Perhaps we could start with the Report on Discharges of Mercury, and Pressure Vessels because this is the most technical report. I do not propose to spend any time on it unless a member of the Joint Committee has some question arising out of it. There are proposals that were examined on limit values applicable to discharge of mercury into the aquatic environment by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry. There were various bodies consulted and we summarised the proposals at paragraph 4. The views of the sub-committee are represented on page 3. First of all, we deal with the implications for Ireland and we point out that there is not any plant immediately concerned. We do not have any chlor-alkali electrolysis plant at the moment in the country. They are not of direct concern to us at present, but the proposals are not completely without interest because they are the possible forerunner of other directives on mercury emissions. It might be that we could have a plant of the kind we are concerned with here at some time in the future. We summarise the views of the Joint Committee that the directives require member states to control indirect discharges of mercury arising out of these particular processes. The control would not be unreasonable, but it had been drawn to our attention that the control of indirect discharges could be quite difficult and expensive. We say, at the end of paragraph 6, that it seems to the Committee, therefore, to be necessary to ensure that the cost of any regime of indirect control is commensurate with the benefits to the environment that can reasonably be expected. In the second part, in relation to pressure vessels we look at the measure which arises from the framework Directive No. 76/767/EEC and we note that it concerns unfired welded steel pressure vessels of a specified shape. We note that the implications for Ireland will be minimal and that there are some Irish firms engaged in the manufacture of simple pressure vessels, mainly of a non series production type, that is, in response to special orders. We are advised that the provisions in the proposed directive would not raise any difficulties for Irish manufacturers. It is a rather technical report and unless a member has some question arising out of it I do not think it is one of great significance.
Discharges of Mercury and Pressure Vessels.
On your comment on the first one, do we have any choice in this question, the control of indirect discharges? Does the draft directive not require us to do that irrespective of cost?
Yes. The only point we were making is that because this concerns control of indirect discharge the measures could be very costly. We express the view in a general sense that if there is going to be considerable expense it ought to be commensurate with the benefit to the environment. This is in response to a view put to the Joint Committee.
Any point on that? No?
Paragraphs 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft Report agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.
Which report would Senator Robinson like to take next?
The interim report on poverty.
There is an amendment to that, so perhaps we should wait——
Yes, I shall take the other report which is the draft Report on The Development of Air Transport Services.
Development of Air Transport Services.
This is an important report and we had some very useful discussions in the sub-Committee. What the sub-Committee was considering was a memorandum which was forwarded by the Commission to the Council of Ministers in July 1979 on the possible contribution which the European Communities could make in the development of air transport services. The memorandum was of a general and preliminary nature. The Sub-Committee have examined it and also have had discussions with the Department of Transport and with representatives from Aer Lingus. We summarise in our report the relevant EEC treaty provisions and we refer to the fact that the Council is now being invited to consider the possible role that the European Communities can play in this area of air transport. At paragraph 4 we summarise the Council of Ministers' attitude that the Commission may come forward with proposals because the time may be ripe for some Community initiatives for further development of air transport services. The background to this particular memorandum is summarised there. In June 1977 the Council of Ministers asked COREPER to establish a working group. In June 1978 there was a priority list of items approved, and they are set out there, for the particular areas where a programme could be established.
At paragraph 5 we note that the Commission's memorandum appeared to receive fairly a general welcome at a preliminary discussion of it at the Council of Ministers in December 1979 but the reaction was that there would be a great deal of further work and study necessary.
At paragraph 6 and following paragraph we come to a summary to the Commission's Memorandum. It is different from some of the other documents which this Joint Committee have considered, in that it is a very general preliminary memorandum intended to provoke and promote discussion among the Community institutions on the long, medium and short-term objectives for policy with regard to possible Community air transport services. In paragraph 7 we summarise the long-term objectives which the Commission see as falling within the general aims under Article 2 of the Treaty. The objectives to be pursued in the medium and short-term should be deduced from the interest of the various parties, users of airlines, workers and the general public and these are identified under headings (a), (b), (c) and (d). As follows—as far as the users are concerned, a total network unhampered by national barriers and protective services and prices as low as possible without discrimination; as far as the airlines are concerned, financial soundness, diminution of operational costs and an increase in productivity; as far as the staff are concerned, safeguarding the interests of airline workers in the general context of social progress, including elimination of obstacles, and free access to employment, and, lastly, as far as the general public are concerned, improvements in conditions of life and respect for the wider interests of economies and societies.
