Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1972

Vol. 73 No. 11

European Communities Bill, 1972: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. Hillery)

The negotiations between the European Communities and the countries which applied for membership were conducted on the basis of the acceptance by the latter of the Community treaties and of the legislation adopted by the Community institutions in implementation of those treaties. The negotiations, therefore, were not concerned with the acceptability of Community treaties or legislation; they were concerned only with the transitional terms to apply in the case of the applicant countries. These terms having been agreed and having been approved by Dáil Éireann as embodied in the Treaty of Accession and related agreements, and the necessary constitutional provisions to enable Ireland to accede to the Communities having been made by the amendment to the Constitution which was approved by the people on 10th May of this year, it now remains to make the legislative provisions to enable Ireland to fulfil the obligations of membership. That is the purpose of this Bill.

Article I of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC and EURATOM and the same article of the decision of the Council concerning accession to the ECSC provide for membership of the Communities by the acceding countries and for these countries becoming parties to the treaties establishing the Communities, as amended or supplemented.

The same articles also provide that the provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the member states and the powers and jurisdiction of the institutions of the Community as set out in the original Community treaties shall apply in respect of the accession treaty and decision. And Article 2 of the Act setting out the conditions of accession to the Communities provides:

From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new member States and shall apply in these States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act.

The Bill will give effect in Ireland to this treaty provision, by providing that from 1st January, 1973, the treaties governing the Community institutions and European Communities and the "acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities"—what is known as the secondary legislation— shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law of the State in the conditions laid down in the treaties. And in order to enable the provisions of the treaties and of secondary legislation to be fully effective in the State, the Bill authorises Ministers to make regulations as necessary for that purpose.

I think it would help us in our discussions if at this stage I were to define in some greater detail the terms I have been using as well as those used in the Bill. The term "the treaties governing the European Communities" which occurs in the Bill covers the same instruments as the term "original treaties" as employed in the Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the treaties, plus the accession instruments.

The expression "original treaties" is defined in that Act to mean the treaties establishing the three Communities as supplemented or amended by treaties or other acts entering into force before the accession of new member states to the Communities. These supplementing and amending instruments are not, however, listed by name in the Act. The definition in section 1 of the Bill of "the treaties governing the European Communities" lists the three treaties which established the Communities and the major instruments which amend or supplement them—five in all, including the Treaty of Accession and the Council Decision relating to Ireland's accession to the ECSC. The definition is completed by a phrase to cover those supplementing or amending instruments in force before 1st January, 1973, which are not listed in the definition. A fuller list of such instruments is set out in Part I of Appendix II to the explanatory memorandum on the accession treaty which has been circulated to Senators.

In section 1 (2) of the Bill a limitation is imposed on the definition of "the treaties governing the European Communities" by the provision that any treaty or other act amending or supplementing those listed in the previous subsection which enters into force between the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, that is 22nd January, 1972, and the date of accession, that is, 1st January, 1973, will not be included in the definition of "the treaties governing the European Communities", unless the Government make an order, to be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I might add that the Government do not anticipate that they will be seeking approval for such an order as no instrument of this nature is under consideration in the Community at present.

It is quite clear from Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession which I have already quoted, that it is necessary to give the force of law to those provisions of the treaties and of secondary legislation which are directly applicable in member states. It is difficult to draw the line between these provisions and those which are not directly applicable and in the last resort this falls to be decided by the European Court of Justice. For this reason, it was deemed better to give the force of law to the treaties in full rather than to engage in a dangerous and futile attempt to identify all the provisions for which this is necessary.

An additional reason for adopting this course is the fact that it is considered that the best way to give effect to some provisions of the treaties which are mainly of an institutional nature is actually to make them part of our domestic law. Section 2, therefore, provides that from 1st January, 1973, the treaties governing the European Communities shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law of the State in the conditions laid down in those treaties.

The provision in section 2 also extends to the existing and future acts —or secondary legislation—adopted by the institutions of the Communities. In order to clarify the effect of this section in respect of secondary legislation and also the purpose and effect of section 3, it might perhaps be useful if I were to say something at this point about the nature and scope of Community secondary legislation.

