed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to enable his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to subsume the allocation from the regional fund into the national exchequer.

The concept of additional expenditure was not applied, although the Minister would argue that it was. Despite repeated questioning here and in the European Parliament, I failed to ascertain the amount of additional expenditure going to any individual project. The alleged beneficiaries of the fund, the industrialists or local authorities, cannot tell how much money comes from the regional fund to aid their projects. All they receive is a grant from the IDA. This situation arises because the Irish Government use the system in which a large number of projects are lumped together in one global application for fund aid.

It must also be said that when local authorities or industrialists are raising finance for a project which clearly qualifies for aid under the fund regulation, they are wasting their time submitting their applications to Brussels, because the only grant they will receive is the national one from the IDA.

How do the other member states operate their fund allocation? For example, the United Kingdom Government passes its aid directly to local authorities when their projects are approved. The Italian Government transfers all of its allocation to the Mezzogiorno, which of course is the underprivileged section of Italy. There is obvious fundamental need for changes in the fund regulations which will come up for review during the course of this year. The revised fund must be a Community one in the real sense of the word. That means that the notion of national quotas must cease and projects emanating from regions which, by Community standards, are underdeveloped must be afforded the priority and support they need. There must be a concentration of aid; the worst-off regions should be entitled to a higher level of aid from the fund which would stimulate greater investment in those most needy regions. Under such a system Ireland, which has some of the poorest regions in the Community, would qualify for a greater share of the fund than that to which we are at present entitled.

In an effort to encourage high quality projects every industrialist, local authority, Government body or agency which has a project qualifying for national aid should have the right to submit it directly to Brussels. Coupled with this right must be the application of the concept of additionality. In other words, regional aid must complement national aid and there must be no reduction in the amount of national aid. The Government Department responsible for transmitting applications to Brussels should advise the Commission on priority amongst Irish applications.

Another area which clearly illustrates the failure of the Government is the vitally important one of trans-border co-operation. A study of the north-west region is currently in progress, financed by the regional fund. This study is merely of infrastructure and will do very little to serve the chronic socio-economic problems of this troubled area. Urgent action is needed and is being called for daily by the vast majority of the 800,000 people who occupy this troubled region—20 per cent of our total population. Indeed I might add it is the most depressed area in the entire Community, more depressed than the poorest parts of Sicily and the Mezzogiorno. My experience has been that a growing number of those 800,000 people are becoming more and more aware of the adverse socio-economic effects of this absurd and meaningless border. In their desperation, through their public representatives and local authorities, they are now directly approaching the institutions of Europe, having lost faith in the political wills of the two Governments concerned, Westminster and Dublin, to provide a formula for the solution of those structural and economic ills. The formula is a very simple one; all it requires is the agreement of both Governments to provide the legal basis on which local or regional authorities in trans-border areas can co-operate without having to go, cap in hand, to their respective Administrations.

Reference is made in the report to direct elections to the European Parliament. I have very fixed ideas on this matter but, please God, we will be given an opportunity next week, or shortly afterwards, to make known our thinking in this regard.

I should like to pay a tribute to our national airline, Aer Lingus. I have travelled with them for the past couple of years. Their efficiency and the courtesy of their staff are beyond reproach. For instance, Aer Lingus can take me from my home—which is in the most remote of the peripheral regions—to Brussles or Paris and back in one day. I feel I should put that on record. In my opinion they are the most efficient airline operating in Europe.

Mr. Callanan

I will be brief, but I must make certain comments of deep concern to my constituents situated in one of the 12 western counties. I will refer particularly to the EEC Regional Fund and generally to the common agricultural policy.

When we joined the EEC we did so on the understanding that we could safeguard and improve our smaller farms and we did not expect that the Treaty of Rome would be used by a croterie to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I am afraid this is what is happening, particularly in regard to the application of the regional fund. From time to time in the past few years I have been referring to the inequitable application of the regional fund to the disadvantaged areas. It is being done by way of district electoral divisions. That may suit some European countries but it certainly does not favour small farmers in Ireland, particularly in the 12 counties of the west. There could be a large DED with 10,000 acres in it, but if there is a town of any size in the middle the fund does not apply although there could be as much as 50 per cent of the DED in extremely poor circumstances.