We indicate that the present situation is governed by the Chicago Convention in 1974 and other multi-national and bilateral agreements. In paragraph 9 we refer to the proposals which the Commission is suggesting as possible measures for short and medium-term action. They are, perhaps, the measures that are most important for consideration in our report. They are set out in detail in paragraph 9. In paragraph 10 we express a general view on the memorandum. We note that it is intended to promote dialogue and the basis for discussion. We welcome it and believe that it is useful to try and identify what role the Community can usefully play in the development of air transport services. We also welcome the Commission's view that the approach of the Community should be an evolutionary one and not a substantial, radical departure. We note the importance of securing the benefits that have accrued from the worldwide system under the Chicago Convention and of ensuring that the progress at Community level must be evolutionary.
The next area which we examine in paragraph 11 is the question of potential market entry and innovation. This applies to the possibility of an airline requesting new routes. The Commission suggested that "if an airline requested traffic rights in order to carry new routes between member states, a new type of scheduled service or an existing service at a considerably lower price, accompanied by new marketing measures, then it should not be prevented from being authorised—unless the airlines already designated decided to offer a similar service or tariff". We point out that the implementation of this policy would have to be accompanied by certain safeguards. We referred to important representations made to us by the representatives of Aer Lingus. Aer Lingus point out that they have nine competitors. These include schedule and charter operators between Ireland and the United States; they have six United Kingdom competitors on the cross-Channel routes and six schedule plus seven charter competitors between Ireland and the Continent and they also face competition from surface carriers to those venues. The Sub-Committee concluded from the representations made by Aer Lingus that there is a danger of unfair competition. They have a certain fear that some of the Commission's liberalisation proposals could lead to what is called the predatory entry of a carrier on their prime routes, a carrier who would come in and take what suited him on a prime route and not necessarily provide a service either at different times of the year or at times when it would be less profitable. The Commission, in their memorandum, recognise the need to avoid predatory market entry but there is some concern about whether the control they envisage would be adequate for a country like Ireland on the periphery of Continental Europe. We therefore, say at the end of paragraph 12 that it is essential to ensure that the public service aspects of airline operations in terms of route frequencies and spread of fares is maintained.
We point out another aspect of this liberalisation. We are concerned that any Community initiatives for liberalisation of air transport would not jeopardise the viability of Aer Lingus. We refer to the five freedoms of the air, which are dealt with by the Commission in their memorandum. The third and fourth freedoms refer to the right of an airline to carry passengers, freight and mail between their own and a foreign country. We point out that any liberalisation based only on the third and fourth freedoms would mean that foreign carriers would be given operating rights to and from Ireland for routes that have been developed by Aer Lingus and that there would not be any compensatory liberalisation of rights which would be of advantage to Aer Lingus. Therefore, we argue that any liberalisation must, in the committee's opinion, also include the fifth freedom, which will enable Aer Lingus to acquire operational rights within the United Kingdom or linking other EEC countries with each other, in other words, that we could pick up linking routes from cities in the United Kingdom to European cities as part of a fifth freedom in exchange for further liberalisation of third and fourth freedoms.
I am not sure if I made that as clear as it was made to us by the representatives of Aer Lingus. I understood the point, that because as we are an island and on the periphery of Europe, we are at a disadvantage in that we cannot, to the same extent, take advantage of liberalisation. We may very well be developing lines that other countries can avail of in a liberalisation in a third or fourth freedom context and we want comparable liberalisation of the lines of the fifth freedom. We also note in paragraph 13 that the Commission failed to advert to the so called sixth freedom, the ability of large carriers to benefit from carrying long-haul traffic destined for Ireland or originating in Ireland on their long-haul network without providing any direct links to Ireland themselves. We are informed that some airlines earn substantial revenue in this way, more than they would earn from direct links. Aer Lingus, for geographical reasons, do not have the same opportunities for sixth freedom traffic. We are very concerned that the liberalisation of traffic would bear in mind the importance of ensuring that there was equity in this liberalisation.
We suggest that the possible development of regional air services is one area in which the Community might be able to play a useful role and that the Commission should be encouraged to study this aspect of civil aviation as well.
We deal with the question of fares, which was discussed at some length in the Sub-Committee. In paragraph 15 we express the opinion that there is scope for improvement in the tariff structure of European airlines. We note that the normal economy fare is fairly expensive because it includes payment for services which are useful to travellers such as Government representatives or business travellers, reservations made ahead of time and changeable at short notice, a degree of access to a seat and the ability to link with other carriers and frequency of service. It was pointed out to the Sub-Committee that the schedule operators have modified the tariff structure from time to time and that there is in some cases a multiplicity of tariffs on some routes. In our view the shortcomings of the present system of fares are felt in particular by leisure traffic, where the primary concern of travellers is with the cost and, not necessarily, with the availability of other aspects of service. We note that the Commission have suggested that initially there should be a multilateral framework for member states to ask the airlines to introduce arrangements allowing for tariff reductions on the most important traffic links. These arrangements would involve third-class fares, Apex, no-frills, rambler and standby fares. The Joint Committee see no objection to the suggestion that member states should ask the national airlines to review their tariff structure with a view to seeing what new form of travel arrangement could be introduced which would result in lower fares.
