In the sub-committee we considered these three Commission documents. I will now ask Senator Robinson to report on our discussions so far.
Regional Development Fund : Report of General Policy Sub-Committee.
My role of rapporteur in relation to this draft report is to present it for the consideration of the joint committee today. The matter was referred by the joint committee to the sub-committee and at our meeting on Friday, 12th October, we were given a rather short time in which to consider and report on it for the meeting today. This presentation of the report is with a view to the joint committee adopting it—as amended, if the joint committee sees fit, for the purpose of having it published and then adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
My function therefore is threefold. First of all, to give an account of the approach adopted by the sub-committee in undertaking this task of examining in detail the two proposals for Council regulations and the draft Council decision relating to regional policy. Secondly, to outline the considerations which led the sub-committee to adopt the particular type of format which the delegates to the European Parliament may find vaguely familiar both in the form and in terminology, as a model for its first report. Thirdly, to give a brief synopsis elaborating on the actual substance of the report in order to give sufficient background information so that the members of the joint committee can assess the report with that additional information.
Taking the first point then, the actual way in which the sub-committee approached its task: the sub-committee met for two working sessions. At the first of these we examined the detailed provisions, the small print, of these two draft Council regulations and the draft decision. We considered the discussion which had taken place in the joint committee on Thursday, 11th October at which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was present, and we noted the various observations which had been made both by the Minister and by members of the committee on that occasion and also the submissions which had been made by the Confederation of Irish Industry. We also took a note of the proposals made by the members of the sub-committee with a view to having a draft ready for the next working session.
At the second working session of the sub-committee we had a draft before us which had been prepared by the chairman. This draft, as elaborated on and amended following detailed discussion in the sub-committee now forms the document which you have before you. The format is, at least in the view of the sub-committee, an attempt to confine the text of the draft report to a minimum. This would allow the Members of the two Houses of the Oireachtas to make very full comments on the basis of the report if the joint committee were to adopt this report and submit it to them. It also allows the report to concentrate on the formal aspects of the case, referring to precise quotations, noting the exact authority for the draft regulations and draft decisions and making very specific recommendations which can be commented upon freely then by Deputies and Senators when the matter comes up for debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The third function which I see as part of my role as rapporteur is to comment briefly on the content of this draft report. On the first page the report refers to the three documents which we considered and which members of the joint committee have had in their possession since 12th October. We then, in a formal way, made specific reference to what the sub-committee regarded as the most important of the Communities’ provisions, whether of a formal legal nature or whether in the form of the communique of the Paris Summit and the Commission’s guidelines of last May. These are not Ireland’s view of what the Community’s regional policy was to be. They are the Community’s view of what the Community’s regional policy was to be.
We begin by referring to the Preamble:
Having regard to the anxiety expressed in the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome of the European peoples " to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of less favoured regions " and the terms of Article 2 of the Treaty:
We then note the very strong wording in the communique issuing from the Paris Summit in October, 1972, on regional policy. We refer to the Thomson Report, the guidelines which issued in May, 1973, and, in particular, to the quotation which is contained in the report with its emphasis that:
The Fund will have to concentrate its expenditure very largely in those regions which are most in need in relation to the Community as a whole.
We then refer to the position of Ireland because we are a joint committee reporting to both Houses and we refer specifically to Protocol No. 30 to the Treaty of Accession, where the high contracting parties, all the member states, acknowledge our special position, our particular needs and the assistance which the Community would lend to these.
Having noted and referred in precise terms to these documents, we then expressed an Opinion on the three Community documents which we examined. The first concrete expression of opinions referred to the first document, the regulation establishing a Regional Development Fund. On page 5 of our report we first of all note in a rather general way that, taking into account the whole history of development of Community regional policy and what had been said up to then, the contents of this draft Council regulation represented a radical departure from what had been accepted by us as a new member, and of the other member states and of the Commission on regional policy as being a fundamental aim of regional policy.
We then become more precise in paragraph (b). We say the proposals in the Council regulations do not envisage the substantial transfer of resources which would be necessary in order to implement a Community based regional policy. We note the sums proposed in the explanatory statement accompanying this draft Council regulation and consider them in the light of the size of the problem involved to be totally inadequate.
In paragraph (d) we refer to the fact that Article 2 of the draft Council regulation does not mention at all the adequacy of the fund. It states that the fund shall be approved annually. The appropriation shall be provided each year for the objects of the Communities from the fund in operation in that year, but there is no mention that the fund must be adequate to meet the demands and we would like to see the specific inclusion of this requirement that there be adequacy in the fund.