In County Galway the percentage of small farmers is only four, and in order to get benefit from the regional fund farmers must be in the development bracket. This means, of course, that there is very little chance for those at the bottom. I ask the Minister—I am glad he is in the House —to take up this matter seriously in Brussels, because it appears to me that the Treaty of Rome is being ignored by certain EEC members who are bending its rules to suit themselves. I name Britain, Italy and France in this context.

I foresaw when I spoke in favour of the proposal that we should enter the EEC that certain nations would try to obtain elasticity in the Treaty of Rome rules to suit their particular circumstances. For instance, I appreciated that Britain's cheap food policy would be maintained, if possible, but I did not foresee that there would be massive departure from the rules and regulations of the Rome Treaty in the way that has been happening. Before Britain, Denmark and Ireland became EEC members there were six countries in the organisation. Now there are nine. If you have a board of directors with six members and six more directors are appointed, naturally there will be a change in policy, but I never anticipated that there would be such a deviation from the Treaty of Rome since we joined as there has been. I am afraid we have been led up the garden path. We believed before we joined the EEC that certain rules were hard and fast and had to be complied with, but there appear to be special rules for certain nations. As I have said, certain member states seem to be able to keep the rules it suits them to keep and to disregard the others.

Land settlement and the drainage of land are the greatest problems facing farmers, particularly those in the west of Ireland. Thousands of acres of land are lying unproductive because they are water logged. We were promised a huge injection of money from the regional fund to help us in our land settlement problem but we got little. Most of the farmers in the west of Ireland and those living in disadvantaged areas need more land but it must be properly drained.

This morning the House considered the Estimate for the Office of Public Works and we learned that of the total of £28 million provided for that office only £3 million will be allocated for drainage schemes. Can anything be done to improve that situation, particularly for the west of Ireland? I notice that a river in Galway which I pass when motoring to Dublin is in a terrible state at present and it has been on the priority list for a long time but to date a cost-benefit analysis has not been carried out on it. We should look for help from the EEC to carry out such works.

The disadvantaged areas scheme is dealt with on the basis of district electoral divisions which can in corporate up to 8,000 acres of land. I suggest that the scheme operate on the basis of townlands although I would prefer to have grants given on a per farm basis. I expect I will be told that it would be administratively impossible—that famous phrase was used on many occasions when I suggested improvements in various farm schemes—to do this.

Mr. Herbert

It will cost the Exchequer money and there is no money there. Under the disadvantaged areas scheme the national Exchequer must pay 65 per cent of the grant.

Mr. Callanan

If that is so, will the Government not admit this and cease to blame the EEC? We should endeavour to get more from the EEC. That percentage should be changed. Can anything be done to impress upon the officials in Brussels that the scheme of grants is of no use to our farmers. We expected big things when we joined the EEC but we got nothing. The Minister would need to live in a disadvantaged area to appreciate the problem fully. I accept it is hard for a Dublin-based Minister to understand our problems, but those of us who live in such areas know we are getting nothing.

Mr. Herbert

It would do the Deputy good to see the areas of rich land in Germany, Belgium and France which are classified as disadvantaged areas. The Deputy would weep if he saw them and he should remember that they get a higher grant.

Mr. Callanan

Ireland is doing very bad out of the regional fund and the disadvantaged areas scheme. That is a shame and unless something is done more farmers will have to leave the land in the west of Ireland. I hope the directives concerning grants and those who qualify for them and for land are scrapped. The farmers in the west of Ireland have waited a long time to get any advantage from our membership of the EEC. An economist recently told us how many more people would have to leave the land but where would we get employment for those people when we already have a huge unemployment problem? The majority of small farmers in the west of Ireland live on non-viable holdings by EEC standards and we must do something to help them.

The Land Commission are doing a reasonable job but they do not have sufficient money. The farm retirement scheme has been a complete failure in that it does not attract enough elderly farmers to retire. Land is fetching £1,000 per acre in the west of Ireland and even if the Land Commission gives a farmer land at the rate of £500 per acre he must find £5,000 for ten acres. Where would a small farmer get that amount of money? It is clear from the type of directives issued in Brussels that the officials there know nothing about the type of land we have or the problems of our farming community.