We then deal with the question of air traffic control which was emphasised in the submissions, made to the Sub-Committee and we note that the Council of Ministers do not appear to favour dealing with air traffic control in a Community context because of the technical nature of the subject and also because of military aspects of some air space problems and the fact that the Eurocontrol Convention concerns non-member states and does not concern all member states of the EEC. It appears however, that the Commission will be submitting further proposals in this area. Aer Lingus made the point that on average on their flights 13 per cent more flying has to be done by the aircraft than warranted by the distance from A to B to be travelled and there would be a substantial saving if it were possible to cut down on this.
We refer also to the part of the Commission's memorandum dealing with external relations. These are relations between countries of the Common Market and third countries. A consultative procedure was set up by a Council decision in December 1979 under which member states and the Commission shall on request consult each other on air transport questions which are dealt with in international organisations and on any developments which are taking place either by way of bilateral or multilateral agreements. The object of the consultation is to consider the possibility of co-ordinated action. In their submissions to us the representatives of Aer Lingus were in favour of developing this still further and of having a concerted approach by the Community in relations with third countries. They pointed out particularly that, for example, the United States can strike a very hard bargain by negotiating on a bilateral basis with different countries of the European Community and, having dealt with one country, use this as leverage in trying to do deals with other Member States, and that there would be a great deal to be gained from a more co-ordinated approach by the Community. We then summarise what we propose as the Joint Committee's view, that a co-ordinated approach by the member states in relation to third countries would be a most welcome development but we see considerable difficulties in achieving this. We hope that the consultation procedure will make a positive contribution to removing the obstacle to the development of this kind of policy.
We refer to the matter of overbooking which is dealt with in the Commission's memorandum in which they said that they were proposing a future directive which would provide for compensation for passengers who are not allowed aboard a particular airline because there had been overbooking. We agree with this in principle, and we learned from Aer Lingus that this is their practice in relation to overbooking.
We identify some of the possible Community priorities for Community action. These are set out in paragraph 25 as simplification of formalities, measures in relation to airport charges, airline productivity, fuel availability and cost, harmonisation of technical standards and harmonisation of time zones. Then we acknowledge the considerable help we received.
The report is necessarily of a rather general sort because the Commission's memorandum is intended to be a discussion document. On the whole the Committee should welcome the fact that the Community are examining the question of improvement in air transport and of Community involvement in various aspects of air transport. We must be particularly concerned that the geographical position of our airline is safeguarded and that any future liberalisation does not just favour airlines who are stategically better placed to take advantage of liberalisation in the context of third, fourth, fifth or sixth freedoms.
I thank Senator Robinson for her comprehensive report on a rather complex matter. Does anyone want to raise any questions on it that Senator Robinson could answer?
Deputy Leonard
It is a very useful exercise all through and the amount of information that was got from various sources gave us an answer to some of the queries in our minds regarding air services especially, something that is so topical at present.
Were the Sub-Committee satisfied that their contact with Aer Lingus answered the very serious concern that there is among the business community in particular about what seems to them the extraordinarily high fare operating between Dublin and London? Mile for mile it seems to be much higher than for any comparable route, certainly in North America and over a lot of Europe also, in terms of distance. There is suspicion among a lot of the business community that there is a monopoly situation here and that this is being abused by Aer Lingus. I would have hoped that a European dimension would change this.
The question of fares, particularly cross-Channel fares, came up in some detail at the meeting between the representatives of Aer Lingus and the Sub-Committee. It is pointed out, and I think it is a fair point, that Aer Lingus have been making submissions to the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies whose job it is in a more direct way to examine the profitability, viability and service provided by Aer Lingus. We were concerned in preparing this draft report about what the Community proposals are and, if you like, in a rather chauvinistic way how they would affect our airline and the air traffic to and from this country. Although we did to some extent deal with the matter that the Senator is raising, the point was made to us that the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies were dealing with Aer Lingus as a State-sponsored body and would be examining them in detail. When we asked about fares we were given the information which is recorded in our report at paragraph 17, that Aer Lingus pointed out that their basic economy fares are up to 30 per cent cheaper per mile than for comparable distances in the rest of Europe, and they provided some support figures on that. Some members of the Sub-Committee would like to have spent longer on the details of Aer Lingus alone, their procedures, fares and so on, but our brief was to examine the various Commission proposals and, how they would affect our airline and air traffic to and from this country and that is what we tried to do in the report.
I was aware that Aer Lingus were one of the bodies which the Joint Committee on State-sponsored bodies were examining. I should point out that, unlike the Joint Committee on EEC Secondary Legislation, the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies has no independent representative, so I felt it was suitable for me to ask that here.
It is not within our brief.