In the next subparagraph (e) we note the criteria set out in Article 3, paragraph 2, of that draft regulation are much too broad to allow for a real order of priorities in dealing with the areas of greatest need in the Community. In effect, by having the three very broad criteria over one-third of the Community's population live in areas regarded as coming under the umbrella of the regional policy of the Community. We emphasise that, given the small fund involved, and a very large and very broad definition of region, the fund is not, in fact, fulfilling the strong commitment of transferring resources to where the real need is and doing so in amounts and on a time-scale which would allow for balanced development in the Community.
We note in subparagraph (f) that there is no provision for the retention of portion of the fund to be administered by the Commission on the basis of projects designed to cater for particularly difficult or intractable regional problems, or the question of trans-border schemes which would be of great interest to this country.
In paragraph (g) we refer to the rates whereby the Community would supplement the national regional plans, the rate of 15 per cent for industrial aid and 30 per cent where the national regional project is one relating to infrastructure. We consider these to be very inflexible. They ought to be adaptable and changeable depending on the resources in the particular state concerned. In particular, they ought to be much higher in relation to infrastructural projects.
In paragraph (h) we mention the fact that the expenditure from the fund is entirely supplementary on the national regional policy of the member states and does not allow for consideration of the different resources available to the member states. This point was emphasised in discussions in the joint committee. The very fact that Ireland has been designated a region means there is not within the country the potential national resources to transfer from a richer to a poorer area and this should have been taken into account again in compiling the proposals.
Finally, the draft regulation does not provide an adequate base for the realisation of economic and monetary union in the timescale in the Paris Summit.
In relation to the second draft Council regulations, that referring to the creation of a committee on regional policy, we refer in particular to Article 3 of this proposal. This article refers to the composition of the committee on regional policy. We regard the membership as being too narrow to constitute a proper evaluating and assessing regional committee. Article 3 (1) provides that each of the member states and the Commission itself shall appoint two members of the committee. Those appointed by the member states shall be selected from among "senior officials responsible for regional policy". In effect, the membership of the committee will be top civil servants concerned with regional policy in member states, and there will be two members appointed by the Commission. We agree very fully with the submissions made by the representatives from Congress, and we had the benefit, as the chairman said, of their submissions in this respect and we would like to see the inclusion of representation from the social partners, employers and trade unionists in addition to the civil servants from the member states.
We would also—this is another specific proposal—like to see a close liaison with the economic and social committee. We feel there would be much to be gained from this sort of link. The economic and social committee has a statutory role in the European Treaties where it is required to be consulted, and this could work very much to the benefit of the regional committee in the circumstances and there could be a good deal of overlapping in their work.
Also, in reference to this draft Council regulation we refer to the fact that Article 5 does not make reference to farming organisations. Article 5 relates to the taking of evidence from interested parties from the regions and also from trade unions and business organisations. We feel that farming organisations ought to be specifically asked for their views and that evidence should be taken from them as well in this respect.
Finally, we have a general observation to make on the role of the Commission in relation to regional policy. The sub-committee examined this question specifically because of the comments made in the general discussion in this joint committee on 12th October as to how the proposals of the Commission have changed so radically from the Thomson guidelines in May to the eventual submissions for the draft proposals coming before the Council. We noted that whereas in relation to earlier policies of the Community, such as the implementation of the common agricultural policy and of the customs union, the Commission could rely on very elaborate Treaty provisions, setting out specific legal authority, and therefore, the Commission was in a stronger position to resist any influence of a political sort either from the Council of Ministers or from any one or other or some of the member states, on the contrary when it comes to implementing these present policies, which go beyond the actual detailed text of the EEC Treaty—and which are sometimes regarded as being on the border of the Treaties—the Commission is in a weaker position because it has to rely on the general authority of Article 235. If I might refer to the text of Article 235. It provides:
If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Assembly, take the appropriate measures.
It is under this authority of Article 235 that these draft proposals are being put by the Commission before the Council and also referred to the European Parliament for its views. We make this comment so that we may call on the Irish Government, in particular, and the Governments of other member states not to make the role of the Commission more difficult in this vulnerable position, but to allow it to approach the formulation of regional policy from the point of view of the existing arrangements of the Community as expressed in various documents to which I referred at the beginning. That deals with the main approach and views of the subcommittee. I think this is not the appropriate time to consider the procedure for getting this report published if it is accepted as the Report of the Joint Committee.
I think all the members are very grateful to Senator Robinson for that excellent résumé of the manner in which the subcommittee discussed these three documents and our thinking in regard to them and the way in which we have put together this draft report for consideration by this committee. I think we should now get down to the draft report as it is before us. The idea is that the committee will submit this report to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps I might begin, before we get down to the actual details in the report, by asking if any Member of the committee thinks there is something which is not mentioned or dealt with in the draft report and which might be included?