While, as I have said, the treaties governing the Communities contain some provisions which are directly applicable in the national law of the member states—for example Article 85 of the EEC Treaty prohibiting various types of restrictive practices— in general the treaties provide an overall framework for the achievement of the objectives of the Communities and confer power on the Community institutions to enact derived or "secondary" legislation for the implementation of these objectives.

Article 189 of the EEC Treaty and Article 161 of the EURATOM Treaty provide that "in order to carry out their task the Council and the Commission shall in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, make regulations, issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions." Regulations have general application, are binding in their entirety and take direct legal effect in the member states without the intervention of national parliaments. However, some regulations have provisions which clearly are not directly applicable. Directives, which may be addressed to one or more of the member states, usually are binding as far as the result to be achieved is concerned but leave the method of achievement to the national authorities. However, some directives of the EEC have been held by the European Court to contain provisions which are directly applicable.

Directives are prescribed by the treaties as the instrument of implementation to be employed by the institutions in the case of a number of specific articles. For example, Article 100 of the EEC Treaty provides that the Council shall issue directives for the approximation of the laws of member states which directly affect the establishing or functioning of the Common Market.

Decisions, in the case of the EEC and EURATOM, are usually concerned with specific questions and may be addressed to a government, a firm or an individual. They are binding in their entirety on those to whom they are addressed. While the EEC and EURATOM Treaties do not prescribe that decisions are to have direct effect, the Court of Justice has held that they may have such effect. Recommendations and Opinions are stated by the EEC and EURATOM Treaties to have no binding force.

The position in regard to the ECSC is somewhat different and some of the terms I have referred to have a different meaning in the ECSC Treaty. Article 14 of that treaty authorises the High Authority the powers of which are now exercised by the Commission to "take decisions, make recommendations and give opinions".

The decisions tend to be of two kinds: what may be called "general" decisions which are the equivalent of EEC or EURATOM regulations, and "individual" decisions which are the equivalent of EEC or EURATOM decisions. Recommendations in the case of the ECSC are equivalent to directives in the case of the other two Communities in that they are binding with respect to the objectives which they specify but leave to those concerned the choice of the appropriate means for achieving those objectives. There is also a category of "individual" recommendations in the case of the ECSC for which there is no equivalent in the case of the other Communities. ECSC opinions have the same status as opinions and recommendations in the case of the EEC and EURATOM.

It will be clear from what I have been saying that while in general regulations are directly applicable and directives usually not, it is not, in fact, always possible to make a simple and clear-cut distinction on these lines between the provisions of secondary legislation.

Section 3 of the Bill empowers Ministers to make regulations to implement in this country Community instruments which are not directly applicable in member states. It is sometimes necessary to take action on a national level also to enable Community legislation which is directly applicable to be fully operative in a member state.

If I may give an example, most of the regulations setting up a common organisation of the market for the different agricultural commodities provide for intervention in the market in order to prevent prices received by farmers from falling below a certain agreed level. It will be necessary to set up an intervention agency in this country to carry out these functions. It is proposed to do this by means of a ministerial regulation under section 3 of this Bill.

Measures like this, in respect of provisions of Community legislation which are directly applicable are not, strictly speaking, measures of implementation but rather ancillary measures to enable the Community regulations to have full effect. Section 3 is also intended to cover such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as a Minister making a regulation may consider necessary for the achievement of the purpose of the regulation. It is likely that measures to be taken in implementation of secondary legislation which is not directly applicable or measures supplementary to directly applicable legislation will frequently cut across existing legislative provisions.

It was considered desirable, therefore, in accordance with the usual practice of our legislation, that power should also be conferred on a Minister making a regulation to repeal an existing enactment in the same field. It is also desirable—and provision has been made for this in section 3—that it should be possible by ministerial regulation to apply, with or without modification, other law because it is probable that in some cases the most effective way of making incidental, supplementary or consequential provisions would be to extend the application of an existing provision of our law, either as it stands or with appropriate modification.

The powers conferred on Ministers in this Bill to make regulations are necessary if we are to be in a position expeditiously to give effect to Community legislation so as to fulfil our obligations and to enable the benefits of membership to become available to us without delay. At the same time, the Government were anxious in drafting the Bill and in discussing it in the Dáil that there should be adequate safeguards and an effective mechanism for involving Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann in dealing with delegated legislation under the Bill.