I am aware of that.
Deputy Leonard
Most of us were surprised at the figures. I am satisfied that they are competitive.
There is a lot of competition—six cross-channel and six scheduled. Are there 13 different links operating between Dublin and London?
Some of them are operating cross-channel, and some of them on European——
Are there 13 on the Dublin/London?
There are six UK cross-channel, and six scheduled, plus seven chartered between Ireland and the Continent.
Cross-channel does not mean London. How many are there between Dublin and London?
Does this report meet with your approval?
Paragraphs 1 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft Report agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.
Should we now take Senator Molony's draft report? There is an amendment to the draft report on the proposed Interim Community Programme to combat poverty. Does anyone know if Senator Molony is likely to be here? He has put down an amendment.
Deputy Leonard
I can check. He is in the House and it is surprising that he is not here.
The European Communities (Waste) Regulations, 1979.
This Draft Report was prepared by the Statutory Instruments and Legal Affairs Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Molony. This particular set of regulations was taken for special report apart from the other reglations. The second set dealing with wastage is covered in the more technical report. This is separate. It was suggested that the Sub-Committee should prepare a separate report on it. The regulations make local authorities responsible for the operations involved in the disposal of waste. There are penalties attaching to breaches of these regulations. This Directive, on which the regulations are based, provides that Member States shall take steps to encourage the prevention, recycling and processing of waste, the extraction of raw materials and possibly of energy therefrom. The regulations do not provide for the implementation of the Article in regard to recycling and extraction of energy from this waste. This will be dealt with by administrative means only. The Sub-Committee suggest to the Joint Committee that they should report as their view on this matter that the recycling of this waste could be done even ahead of the developments in technology we know are taking place by virtue of other earlier Directives. The Sub-Committee suggest that we should recommend that one body should be given overall responsibility to ensure that something is done about it.
I welcome this report. I am glad it was put forward as a separate report by the Sub-Committee. The Joint Committee have already expressed their support for the Commission's proposal for a development programme on the recycling and processing of industrial waste. I do not think it is entirely satisfactory to get a response to an inquiry from the Department that it is not necessary to have any implementing regulations in relation to measures for recycling waste, and that this will be done by administrative means. "Administrative means" means that there will be encouragement to local authorities to co-oerate with any proposal for recycling waste. That kind of administrative implementation—particularly when it is only writing encouraging letters or memos to local authorities—is not sufficient. The whole area of recycling of waste is an extremely important one. We should try to ensure that there is positive and specific implementation of Article 3 of the Council Directive.
One Department or body should be responsible.
I second that idea. It is extremely important, particularly in the area of household waste which is so under-investigated in this country. I support the view that it is time for action on this matter.
Paragraphs 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft Report agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.
Senator Robinson, perhaps you would take your Draft Report on the Proposed Interim Community Programme to Combat Poverty.
Interim Community Programme to Combat Poverty.
This draft report deals with the proposal for an Interim Community Programme to Combat Poverty. The Committee will recall that it was Ireland which took a very substantial initiative and proposed that the European Community should have an anti-poverty programme. This was adopted by the Council of Ministers in January 1974. One of the priority actions in that programme was the implementation of different specific measures to combat poverty by preparing various pilot schemes. There was a Council decision in 1975 which authorised the Commission to promote and provide financial assistance for a programme of pilot schemes. In November 1975 the Commission approved a list of 21 pilot schemes proposed by the Member States and two cross-national studies which they proposed and which the Government concerned accepted. The original proposal was that the programme would last for two years but the approved schemes had not been completed within that time. In some cases they had not even been started at the end of the first two years. So the Council extended the original programme for a further three years by a Decision at the end of 1977. On that basis the Commission was authorised to allow further pilot schemes to be adopted, bringing the total up to 29. This first programme, as extended, is due to come to an end as far as Community funding is concerned on 1 December 1980. The Commission intend, by 30 June 1981 at the latest, to submit to the Council of Ministers a final report which will be an evaluation of the results obtained from the pilot schemes and the various studies. The Council would assess this during 1981 or 1982.
Paragraph 6 refers to the pilot schemes. They were intended to test and develop new methods of helping people beset by poverty. The pilot studies sought to improve understanding of the nature, cause, scope and mechanics of poverty. We then refer to the implementation of the Combat Poverty Programme in Ireland and we refer to the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty, which was established here in May 1974 and which was given the task of devising a programme in accordance with EEC Decisions. The Combat Poverty Committee is directly involved in six locally based projects and four national studies. It has also contracted out to other bodies a further 12 projects and two national studies.