First of all, I join with you in complimenting Senator Robinson for her presentation of this report and to the sub-committee for its work generally on the whole thing. I wonder whether, when we start giving our opinion—that is, after the recitals; that would be on page 5—we should not observe that these provisions in this proposal are inconsistent with the statements already recited in the policy documents before us, in particular, the emphasis these policy documents contain in regard to the main regional policies and the reference to the special position of Ireland, and whether we should not confirm precisely that these proposals are inconsistent with our own statement.
A general statement is a useful thing, and I would be inclined to recommend it to the committee as something we ought to say. The second point—and this was made by, I think, you, Mr. Chairman, among others at the meeting that I was not able to attend—is that it might be helpful in recommending our proposals if not to the Dáil at least to the Dáil eventually and on to the European personnel, if we pointed out that these do not represent good European Community proposals but we see them as beneficial to our particular situation. These are just general observations.
There is a smaller point. I do not know whether it is quite true to say that the Commission has not the power under the Treaty to make proposals, or some language of that kind which is used on page 7 : " More difficult to carry out this obligation on account of . . ." Is there not sufficient legal provision within Article 3 ? It is dangerous for us to say anything we cannot entirely stand over.
I do not want to suggest there is no legal basis for regional policy. There is full legal authority in the Preamble in Article 2 and in Article 235. However, the Commission has a more political and less administrative role.
If we leave out " legal ".
My point is " notwithstanding the provisions "—
If you delete " legal " then you would be comparing the specific provisions of the Treaty with the general authority of Article 235.
Might I suggest that we would make better progress if we went through the draft paragraph by paragraph ?
First of all, is there any major point which any member of the committee feels should be made in the report.
I agree with Senator Lenihan's suggestion that we should go through it paragraph by paragraph.
Very well. First of all, I would like to point out that this report will be prefaced by our terms of reference. What is before us will be the main body of the report. In paragraph (1) we set out the three documents, their official title as it were, with which the report will deal but we point out that we are also examining to the best of our ability the whole body of instruments or documents. Pending that examination of the general body of the documents, these particular documents are of sufficient importance for us to report on, and draw the attention of the House to, at this stage.
If there is no comment on that opening paragraph, I shall pass on to paragraph 2. We have set out for you and for both Houses in these opening paragraphs the philosophy, as it were, which up to publication of the three documents concerned was accepted by everybody as the motivating philosophy of the Community. We set out to trace the development of that philosophy, first of all, from the Treaty of Rome itself—the Preamble and Article 2—then the Paris Summit, to the Commission's guidelines, with a reference to the protocol relating to Ireland's accession to the Community. Do you feel the references which we make here in paragraph 2 covers the evolving situation adequately.
Then we shall go on to what are really the bones of our report, that is, the opinions of this joint committee. For ease of reference we have sought to give those opinions under the headings of the proposals to which they refer. You will note that we have no particular comment on the strictly technical financial regulation. We comment, first of all, on the proposal to establish the Regional Fund, then on the decision to set up the Regional Policy Committee and finally on the general situation in which the Commission finds itself.
May I ask at this point whether Senator FitzGerald would like to insert as a preface to the three specific documents that the proposals, in the opinion of the committee, which are dealt with in our report to be submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas " inconsistent with " the general philosophy on regional policy?
I have considered that. I did not reach conclusions on it. I wonder whether this is not something more appropriate to be said only of the proposal for the establishment of the fund and rather less of the draft directive, or whether it would not come in more appropriately or properly as a first comment on the general proposals?
I sympathise very much with that proposal. On paragraph (a), the first paragraph, I feel that it could be broadened out to become a general statement relating to the proposals as a whole. Paragraph (a) says that the regulations represent " a radical change "——
It would be stronger to say " inconsistent with ".
Can that not be expanded having regard to the " radical departure " which has been referred to earlier? Has it not been universally accepted until now?
That could be a general introduction to the rest. Paragraph (a) could be of a general nature. Paragraph (a) could be taken out, moved up and expanded.
I rather like it the way it is. It would be an expansive lead-in. People may be quite content with what they have. The three documents should be read, and also the protocol. We want people to get a wider knowledge of the entire affair. Quite obviously these things have not been considered seriously over the past few weeks. It has been almost forgotten that they exist. We should be acutely aware of them. The nice tidy formula you have come up with is not enough.
I do not suggest it should be a lead-in to the whole document, but only to this declaration.
It would not be called sub-paragraph (a), but form a general introduction. The paragraphs following it would be more specific and be called (a), (b), (c) et cetera.
I would like something like " are inconsistent with the foregoing recital " Policy statements in particular on documents, in so far as these documents are concerned, contained an emphasis on the main regional problems. The vital importance of the provisions in regard to protocol is that the entire island of Ireland is an under-developed region.