For this reason the Government provided the safeguard in section 4 that regulations made under the proposed Act shall lapse unless they are confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas. During the debate in the Dáil it was agreed to shorten the period within which this must be done and under the section as now proposed a confirmation Act must be passed within six months after the regulation is made.

Taking into account the relatively long recesses of the Houses of the Oireachtas, this could, in effect, involve three Bills for the confirmation of Ministerial regulations and three debates each year. This is a much stronger safeguard than the more usual procedure involving the laying of regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas subject to annulment within a sitting period of 21 days. And, in addition to this major safeguard, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas will be able to have recourse to all the normal parliamentary procedures.

I would also draw the attention of Senators to the provision in section 4 for the convening of the Dáil, if it has been adjourned for more than ten days, at the request of a majority of Members, for the purpose of considering ministerial regulations made under the Act. The role of the Seanad in such circumstances would, of course, depend on the action taken by the Dáil.

I should also point out that the Bill does not oblige Ministers to employ regulations for the purpose of implementing or giving effect to the provisions of Community legislation; it permits them to do so. Very many instruments of Community secondary legislation are of a minor, administrative character and the appropriate means of implementation in these cases if legislative action is, in fact, required would clearly be by ministerial regulation. However, where it is desirable to do so, and where time permits, a Minister could introduce a Bill for this purpose.

It should also be borne in mind that ministerial regulations made under this Bill will be subject, in the same way as regulations made under other statutes, to examination by the courts which can declare null and void any regulations made in excess of the powers conferred in section 3.

It is important that we should not lose sight of the fact that by far the greater part of Community legislation as a whole is directly applicable in member states. Once directly applicable instruments have been adopted by the institutions of the Community, national Parliaments have no function in respect of them, except, perhaps, in the case of some few instruments which may require supplementary measures to give them full effect.

In comparison with the large number of directly applicable instruments, there are relatively few instruments requiring national implementation. For example, in 1971 there were some 2,900 regulations—the majority of them of a routine character—and some 410 directives and decisions. Had this country been a member of the Community last year by no means all of those 410 directives and decisions would have required ministerial regulations for their implementation here. In fact, it is estimated that the number of ministerial regulations which will have to come into force in the months immediately following our accession to the Community in order to implement or give effect to existing Community legislation—that is to say, legislation adopted over a period of some 14 years—should be no more than about 70. This figure includes regulations to be made under powers given to Ministers under existing Acts.

The actual number of ministerial regulations to be made in any given year in the future will, of course, depend on the volume of legislation adopted by the Community but it would be reasonable to make an educated guess in the region of not more than about 20. This is quite a small number of ministerial regulations when it is remembered that last year approximately 350 statutory instruments were made under existing legislation.

The Government believe that the Houses of the Oireachtas should be associated with Community decision-making, although it must, of course, be recognised that any such role will have to take account of the transfer of power which must take place from national to Community level. In the course of the debate in the Dáil on this Bill we discussed the question of the establishment of a committee which would examine draft Community legislation. The Government have already taken the decision to put in the Library such draft legislation, other than Commission proposals which deal with matters which must be regarded as confidential—for example relating to trade negotiations with countries outside the Community. I agreed with the Opposition that we should have a committee. I said that in my view the function of the committee should be to inform the Dáil— and the Seanad. If such a committee could make sure that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas were informed about draft legislation, it would be very useful.

On the Report Stage in the Dáil, I referred to some points which required further thought before the committee could be established. One was the question of the membership of the committee and I said we should consider basing it on the ten members of the European Parliament from the Oireachtas, plus ten others. We should also arrange that the committee should have an adequate secretariat to make it possible to separate from the mass of drafts those with a high policy content and to make it possible for members of the committee to keep up with the flow of documentation.

I also referred to what I think will be the main function of such a committee later on, that is the briefing of members of the European Parliament about Ireland's position in relation to various pieces of legislation.

My view is that the committee should be established by motion, and motions of both Houses will be required.

Another question which arises is whether the work of the committee should lead to debates in the Dáil and Seanad on the development of the Community and whether that can be provided for in the motions establishing the committee.