The EEC Commission for its purposes—really for administrative reasons—has identified the activities here in Ireland as falling within three main project headings, namely, (1) community action research; (2) welfare rights; and (3) supplementary welfare allowances. The European Community bears 50 per cent of the cost in the case of the first two of these, that is, community action research and welfare rights; and it bears 25 per cent in the case of the third, which is the supplementary welfare allowance projects. By 1979, as we point out, expenditure on the Committee's activities had reached about IR£1.8 million of which IR£540,000 has been recouped from the EEC.
We then turn to what is proposed in this interim programme at paragraph 8. We note that the Commission intends that the interim programme would span the period between the end of the present programme, namely, 1 December 1980, and the implementation of whatever follow-up conclusions the Council of Ministers would reach following the evaluation of the first programme. The earliest foreseeable date for that would be the second half of 1982; it would be at least a two year interim programme.
1981 and 1982?
Yes, 1981 and 1982. The Commission proposes that the interim programme would promote, finance, or undertake projects or studies relating to certain aspects identified under the programme to combat poverty and which are suitable for examination in greater depth. This would apply to operations for which the Commission had decided for the first time before 1 December 1980 to grant financial assistance. As with the present programme, for this interim programme it is envisaged that the EEC would pay up to 50 per cent of the estimated cost of each pilot scheme or study but that it could exceed this for pilot studies of exceptional importance. The cost to the community budget is estimated at 9 million European units of account.
In its explanatory memorandum on this interim programme the Commission indicates that if the interim programme is adopted by the Council then the resources would be concentrated on a small number of fields or aspects where there is a strong possibility of improving the situation in the short term.
It illustrates the aspects it has in mind, which we set out in paragraph 9, namely—
(i) the use of poverty indicators, which have emerged from the pilot schemes and studies to indicate persons or areas in need of special assistance;
(ii) the administrative integration of social insurance and social assistance services at the local level, and
(iii) a serious study of the reasons why social aid does not always reach target populations.
Then in the following paragraphs there is summarised the views of the Joint Committee. At paragraph 10, it is stated that the Joint Committee agrees completely with the Commission on the need for an interim programme and hopes that the Council will reach a similar conclusion. The Council is due to consider this on 9 June. So, our report will just be in time, hopefully, to reach the Ministers before the Council of Ministers meet.
The Joint Committee is concerned about the manner in which it is intended that the interim programme be implemented. The Committee understands that the Commission has already decided that (a) in principle no schemes included in the first programme would be prolonged and (b) significant new pilot schemes would not be possible because of the short duration of the interim programme. It would appear that the interim programme would be confined to pilot studies undertaken jointly by the Member States on different facets of poverty and the remedial policies pursued by the Member States.
In paragraph 11 we summarise the essence of our discussions with a large number of groups who came to the meeting of the Sub-Committee which was considering this. In our discussions with the groups involved in the Irish programme the Sub-Committee was informed that many of the projects involved have been effectively in operation for only two years. While stressing that they, meaning the people involved, had no desire to prolong their activities unduly several groups insisted that more time was needed to consolidate or to complete new aspects of different projects. In the committee's view it is wrong to decide in principle that none of the existing projects should receive any aid under the proposed interim programme of the Community. Whether such projects continue to be aided ought to depend on the stage a particular project has reached and the likely contribution which the further work contemplated is likely to make towards achieving the overall aims of the programme. The committee is concerned that the completion of useful projects would be in jeopardy if Community aid were cut off. In that event such projects would be dependent solely on finance either from local sources or from the Irish Government and the committee fears that, at the least, some regrettable retrenchment would be inevitable. That is an attempt to summarise a very useful and very important discussion with the 16 different groups. There is an appendix giving a list of the organisations and individuals who came to talk to members of the Sub-Committee. We did clearly get the impression that many of these pilot projects still had important work to do in order to be evaluated or to complete a particular phase or, in some instances, to move into a second phase of the pilot project.
I now come to paragraph 12. Senator Mulcahy has an amendment to paragraph 12. I will read it as it stands and Senator Mulcahy might like to move his amendment. Paragraph 12 says that the Committee therefore urges the Irish Government to propose that a more flexible approach be adopted by the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 9 June 1980 so that the two-year interim programme can include both the research studies recommended by the Commission and also continued Community funding of those pilot projects which require further time for completion and which could not be evaluated properly if terminated abruptly on 1 December 1980 and that the Committee further urges the Irish Government to press for the necessary increase in allocation of funds from the Community budget for the two-year programme which this approach would necessitate. It is to part of that that Senator Mulcahy has an amendment.
Paragraph 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 12.
I move:
In paragraph 12, page 6, to delete "require further time for completion and which could not be evaluated properly if terminated abruptly on 1st December, 1980" and substitute "following a written evaluation by the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty are judged by that Committee to merit further support in the interim period".
As a background to my amendment I should like to say that the combat poverty scheme is a very fine project. As I said when I met the members of the combat poverty team when they came in, I would support them. I have one or two queries which I raised when I met them and I want to mention them now.