I would be more attracted to a shorter and more concise statement saying that we are of the opinion that it represents a " radical departure ", and is inconsistent with the principles.
We should have something like that.
The wording should be " consistent with what is outlined " and also " a radical departure from what has been accepted ". These are two different things.
That could be incorporated easily as a preliminary to the subsequent sub-paragraphs.
It is a question of policy of the members of the committee as to what would be the most effective way of getting this point across. The important point is that we in Ireland attach importance to the paragraph and this must be got across.
At this point, at the start of the statement of our opinion, would it not be better to stick to principles and say that the proposals are inconsistent with the principles in the recital and that they are a radical departure?
And that they represent a breach——
I would rather leave it as a simple, straightforward statement of opinion—" inconsistent with the principles " and " a radical departure ".
We must take a serious view. We as a joint committee are going to accuse the Community of breaches of protocol.
Could Senator FitzGerald's point be dealt with by, perhaps, strengthening the recital which refers to the protocol on page 4? Something could be put in such as " and upon which great importance is placed in this country ". We could accentuate the importance.
It should be brought in somewhere that there is a departure from the protocol.
This document is going to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I wonder are we being too exact about the wording? I agree with the idea that paragraph (a) should be put up in the preamble and that the sub-paragraphs should be re-numbered accordingly. The Deputies themselves will bring out some of the points we made. For the purposes of our report to the Oireachtas it should not be necessary to spell out any of these points in great detail.
I think " inconsistent with the recital " is what we should say.
There is a necessity for a regional policy and it has been increased by our membership of the Community. There would be a tendency to greater imbalance because of the commitment.
We might consider a specific reference to the protocol when we come to (h). At this point there is a general view that (a) should be brought up and emphasised at the start as a statement of our belief.
Yes.
Firstly their inconsistency with the principles as recited and also their representing a fundamental departure in the philosophy up to now. Is that all right? Then we go on to a specific criticism of the Regional Fund regulation. Perhaps you would direct your minds now to the following paragraphs.
(b) is reasonably general. It says :
They do not envisage the substantial transfer of resources from the developed regions of the Community to the underdeveloped ones which is essential for the balanced economic development of the Community as a whole.
We can accept that this was the unanimous view of the sub-committee. Paragraph (c) says:
The sums proposed in the Explanatory Statement to be inscribed in the Community Budget for 1974, 1975 and 1976 are totally inadequate.
Although I am a member of the subcommittee which prepared this report, on reflection I think there should be an addendum along the lines that it is considered by the committee that the proposed allocations from the fund to Ireland will not help in any real measure the economic and social underdevelopment of Ireland relative to the other member states. I think we have to put in a hard statement there because from the data available to us up to today—bearing in mind that Ireland has a national investment, public and private of £600 million a year, which is quite a massive investment for a nation of our size—the impact of the money we can get is about 1.6 per cent of our investment budget. That is not regionalisation. One could almost get that from the building societies of Ireland. We put £6 million extra into housing and we are proposing to get something between £8 and £12 million. I suggest we add a harsh addendum.
There are two points involved in (c). There is the overall level and then there is the Irish allocation. We cannot refer to that at present, that is in the air.
We could refer to it in this way, we could perhaps meet Deputy Desmond's point this way, that the overall sum is inadequate and could not possibly encompass anything appropriate to Ireland's needs.
That it would not make any substantial contribution to Ireland's needs.
We could indicate that it would have a negligible effect.
We could say that the total sum proposed is inadequate having regard to Ireland's needs, not to mention the overall needs of the Community as a whole.
I think the weakness really creeps in in (b) because the Commission could say that the proposals which they put forward do provide for a substantial transfer from the developed regions to the underdeveloped ones. They will say this happens, for instance, in some of the bigger countries. Our serious disagreement with the proposal is that it does not have due regard to the seriously underdeveloped regions, those which are in great need of support.
We would need to straighten up (b) anyway.
There should be some word before " underdeveloped " to pinpoint the fact that it is not just enough to say that there is some transfer from the developed to the underdeveloped regions, because this means that a country like Germany will get some transfer from the highly developed to the less highly developed regions.
When Commissioner Thomson was replying to the debate last week in the European Parliament he did say that there were within the underdeveloped areas specific areas that required attention. He mentioned Ireland and Southern Italy. " Areas having a unique position " were the precise words he used, areas having unique problems. This comes back to areas having particularly intractable regional problems. Could we say that they do not refer to regions having intractable regional problems?
I want (f) to stand on its own legs.
Our big effort now is to bring in a third area. You have developed regions. You have what the Commission calls underdeveloped regions. We want to get within the umbrella of the underdeveloped regions these intractable regions.
Unique regions.
Uniquely underdeveloped regions.
" Unique " means one . . .