I understand that the method of having a joint committee is to have each House make an expediency motion. If both Houses have similar motions then it will be possible to set up the joint committee. Something is in train at the moment and we may have this motion within a week.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Robinson

Could I ask the Minister if we are going to get a copy of this very long and detailed Second Reading speech? It is normal courtesy that we should get a copy. Will this be coming immediately? It is very difficult to follow unless we have a copy of the speech.

Dr. Hillery

I understand. I think it will be provided later.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister will be aware from Senator Robinson's remarks that I, too, have had difficulty in following his speech. I understand that this will probably be the last piece of legislation that the present Minister for Foreign Affairs will be introducing in this House. On this occasion on behalf of my party I sincerely wish the Minister well in his future career which is likely to be zoned more in Europe than in Ireland. I share Senator Robinson's regret that he did not leave us a memento to his last visit by circulating the text of his speech which we all found difficult to follow.

I am sure all the Members of the House join with me in extending a welcome to the distinguished visitors the President, Vice-President and Secretary-General of the European Parliament who are in the Gallery. We all feel honoured by their visit to this House today.

I am not entirely happy about the Bill we have before us. Some months ago we passed the Constitutional Amendment Bill in this House which was subsequently adopted by the people at the referendum. It was quite clear to all of us on that occasion that if the Constitutional Amendment proposal was adopted by the people it would be necessary for the Minister to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the purpose of introducing the legislation necessary to implement the joining of the EEC by this country. It is necessary to remember—and this point was made quite clear by all of us who supported the Constitutional Amendment proposals at the time—that the amendment to the Constitution was merely an enabling measure. It provided that the provisions of our present Constitution would not invalidate the measures necessary to allow membership of the Community. In itself it did not affect Community membership. It was clear that legislation would have to be introduced for that purpose.

In the course of his speech the Minister again outlined the various ways in which Community measures will have an impact on domestic legislation. He pointed out that, apart from the Treaties themselves, regulations might be made—many have been made—which would be immediately binding on member states. He also referred to the fact that directives could be issued. My understanding of the position previously was that directives, so far as the result to be achieved is concerned were binding on member states, but it was left to the member states to decide for themselves how and in what manner those results would be achieved. From the Minister's remarks I gathered that in the meantime one or more decisions have been reached in the European Court, the effect of which is to decide that in some cases directives can be automatically binding. The Minister also referred to the fact that decisions could be made addressed to governments, firms or individuals. When they were addressed to governments they would be binding in every respect.

In addition to the question of regulations, directives and decisions, there is also the possibility of recommendations being made. There is a very important distinction between regulations being made and any of the other categories of acts or measures which can be taken by the Community, that is, decisions, directives or recommendations. I can appreciate that as far as regulations are concerned they will automatically become part of our domestic law when this legislation is enacted.

However, I am concerned on the score of directives. The general run of directives—apart from those to which the Minister referred as decided by the European Court to have automatic effect—are left to individual members, that is, the legislatures of Community members decide how the result will be achieved. During the course of the Committee discussion on the Constitutional Amendment Bill I raised a point with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, who dealt with it in this House, that there were two courses open to the Government. One is the ordinary course adopted in parliamentary democracies, that is, the introduction of legislation, passing it through the Dáil and the Seanad, having it signed by the President and promulgated as law. The other procedure is what should be regarded in a parliamentary democracy as quite an exceptional procedure, that is, legislation by ministerial order or edict. If the Government had a choice and deliberately decided to adopt the exceptional attitude of legislation by ministerial order or edict, is that not open to constitutional challenge?

The terms of the Constitutional Amendment Bill were not as the Government wished it originally, that is, that our law would immediately absorb anything consequential on membership of the Community. There was an amendment proposed by my party and accepted by the Government in the Dáil altering that situation. This stated that what was declared not to be unconstitutional, within the framework of our Constitution as it stood, would be acts and measures of the Community which were necessitated by the obligations of membership. Can it be suggested that it is "necessitated by the obligations of membership" that Ministers should have the power—as they are taking the power in this Bill —to legislate by order, even in relation to such matters as directives? We should consider how far this Bill is going.