Mr. Herbert

The directives are very flexible.

Mr. Callanan

They are not flexible and I should like to know why. Why are we so rigid about these directives? EEC policies implemented here are detrimental to small farmers and unless they are changed to suit the needs of those people we will have fewer operating the land in the west of Ireland. I am not blaming the Minister, a Dublin man, for not understanding the situation nor do I blame the Europeans.

The small farmers and the people generally in the west are losing confidence in our having gained anything by entering the EEC. I was one of those who went all out for entry into the EEC because I believed we could and should gain from such entry. I believed there was a potential. I believe there still is a potential but there is not enough weight behind the arguments as to what we want and what is suitable for us. Is the Minister aware of what is happening in the country at the moment? We were told we would get many advantages from entry and the possibility is that, if we were a little stronger when we go abroad, we might get some of the things that were promised. I know the Minister is a man of ability and I would like him to use that ability in the right direction but commonsense is a very valuable asset. Education is a good thing but education without common sense can be very dangerous. The people with the brains should go out and meet the people with common sense to discover what is hapening and find out what they should be looking for in Brussels.

There is talk about direct elections to Brussels. What power will the European Parliament have? Will it not still be the Council of Minister who will dictate policy? Were I a Minister in a Government, something I shall never be, I would like discussions in the national parliament about proposed changes before ever those changes were discussed in Brussels instead of the present situation. If one puts down a question about what happens in Brussels one is told that one is now too late and nothing can be done. Why not discuss things here before anything is done? We hear about Directive 159 and Directive 160 and we know as little about them now as we did six months ago. This Parliament is completely irrelevant. There is not enough communication between Brussels and our Parliament. We hear more outside where Brussels is concerned than we ever hear in this House.

The people in the west are completely disillusioned about everything connected with the EEC. It is not fair to expect us, public representatives, to come in here and remain silent. I intend to go on highlighting the situation as far as the small farmer is concerned. We have no alternative employment for our small farmers. We have educated young people all over the country looking for employment and we have nothing to offer them. The best we can hope to do is to keep as many people as possible on the land. Again, unless the small farmer has 50 per cent of his earnings coming from the land he will get no grant. No small farmer could live on an income of 50 per cent from his land but he will not be let in under the farm modernisation scheme.

Mr. Herbert

There is nothing to prevent him getting a grant.

Mr. Callanan

He can get no grant.

Mr. Herbert

He can.

Mr. Callanan

I thought he could but he is not getting any grant. If you want to qualify for a grant you must be classified under the farm modernisation scheme. That is the situation. I regard it as wrong that there should be any distinction. We all want to see Europe develop. In order to be a good European one need be a bad Irishman but the approach should be Ireland first and Europe secondly.

Mr. Herbert

The Minister is a supra-nationalist.

Mr. Callanan

I do not know what the Minister is but he should take a look at the situation and see how these directives coming from Brussels affect his own country. If he has not time to do it himself, he can get his officials to do it. I am disappointed at the way things are going. Everyone seems to break the rules except Ireland. There is no sheep policy in Europe. Europe does not give a damn about the sheep farmer here. There is no policy and what happened before could happen again. The situation is not so good as far as pigs are concerned. Will anyone come to our assistance?

We were told we would have a large market in Europe and we should be able to estimate reasonably production and consumption and thereby stabilise the market. That has not been the evolution. There are more ups and downs in the market now. There is no stability. I appeal to the Minister to go back to Europe and make the best possible case there that can be made for this country. I appeal to him to ensure the small farmer will not be moved out. The regional policy fund is no good. The policy with regard to the disadvantaged areas will have to be changed and changed quickly. That must be done now, not 12 months hence. We cannot control the buying of land but we can prevent undesirables buying land. Of course, when we become full members in the EEC any non-national of the Nine will be able to buy land here. This is something we should be thinking about now. By all means, let us be good Europeans but let us ensure at the same time that nothing happens in Europe detrimental to our own people.

Debate adjourned.