I think we are getting into a sub-committee type discussion.
I am wondering how far we are going to point out the way with a minimum of comment and how far we want to give the Houses of the Oireachtas practically nothing to do but adopt our points? How far do we wish to enter into the final debate on this?
It was the view of the sub-committee that in our report we should only refer to aspects to be criticised——
I would say so.
——and let the arguments be developed later in the House.
The only thing against that is that the men who make these decisions will be busy men and tend to read shorter documents. There will be a long debate in the Dáil and points made which will not reach them. It is important that at least the really essential ones are made in a document they are more likely to read. Presumably this document will reach them.
Will it or will it be the substance of it?
The discussion in the Houses of the Oireachtas will be their legal basis, their marching orders.
I would propose that we go on and look at each heading and perhaps Members would draw attention to any heading that they would like to see elaborated on. We will have to refer the document back to another sub-committee meeting.
I do not think we should attempt to redraft it in detail. On the other hand, if you accept that principle it is important that the drafting be done by this committee or a sub-committee of this committee because it is fairly clear that a committee of this size is not appropriate for drafting this document. It would be even less appropriate to ask the Houses of the Oireachtas to draft it. It is important that when it leaves us the drafting is pretty well final.
That may be what the Oireachtas will adopt.
With your permission we will take note of the points made and bring it back to the sub-committee.
Deputy Lenihan
Where a point is not sufficiently strong it should be firmed up.
The point is well taken because it could be misleading.
Deputy Desmond has a point in relation to (c). He would like something included in regard to the overall size of the fund not being adequate to encompass Ireland's position, never mind anybody else's.
And, then, Senator FitzGerald's point should be brought in too—that is, that our problems will be advocated, not lessened, by membership to whatever impact money will have on us.
In relation to paragraph (c), these figures for the three years are in isolation from a general projection. That was a point made in the sub-committee. They are just three unrelated years and the approach is quite inadequate. What we want is a re-assessment and new figures based on a real projection based on the time span of E.M.U. by 1980—all the more reason for a much more radical change.
I think my own criticism was that, from the Community's point of view, these figures do not show a recognition of the means the Community has got to adopt.
That is actually referred to in (i), they do not provide an adequate base for the realisation of an Economic and Monetary union. Perhaps then, Senator Robinson, your point really would involve an amalgamation of (c) and (d) and their expansion.
Probably.
(d) is to criticise the fact that Article 2 of the resolution leaves the whole question of the adequacy of the amount to be provided up in the air. An amount could be inscribed in the budget, which would run out after the first three months. (d) refers to the necessity of providing each year what the fund is likely to need.
What actually will happen if they use up the fund in the first three years?
There is no provision to cover that eventuality.
Here, we can go to the Dáil and look for more money.
There is no provision like that. The committee would like (c) and (d) expanded along these lines? (e) refers to the criteria.
Net migration does not take into consideration the different means. There is provision for a possible adjustment by the Commission of its policy and that could have very serious implications on the west, north-west and south-west.
There is a slight factual inaccuracy here.
I am glad you refer to that because I checked these figures and they seemed to accord with the document to which we were referring, the Community regional policy. There is a document on regional policy.
It is one-third of the population but, as drafted, it is one-half of the area. Their document refers to one-third of the population.
One-half of the area and one-third of the population.
With regard to (e), the most objectionable features of the proposals seems to me to be the inclusion of such a large number of people being covered by the average per capita income. We bring that in, but only by implication in the last part of (e). I wonder whether we should not open up by saying the inclusion of numbers being determined by the average per capita income is an excessive inclusion from the point of view of the fund that is to be established. Are we not going to do better if the percentage is determined not by reference to average but by reference to something under average? Is there a disadvantage for us by virtue of the definition being included?
That is the trouble. What we have been trying to do is get a special category of areas of tractable regional problems, to get a category within the underdeveloped countries.
In the report we are dealing with the general criteria by means of which, the regions will be permitted to qualify for regional aid. The draft criticises the existing criteria on two grounds: first, that they do not make any provision for internal migration and, secondly, they are far too loose and admit practically half the area of the community which makes a nonsense of the concept of a regional policy.
The Commission has been at pains to point out that they are dependent on national governments to supply this information and, as you can appreciate, one government's assessment of criteria would be different from that of other governments. The European Parliament have been pressing for a European office for documentation and information on regional policy. The Commission are aware of this important approach. They are depending on national governments to supply the information contained in the annexes to the report.
Are they depending on accurate information after they have set up their criteria or before it?
After.