I believe that when it comes to community development the principles developed by Father Paolo Froire in South America should be followed. In other words, when those who are trying to help deprived communities enter them, they should join the community rather than go into a community and lay knowledge on it from some superior level either in knowledge, practice or position. I believe that is the way to do it and in my own work that is what I have tried to do. One of the difficulties is that the existing institutions of State which have responsibility for doing this type of thing cannot opt out of it. They cannot abdicate from their own positions and allow groups like the Combat Poverty Group to substitute for what is a service paid for by the people's taxation. An example of how this happens, for instance, is the Dublin Corporation scheme for the building of houses and the clearing of lower grade buildings in the Sean McDermott Street and Gardiner Street area of Dublin. This led to some difficulties in that the local group who were part of the Combat Poverty Group differed from the corporation plan and were not too happy with the intention of the corporation plan which was to clean out almost something like 600 dwellings. There were no plans for replacement of those dwellings in the immediate future. The combat poverty group, operating through the group in that area, challenged the plan, and I certainly supported them when they appeared on the "Late Late Show". I agreed that the corporation plan was very unimaginative in terms of community development, that more housing should be built in that area and that an ongoing build-replace plan should be used so that sufficient houses would be built to house the people who would normally be sent out to suburban areas. That to me was an example of where the combat poverty group had challenged the existing institution, and in the event won, because now there is a new plan, but it is also an illustration of something that need not have happened.
While obviously the whole report is open to your point, could you relate this particular amendment to it?
Yes, I am coming to that now. The danger is that the Combat Poverty Group would start to act as a sort of an alter ego for the Dublin Corporation or for institutions of the corporation and I do not think this is the business we are in. I would prefer to see these institutions made more effective. Therefore, I see a danger in a continuation ad infinitum of the combat poverty type of scheme. I see it as a pump-priming exercise.
The other point leading to this amendment is that there is a danger when people become involved in these type of things that they become political. I see nothing wrong with their becoming political. I think, in fact, it is a good training ground for them, but if individuals are going to be financed by the combat poverty scheme and they intend to go for election they should declare this ahead of time so that their role and their behaviour can be assessed in terms of that intention. I do not feel that the Combat Poverty Scheme is to be a means——
I find it impossible to relate what you are saying to the amendment.
That might have something to do with the fact that you may not realise what is going on.
All I have to realise at the moment is what you have composed as an amendment to the text in front of me. I do not have to know anything about people engaging in political careers for themselves, which does not seem to arise on this amendment.
We are talking about this Committee producing a report stating that further Government money be spent in collaboration with the EEC to maintain the existing projects and to continue them over an interim period. So I think I am entitled to suggest an amendment to that.
And you are suggesting an amendment to that.
Are you saying that I cannot continue?
No, but the Senator must relate what he has to say to the amendment.
If you give me a few more minutes, I will do it. I am saying that if a political role is going to emerge from this, then do so early on and let it be seen to be what it is and we will carry on from there. The other point that comes from it is that there have been statements made by people involved with the Combat Poverty Committee that the structures of society may not be right to defeat the poverty dimension that has been described and that has been shown up by the research. I am concerned about that. I am concerned that people who are running this operation would be saying things like that. My challenge to them would be that if they think so, then the way to change the structures of our society is through the existing political system.
In paragraph 12, rather than give what is a sort of a blanket approval from this Committee through the statement on projects which require further time for completion and which could not be evaluated properly if terminated abruptly on 1 December, 1980, I would prefer to use the channel of this particular report to ask the Combat Poverty Committee to look at these projects and evaluate them on paper. I should like to see a written report going to the poverty committee. Then, if they decide that they merit further support, let them do so. I am not stopping them from doing it, but I should like to ensure that an evaluation of that kind took place. I should like, therefore, to propose that the phrase I have just used should be substituted with "following a written evaluation by the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty are judged by that committee to merit further support in the interim period".
I must say that I would have to place a lot of Senator Mulcahy's preliminary remarks in relation to his amendment in the context of his own electoral problems in the last election rather than in the context of the amendment itself. I do not accept, in other words, the comments he was making.
Many TDs would support me.
In any case there was a particular problem there in some of the background to the Senator's remarks. I would not object to the amendment because it is appropriate that there would be a written evaluation of the various pilot schemes. As I understand it, the national committee are carrying out a written evaluation and that is what is intended here. This could be a useful amendment. I do not think that the Joint Committee is in a position to evaluate the prospects. We heard the people concerned. I was most impressed both with the range, with the geographical spread and with the immense commitment of the people involved in these projects. I also like what seems to be the essential basic motivation of all these projects, which I do regard as political though not in a very narrow context of the word "political", that is, that the essential basic philosophy behind these combat poverty projects is to make people self-reliant, to help themselves, and gradually make the group, the people involved in a professional capacity, redundant because those who are involved on the ground will be running their own system or helping themselves or will have learned to know their welfare rights and to cope with the aspects of their particular deprivation or poverty. It is one of the most interesting, exciting and important influences in Irish political life, and it does not at all surprise me to find that those involved are very critical of the establishment as the established system has resulted in a lot of poverty in Ireland. Twenty-five per cent of our population live in poverty. There is a great deal wrong with our established system.