Sections 2 and 3 contain the bones of this Bill as well as all the meat. Section 2 provides:

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing the European Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.

This is a clear, brief statement of the position which will come into existence by virtue of the next subsection when this Bill passes into law. Section 3 then goes on to set out how this particular result will be achieved. As regards regulations made under the treaties I have no quarrel with what is being done, but when we come to consider matters where discretion will continue to vest in the parliaments of the Community, then I do object to what is contained in section 3 (1) of this Bill:

A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling section 2 of this Act to have full effect.

There straight away, we get into the field of legislation by regulation. This is developed in subsection (2) of section 3:

Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister making the regulations to be necessary...

Not as are "necessitated by the obligations of membership"; not as are regarded as necessary by the Parliament of this country, but merely such as are regarded by the Minister. We are vesting the entire discretion and decision making in this matter in the Minister. So far as the Dáil is concerned, so far as the Seanad is concerned, we will not have any say, if this legislation goes through, as to what is or is not necessary. We will not even be allowed a view in the initial stages as to whether or not what the Minister purports to do is necessitated by the obligations of membership. It depends entirely on the opinion of the particular Minister concerned.

The Minister seems to place more value than should be placed on section 4 of the Bill as providing an adequate safeguard for involving the Dáil and Seanad in these decisions. I hope I am not wronging the Minister when I suspect that the words "or Seanad" were simply thrown in as an afterthought because he happened to be speaking in the Seanad. If we look at subsection (2) of section 4, there is no provision whatever made in that section for the contingency where this House might not be sitting for a period of longer than ten days. It deals only with the situation in subsection (2) where the Dáil "stands adjourned for a period of more than ten days".

The situation in our particular parliamentary democracy is that it has been open to both Houses of this Parliament to initiate legislation. It is open to us even under this Bill to have legislation confirming a ministerial order initiated in this House. Yet we find the situation that under section 4, subsection (2), no provision whatever is made for a situation where the Seanad might stand adjourned for a period of more than ten days.

I do not think the safeguards—to use the Minister's words—which are incorporated in section 4 of this Bill adequately safeguard the position so far as the two Houses of the Oireachtas are concerned. I do not believe that section 4 will allow either House to play a proper part in relation to decisions regarding regulations made by a Minister unless the Minister, whatever Minister may be concerned, decides out of the goodness of his heart to bring the matter for discussion before the Dáil or the Seanad.

I agree without reservation that a Bill such as this is necessary but I do not agree that this Bill, as framed, is the kind of Bill necessary in order to implement the decision of the people at the referendum.

Mr. Keery

I, too, would like to begin by welcoming our distinguished visitors from the European Parliament who are present in the Gallery today. I do not propose to follow Senator O'Higgins in raising points which are intended to be dealt with in more detail on Committee Stage. I have read through the Committee Stage debate on this Bill in the other House and from listening to Senator O'Higgins' comments I do not think he has raised any new points. I am satisfied that the answers to the questions raised by him can be readily given.

This Bill is an extremely fine Bill and it is a suitable successor to the Bill, later endorsed by the people, which led to the amendment of our Constitution thereby making our entry into the EEC possible. It is a Bill which is essentially a constitutional document and it has much in common with what should be the main qualities of a constitutional document, namely, that it should be simple, easily understood and have a certain amount of elegance. The present Bill has those qualities. As a legislator who is more interested in the political content and implications of a Bill than in the detailed, technical side of the legal draftsmanship I welcome it. In terms of political intentions and political importance, this Bill is entirely clear and to the point.

What we should be primarily discussing in this Bill are the practical implications of it. The main implication is the way in which it ensures that this country, when a member of the enlarged European Community, will follow whatever regulations and directives may be adopted by that Community. The method of implementation of regulations and directives chosen in this Bill, namely, the method of ministerial regulations, is entirely justified and has been dealt with by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the other House. The practical point he made was that on many occasions, particularly where regulations are concerned, it will be important that some of them will have immediate implementation and application. That point makes the choice of the method of ministerial regulation quite clear. The Bill provides that such regulations may be confirmed by Acts of the Oireachtas and, as the Minister pointed out in the other House, no Minister framing regulations can fail to be aware that the regulations will be open to discussion in both Houses and that his decisions and actions will be open to the normal line of attack from any parliamentary Opposition by the tabling of motions, the asking of parliamentary questions and so forth.