Then a completely different ball game arises. They are setting up the criteria first and they want the information then. We are being asked to do this in a very short time, before 1st January. It seems ridiculous. Quite frankly, my feeling about these proposals is that the Commission is being used as a stalking horse by the major powers and we may very well have to take the attitude of completely rejecting the proposals out of hand. We have been dealing with them on the basis of trying to make them work and, if the imbalance pointed to by Senator FitzGerald and others, is correct, then I think we will have to consider very seriously the rejection of the proposals out of hand. At the moment we are trying to be constructive.
These drafts before us contain criteria and we are examining these criteria critically. Does anybody wish to criticise the criteria on any grounds in addition to the ones that have been set out here ?
What is set out here is excellent but I think time has passed us by, because on foot of these loosely-phrased criteria which we criticise here they have now produced the map. That map will now be written in as a definite document. The reality is that there is no going back on that. Therefore, at this stage I think the reality is going to lie in F and G and to what extent we can get our unique position established. In fact Thomson refers specifically to Ireland as an area which came into the 100 per cent category and that we were uniquely situated in this respect, that we did not have the natural resources to finance structural development. Therefore at this stage it is (f) and (g) we should be concentrating on. The adoption of these loose criteria, the adoption of this map and so on, all that is an indication of what has been justly said : that it was due to the political pressures of international governments that this dilution of the original principle of regional policy was adopted. We want to rescue at least something from the wreckage of that dilution and we can do that best by concentrating on (f) and (g) here.
May I ask did Thomson make any reference or was it brought up, the 20 per cent, the special——
That is coming.
Yes, about increasing the levels of acreage. That will come in under (g) and he threw out a very strong hint that we would be benefiting under that heading.
I would suggest that we should leave out " that they do not make provision for migration . . . ." It seems to me there is a certain inconsistency : we are saying, on the one hand, that the net is not being cast widely enough, and, on the other hand, that it is too wide. I think we should concentrate on saying that the net is too wide and that the thing is so loosely framed that practically a third of the Community is regarded as qualifying. I think we should pin our recommendations and our criticisms on the fact that it is much too loose and should be much more restrictive, because the reason this is so loosely framed is, I suppose, that every country has a particular situation which they think should be covered by this.
I agree with Senator Ryan on that. The difficulty with the Commission on this particular piece of policy is that there is no legislation which guides the Commission and the Commission obviously are not able to handle political pressure. I think that is the main reason why such a large area of the Community is included as an area needing regional aid. I also agree with Senator Lenihan when he said that the time has passed us by, that the map is setting out a third of the area and that that area is going to be written into the document. That brings me to the challenge which he laid down on Monday last to force the Government Deputies to support his amendments. I very much regret having to say this, but I made inquiries from my European colleagues and I have been told that no Irish proposals were made during all the months that the report was being discussed by the committee and that the first amendments appeared only last week. From our private discussions with our colleagues, the ten Irish members, I thought were working in concert on this, and therefore I was surprised that my esteemed colleague should have a " go " at us in such a political fashion on Monday.
I think we must leave that to the confines of the European Parliament. I think at this stage we had better refer (1) back to the subcommittee for examination and discussion.
I just want to emphasise the fact that Article 3 of the proposal to set up the fund should be very carefully read and considered, before there is an amendment dealing with this matter of internal migration. It will particularly reinforce our hand if we want to get second-line finance. On this question of two-tier relief, if I were a Deputy in the West of Ireland I would certainly raise cain about any change of the wording that we have in paragraph (e). I certainly would oppose any change in what is in the report in relation to paragraph (e), and I think Deputy Flanagan would agree with this. I am speaking for an eastern sea board constituency, but I can appreciate that my duties here in this committee relate to all parts of Ireland.
They would answer that that is a matter for the national states, that it is up to the national governments to propose projects which would take account of these considerations. Therefore, I would hope that projects coming from Ireland would be entirely related to the north-west, west and south-west, the general migratory areas of the country.
I just want to emphasise this word " net " migration is used, and one of the visitors to this committee mentioned the matter of figures of population. That is why I want this matter left open. Might I also direct the committee's attention to Article 2, sub-paragraph 1: . . . . " and shall acting by qualifying majority amend this as the need arises "? One must look at the second step. There is a loophole there for changing the regions. I want to have this matter clarified.
Deputy Lenihan
I do not see any harm in putting it in.
That is my attitude. It is constructive and is helpful to our case.
The best thing to do is to take into consideration the point of view put forward by Senator Ryan supported by others.
And to see if we can reconcile them.
Yes.
I would fight very strongly to have (f) as a separate paragraph. It is a clearcut issue.
This is essential in Ireland's interest. We must have a two-tier system.
It relates specifically to the paragraph in the guidelines.
If I remember rightly, the Commissioner's second speech, which has not come to hand and which I am awaiting, mentioned this. He agreed that it would be highly desirable in meeting specific cases to have a two-tier system and I think that by the end of the month, this critical month, we should see something coming in that regard.