I question that.
We differ obviously strongly in our approaches to this subject. Each of us is entitled to take a very different view of it. I think the fact has been established as showing that 25 per cent of our population do live well over the poverty line. It is useful for us, in our report, to require that there be a written evaluation by the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty, the body which would judge whether the pilot projects warrant further support. The essential point, really, of our report is that we would ask the Irish Government, at the Council of Ministers on 9 June, to seek support from the Community for further Community funding of these projects after 1 December 1980. As we understand it at the moment, the Commission are not proposing further funding of any of these projects, but if they are to continue it will be either purely on local funding—and we know that local authority is very tight indeed at the moment, almost non-existent and any new——
That is any existing projects.
Yes.
That would be for study.
Existing projects for study and again I think that the view expressed to us by the group that came to see us was that they are very anxious that the pilot projects which are more action-orientated be continued and they would prefer an emphasis on action rather than, as the Commission does predominantly in this proposal for the interim programme, an emphasis on research and study. I think they feel there has been to some extent enough research and study and that the need now is for more action-orientated programmes. But I, as chairman of the Sub-Committee, am prepared to accept this amendment to paragraph 12, because it is appropriate that the projects would be evaluated by the Irish National Committee and that what we are essentially looking for, as the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, is continued Community funding of these projects during the interim period, as well as funding of research studies. It is for that reason that the end of paragraph 12 acknowledges that this would require further money and therefore urges the Irish Government to press for the necessary increase in allocation of moneys from the Community budget, because it would not be possible to continue funding the pilot projects under the present proposals for funding of the poverty programmes for the interim period during 1981 and 1982.
I understand that Senator Mulcahy and you are both agreed on the desirability of not stopping simply on a cut-off basis without regard to where the thing has got to.
Yes.
The report made by the Combat Poverty Committee would be to whom? Is it the Commission?
I was suggesting that the individuals who are involved in the projects will have to make written submissions again to the Committee to Combat Poverty and they would evaluate them beforehand.
That is not what it means. I would prefer to accept it as it is worded at the moment because, as I understand it, the National Committee is carrying out an evaluation of the projects for the Commission and I am prepared to accept that, as part of its evaluation which is going on at the moment, the National Committee should judge the projects that merit further support. That would mean further support including support from the European Community.
And make their case in writing to the Community.
Yes, but at the moment the Commission is not putting itself in a position to fund, even if it got a very strong support of evaluation from the National Committee. All that it is proposing is a two-year interim period of a different kind of approach, research studies for two years and, certainly, I could not emphasise more strongly the very real sense that I got that some of these pilot schemes are at an extremely important stage. They have either developed naturally as a second phase or they have not got to the point where they can really achieve the initial intention as a pilot project and they need a bit more time and they need continued funding, both at the Community and the Irish level.
I am basically in agreement. I want to ensure I am not misunderstood. I am completely behind this expenditure. I just want to ensure that it is being well spent and that the Committee do look fairly carefully at the proposals.
Does Senator Robinson accept it?
I accept the amendment.
I felt that the meeting where the groups came to meet the Sub-Committee was one of the most valuable meetings that we had, and one had a feeling of being very much in touch with people on the ground and being able, in fact, to achieve something very relevant, a feeling which one does not always have at the Sub-Committee meeting. Like Senators Robinson and Mulcahy, I was very impressed by the people involved. I certainly would not involve myself in any of the political aspects of it. I very much hope that this report will achieve what it has set out to achieve, which is the extension of time to fund a better project.
I join with what everyone has said in regard to that. I thought the people gave a word of encouragement for the future of their country and they were people who all seemed to be serious and dedicated, and articulate too, quite a learning business.
Paragraph agreed to.
Appendix agreed to.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: to report accordingly.
Time of Meetings of Joint Committee.
I am sorry that I have to leave. I would like to thank the Chairman for facilitating me and allowing me to present these reports but I would ask that meetings of the Joint Committee do not take place at the same time as the Seanad is meeting.
We are going to put that matter on the agenda for next week's meeting with a view to getting a general view as to what is the best time. It does not suit me either.
I have tried to hold my sub-committee meetings on a Wednesday morning and I have been told very quietly that it is not on.
Could we get other people's views? Would the Committee like to pass the Report on Nineteen Statutory Instruments?
I will wait.
Nineteen Statutory Instruments.