I should like to take a closer look at the practical implications of the application to Ireland of Community regulations and directives. First of all, it seems that the fear about the implementation of Community regulations is an unreal fear based on the bogus assumption that the people have not accepted the fact that regulations made by the Community will be binding on us and will have to be implemented. The people have already agreed that Community regulations are binding on us in the enlarged Community and the specific wording of the Act which amended our Constitution makes it quite clear that it would be unconstitutional for Oireachtas Éireann to attempt to overthrow a Community regulation. I can supply the words which Senator O'Higgins was seeking. They are important words and we should recall that they are now on the record as approved by the people. I quote from the Third Amendment of the Constitution Act:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities or institutions thereof from having the force of law in the State.

Surely if anything is necessitated by membership of the enlarged Community it is the application of the Community regulations here.

There is a different situation where directives of the Community are concerned. Where directives are concerned it is conceivable that the Oireachtas might feel that the proposals made by the Minister to implement the directive, in the Irish contex, were completely unacceptable and the Oireachtas will have a right to comment on this. It is also possible that the Government or the Minister might fail to implement directives within the time scale permitted. Many of the fears which people are at present expressing about the implementation of Community directives in Ireland are groundless. They seem to think this is a peculiarly Irish fear and that such a fear does not arise in other member states of the Community.

We should be quite clear that in no member state of the Community do we find well functioning administrative machinery which implements perfectly and literally every directive of the Community. That is not the case at all. There are many directives issued by the Community which have been overlooked by many member states or they have been quietly ignored and shelved. This is a well-known practical device for trying to hedge a Community decision which does not satisfy one particular member state and may not cover that state's particular case. I should be surprised if the present Government or successive Governments did not find that, to some extent, in practice they have to go into this business themselves in order to ensure that Irish interests are fully protected and Irish conditions fully acknowledged.

In saying this I am not at all being anti-European, nor am I saying "Now that we have adopted something, we will hedge as best we can." I am simply arguing that we must always recognise reality and the practical difficulties the Community faces in drafting regulations or directives which can be applied in all countries. We must also recognise —and I accept this above all—that, if we hedge or fall by the wayside, anyone aggrieved by such hedging or possible neglect has the legitimate right to complain to the institutions of the Community. That is precisely what the European Court in particular, is there for, namely, to protect the interests of people who may feel they have suffered or have been neglected in some way because the country to which they belong has not carried out, as it should have carried out, some Community decision.

I should like to give one example of what I have in mind. It is the sort of thing that Members of the other House were trying to debate but unfortunately none of them seemed to have bothered to read the literature. It is quite clear that the leading spokesman for the Opposition in the other House——

An Cathaoirleach

Debates in the other House should not be discussed.

Mr. Keery

I am not discussing the debates; I am discussing the Members.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

In particular, the conduct of Members should not be discussed.

Mr. Keery

I should like to draw the attention of some Members of the Oireachtas to important information contained in the explanatory memorandum to the European Communities Bill. If they had read it, it would have helped greatly their contributions to the debate in another place.

I should like to refer, by way of example, to page 35 and page 128 of the memorandum. On page 35 we find listed at the top of the page two directives—Nos. 63/261 of 2nd April, 1963, and 63/262 of 2nd April, 1963—dealing with the right of establishment in land. In addition, in the section of the memorandum listing Irish legislation which will be affected by Community law, we find that the Land Act, 1965, is an Act which will be affected. We are told that "Provisions regarding right of establishment in land in certain limited cases" will be affected.

It is important that we should all try to understand the Community by seeking to relate Community legislation to our own legislation. It is interesting to read in the Library of the House the directives mentioned on page 35. Members of the House are advised that this material was available in English in the Library. It is appalling that they talked in another place as if it was not available.

An Cathaoirleach

Calling it "another place" does not mean it is in order.

Mr. Keery

Any Members who read this material will find, for example, that these directives made in 1963 ask member states to provide information about the present practices in regard to land in their countries. Then they set time limits for the implementation of these directives. It is quite clear, as everybody was assured in the Government's White Paper on the accession of Ireland to the European Communities, that the content of these directives, if fully implemented, is not such as raises any threat to the holding of land by Irish citizens, or indeed to our present proposals for improving the structure of agricultural holdings.