We must consider the parliamentary opinion on this. The parliamentary opinion is giving an opinion on this as a whole. We had the Commission report. We had a specific amendment down which was moved last week. It was adjourned until 6th November. It is on " all fours " with (f) here. I suspect this is the way we may be " fobbed " off. It seems clear—and Deputy Herbert will agree with me—that what was said yesterday at a committee meeting was that (g) is going to be improved certainly and that we are getting an addition there. There will be a two-tier system in regard to the grants. That is very certain. I would feel that there is not much point in getting an increase in grants unless the overall amount is up. It looks great in theory to have the grants increased and a two-tier system but unless a proportion of the fund is reserved and unless the overall amount is increased there is not much point in it.
You agree with (f)?
I agree very much with (f). It is said that they are doubling the grants for countries in a unique position. I can see this coming up. They are trying to do something for us.
We had an argument on this in regard to the wording of the protocol.
Emphasis is taken out of the Commission's own document of 3rd May referring to " intractable regional problems ".
Are we going to have a meeting next week? I must catch a flight shortly after 5 p.m.
I would hope that when we get your views on the draft before us, we will discuss a final draft in the sub-committee and then it can be sent to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
There were a number of points the delegation would like to raise with the Joint Committee. I was wondering could we have a meeting next week?
We could interrupt the proceedings now to discuss what I know the Deputy has in mind.
I will be here next week. It would be ideal if we had a meeting next week.
I would be prepared to interrupt our deliberations now to take the point the Deputy is interested in, or we can arrange a meeting for next week.
I have to be out by 5.15 p.m.
I was going to raise this under " other business ". There is the letter you sent me.
We will leave that over also.
With regard to (g).—Deputy Herbert?
There is a suggestion that a proportion of the fund should be reserved and allocated by the Commission to regions such as ours.
We are criticising the lack of such a provision.
How are you suggesting the rest of the fund could be allocated? The allocation to all regions is 20 per cent.
In the guidelines there was a suggestion that a certain proportion of the fund should be retained for administration by the Commission as distinct from funds which are to be paid from the Regional Fund to supplement national governments schemes. In (f) we are criticising the fact that this is not included.
Deputy Herbert and I had this amendment down the day before yesterday. Criticism can be made of that. Is it right from Ireland's point of view? Is the reintroduction of the quota system right? I do not think this is a real point. It is an illusory point. We are saying that we do not want any quota system established. The fact that we are pushing for 20 per cent of the fund is an admission that we are accepting a quota system.
I cannot understand any such implication. In the normal way the greater portion of the fund, and as the regulations are now framed, all of the fund, will be administered in a way which will be supplementary to national regional schemes. In the guidelines there was a specific suggestion that a proportion of the total fund be retained for administration by the Commission for special schemes which will be set up and administered by the Commission.
I spent most of yesterday arguing about this. This is the point which will be made. I agree totally with it. It is essential in our interests that (f) should be incorporated. We can be " fobbed " off with (g) and the rates can be doubled. We would be faced with double rates.
We must not get too far from what is before our committee. We are here concerned with criticising the regulations which are in draft form, which are submitted to the Council and which we have now before us as a committee for examination. Paragraph (h).
It might be opportune at (h) to make the specific point by saying that the expenditure of the fund would always have to be supplemented by member states and yet it does not have regard to the disparity of resources in those member states. Ireland has been designated a region. We are totally a region and so, logically, have not got the internal resources. We can make that point.
A reference to the protocol might be required. Senator Robinson wants to expand (h) to include a reference to protocol.
We have no richer areas by European standards to help our poorer regions.
Paragraph (i).
In regard to this paragraph the suggestion is that the proposals in themselves could provide this. This is not accepted by anybody. It must be clearly shown that the £1,000 million in itself could not possibly remedy the imbalance between the various regions.
We were adverting to the thinking, which has up to now been generally accepted, namely, that before you can have the disciplines which a common economic and monetary policy would entail for each of the member states, before you get to that point, a regional policy properly administered would have had to bring the individual member states to a common level of development. That is what we are trying to get.
I do not think it goes far enough.
I think we should put in there specifically :
With a view to achieving the objectives of economic and monetary union.
That is the big target. That is the whole purpose of the harmonisation of social and regional policies.
My point is that at best the proposals we are considering should only be regarded as the initial steps and that we expect that in three years' time further proposals will be made which will be even bigger than the ones before us now and that unless this is done there is no hope of correcting imbalances which exist.
It might be opportune to reinforce that point if we mentioned also the point made by Senator FitzGerald, that membership of the Community will aggravate the imbalance.
And does not represent European proposals.
That could be firmed up very much.