The report is divided into two parts essentially, the preface and the second part. The second part deals with five particular instruments, the first dealing with surveillance of certain imports and the regulations made by the Minister covers imports from all third countries. In fact, the Council Regulation only provide for surveillance of products originating from certain countries listed in the annex to the Regulation itself and the Sub-Committee reached the conclusion that the Regulation under which the statutory instrument was made could not be reasonably interpreted to do what, in fact, the statutory instrument purports to do—to control imports from all the countries. We have been assured that there were no applications in respect of any of the countries that are not in the annex to the Council Regulation. So no problems of a practical kind arose. The particular statutory instrument will, in any case, expire at the end of this month and the Department will take legal advice about a new instrument.
The products which are being subject to surveillance are identified by reference to an order which was made before we entered the European Communities, which itself would have survived only to the extent that it is consistent with Community regulations. The order is referred to as having been amended but there is no indication as to what particular Community regulations in fact had effected the amendments. We expressed some doubts about the effect of a domestic instrument being referred to as the source of Customs nomenclature in an instrument implementing Community Regulations.
The next two instruments are on the same point. Certainly the first makes a point common to both, that is, the directive being implemented provides that equipment which does not comply with certain requirements may not be placed on the market. It simply requires member states not to prohibit or prevent the placing on the market of this equipment if it does comply with the directive. The ministerial regulations are made in such a way that they would seem to enable a search warrant to be obtained in respect of a private dwellinghouse even if it were not necessarily used by a manufacturer, assembler or importer. We have suggested that the regulations should be amended to refer only to places where there are reasonable grounds for believing that equipment is being kept by manufacturers, assemblers or importers. At the end of paragraph 8 I think we should insert a sentence drawing attention also to the general comments contained in paragraphs 24 and 25, which relate in particular to the desirability of specifying offences in a clear fashion.
Perhaps I may comment on this. As a person who was in charge of radio interference in Radio Eireann for some time in the fifties, I can see the difficulty here. Sometimes you have equipment which causes radio interference but does not show up until it is installed. The difficulty for radio interference people is that they are trying to locate the source. If they encounter somebody who is difficult who says, "Well it is not on my property and I will not allow you check," this presents a real difficulty.
The motivation for this is probably that very fact. But this directive rather than the other prohibits use. It does not entitle this particular regulation to deal with it. The information from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs suggests to us that what the Senator referred to just now could be coped with by a regulation made under the Broadcasting Authority Act.
And they are happy about that?
I do not know that they are happy. This is our suggestion. They may be attempting to justify this particular provision as being incidental, supplementary or consequential on the provision of the directive, which does not in fact deal with the user at all but deals with the placing on a market by a manufacturer, assembler or importer. We say that we do not accept that, but there is another Act you can use for that purpose. It is our duty to say that this particular directive does not entitle you to do anything about user. That is the essential point. Are you satisfied with that?
Yes, thank you, Chairman.
As I mentioned in regard to paragraph 8, I think we should also add a sentence to paragraph 12 directing attention to the general comments contained in paragraphs 24 and 25, which in general speak of the desirability of spelling out offences in a clear fashion.
The next regulations are made pursuant to a directive which provides that a member state may not forbid or restrict "for reasons concerning certification or marking" the placing of lifting equipment on the market if it has a certificate and markings provided for in the directive. In implementing this the Minister for Labour has provided that nothing in the existing legislation with regard to prohibition or restrictions should be construed as prohibiting or restricting for reasons of certification or marking—which is all the directive is concerned with—the placing on the market of lifting equipment. We express ourselves as being satisfied to accept the contention of the Minister on this.
The next one is a very odd instrument which in effect amends the Central Bank Act, 1971, by providing that it does not apply to the central banks of member states. The part of the next regulations to which particular attention is drawn deals with uniform rules for the safe disposal of PCB, that is, polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls. The particular point made here is that the ESB are designated as the competent authority when anything containing these materials has to be disposed of. In so far as the regulations do that, we are putting the people in possession of this waste under an obligation to pay any price the ESB may charge, in effect allowing them to determine a fee which should be subject to control by Parliament through this Committee. We suggest that the charge should be prescribed by the Minister.
I think I have anticipated the general comment on the specification of offences which is contained in paragraphs 24 and 25. There is a final paragraph where we suggest—just as in the case of the Central Bank Act—that, where an Act of Parliament is to be amended by a regulation made under the European Communities Act, the statutory instrument should contain tables setting out in full the sections of the statute being amended so that one can read it and have a better opportunity of finding out what it is all about.
Paragraphs 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 8.
I move:
To add to the end of the paragraph the following:
"Attention is also directed to the general comments contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 of this report".
I move:
To add to the end of the paragraph the following:
"Attention is also directed to the general comments contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 of this report".'