I would say there will be far more people in Brussels keen to get economic and monetary union than to correct regional imbalances and we want them to realise that until we get this they will have to forget it.
That should be well spelt out.
Could we refer to Article 2 (a) in that?
We have referred already to the commitment in Article 2?
The preamble. Would this be the right place to bring it in?
I think I know what you would like referred to here.
The next heading deals with the draft decision on the creation of a committee for regional policy. Our criticism of this is that this new committee is to consist of officials only. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions feel strongly that if the committee is to be a useful one in the area of regional policy it should make some provision for the inclusion in its membership of the social partners.
This is reinforced by the role that is envisaged for the committee in the explanatory memorandum. If we have a committee which reflects only the views the member states, through their civil service experts, and not a committee that is in touch with the people living in it though the unions and industry it is a very poor committee to assess and evaluate regional policy. It is assessing itself rather than pairing a much better committee evaluating in depth the performance of the officials of the member states.
Is there not a difficulty though? How many unions and how many employer organisations would be represented?
There would really be only one of each. In our case, for instance, there would be one from the Confederation of Irish Industry and one from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Just two from each country.
Appointed by whom?
By the member states.
I suggest it is not our job here to go into the details of how it should be arranged.
Each member state makes the selection——
At present the social partners only give evidence and make submissions. They are not on the committee.
As it stands there the committee will be pushing member states, which will even exacerbate the situation.
Senator Robinson earlier pointed out, this new committee is supposed, among other things, to assess the regional policies of member states. One can easily visualise a situation where the committee will consist only of the officials responsible for the implementation of the regional policy of the member states. They would be only assessing themselves.
Also, do you agree with the idea of liaison with the Economic and Social Committee? We do not spell out how that liaison should be effected.
Delmonte makes an amendment to Article 5.
That is another one. We are dealing with 2 (d) at the moment.
Is (b) pretty well covered by 2 (a)?
It seems to stand out very obviously in Article 5 as drafted that you consult with trade union and business organisations, but not farming organisations.
Our recommendation is more specific and more effective.
Article 5 says:
The committee shall in accordance with the provisions . . . . take evidence from interested parties . . . . when a regional problem. . . .
What did Delmonte say in his report?
That is his amendment.
Our view on the sub-committee was that this was rather ineffectual.
I think we should direct the attention of both Houses to this next matter—the position of the commission. Senator Robinson has been very largely responsible for drawing attention to this aspect.
May I just refer to a specific " whereas " in the proposed regulations establishing the regional development fund? In the second last paragraph on setting up the Regional Fund it shows that the council regulation itself recognises this fact:
Whereas since the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers for this purpose it is necessary to give the Community such powers by applying Article 235 of the Treaty;
Therefore, the Commission is vulnerable to political pressure. It has not got the detailed chapter and verse to rely on and the Irish Government ought to be very aware of this and ought to safeguard the Commission in its role. I think that by the committee drawing it to the attention of the Oireachtas we can, in a sense, consolidate the position of the Commission and reinforce its role as protecting the smaller countries.
What do our Parliamentary delegates think?
Yes, I think it would be an improvement.
I think so, yes. If you think we have discussed it sufficiently then we will bring it back to the subcommittee and try to incorporate their views and suggestions put forward. If we are going to meet next week, perhaps we should bring the official draft back here for final approval.
I think so, yes.
We will have a meeting of the General Policy Sub-Committee between now and the next meeting of the full committee and try to have the final draft ready for the next full committee meeting.
Will that be in time for the debate before the Council of Ministers?
Hopefully yes. In the normal way however in order to have our report printed, we have to have the permission of both Houses and the Seanad will not be meeting before Wednesday week so the earliest we can get permission to have our report printed will be Wednesday week.
On the procedural question, may I propose that at the same time as we consider the final draft of this report and, presumably, propose that it be submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas, we should also consider in relation to future reports the possibility of getting authority to have them printed generally, without the process of having to be laid each time before the Houses for permission. I understand we can seek this general authority by motion before both Houses, accompanying the request to have this report published and considered by both Houses, so that we do not have to seek this specific permission for specific reports, in the future. Also, we should have included a further request that the general authority be given to have the reports published under the procedure continued in the Standing Orders of the Seanad. Since this is a joint committee I suggest we adopt the more flexible Seanad Standing Order, No. 13, which only requires that it be in either Irish or English. Under Standing Order No. 16 of the Dáil it must be in both official languages. That would delay the actual presentation of our reports and this might handicap us if the matter were an urgent one.
In other words, at our next meeting you would like us to discuss our whole procedure in relation to our reports.
Yes, and for the committee to appreciate that we can seek this authority, an authority which would be very useful, because we would not have to go back each time for permission to publish our reports.
We might have to consider the implications of Standing Orders.