Nevertheless, it is the sort of thing which, as I understand it, has not yet been spelt out in detail. We cannot know, until we have ministerial regulations or further information on the matter, exactly how the Government would go about implementing these two directives. There would be documentation available—although I am not aware of it being published— indicating specifically how it might be proposed to amend, or pass, regulations affecting the Land Act, 1965, which is quite likely to be affected. This creates an interesting situation. Theoretically, as from 1st January, a non-national farm labourer who had been living in the country for more than two years might say: "I want my right under one of these directives to purchase land". If that was not normally permissible under our present land legislation, he might turn up at the constituency "clinic" in Dún Laoghaire and ask "What is my position now?"

Mr. O'Higgins

The Land Act would not affect any land in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. Apart from that, the Senator is right.

Mr. Keery

I can assure the Senator that our "clinic" in Dún Laoghaire is so effective that people come from all over the country to seek our advice in these matters. It is quite possible that legitimate advice to this gentleman might be—apart from putting on pressure for action—to seek clarification at this end. This could be the most effective way to stimulate an inquiry from the Commission as to what the Irish Government propose to do about the matter. He might have further grounds, in due course, if appropriate action were not taken, to complain to the European Court that a directive had not been properly implemented in the country where he was now resident.

That kind of practical problem, even if I am mistaken about the technicalities of the issue, would stand as a hypothetical problem. It is that type of practical situation—all the obvious complexities involved in relating a mass of European Community secondary legislation to our own legislation, and the practical implementation of this from the 1st January, as negotiated for the transition period, and thereafter—which underlines the practical problems which will be faced by every member of this Legislature in dealing with the implications of EEC entry.

I want to talk in general terms about possible solutions to this terrible problem facing our Legislatures as a result of Irish entry into EEC. First of all, there is a great need for parliamentary information. From this on, it is vital that our parliamentarians should be well informed, or at least have the best possible opportunity of becoming informed, about the progress of the Community and particularly about its wide range of legislative acts. It is obviously important that, apart from being informed, they should also have the opportunity to scrutinise the effects of the implementation of Community legislation and particularly to scrutinise Community regulations in advance of their implementation.

This is the sort of thing we will be discussing on Committee Stage. It seems to me that, once regulations are adopted by the Community, they will be immediately binding on us. We should devise some means of providing parliamentary scrutiny of potential Community regulations in advance of their being finally adopted by the Community. That is as important as scrutiny of the decisions made by the Government concerning the implementation of directives or the scrutiny of more general political issues. This business of scrutiny must be facilitated. The Minister's offer to place copies of draft regulations in the Library of the House is to be welcomed. The Minister mentioned that that was a Government decision.

I would like to wish the Minister all the best in taking up his new appointment with the Commission. I hope subsequent Ministers will follow this practice which he has commenced. Might I say, as a slight compliment to the Minister to mark his departure, that one of the nice things I read in the explanatory memorandum—regulation 31 of 18th December, 1961, page 10—deals with the service regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of servants of the EEC. If the Minister has not already had a look at that particular regulation I recommend it to him. If he feels it appropriate at some stage to seek leave of absence to fight an election in his native land that eventuality is catered for in that regulation.

I appreciate that while the Minister has made this offer—which I hope will stand for our life in the Community— of placing draft regulations in the Library of the House I also accept the point he made that some drafts will be confidential. I take it that these regulations would perhaps deal with financial matters, particularly those connected with the financial adjustments necessary in the advance towards economic and monetary union. Subject to that, I hope we will have as full a disclosure of draft regulations as possible. When Members of the other House say that Community regulations suddenly appear out of the blue they never ask themselves what notice we have, as things now stand, of Government announcements or Cabinet decisions. It seems to me that they will be better off in this respect where Community decisions are concerned.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is because Community decisions are not announced at Fianna Fáil dinners.

Mr. Crinion

You are good at that yourselves.

Mr. Keery

Apart from the draft regulations, there is a great problem of confidentiality in the Community. The main source—a welcome source—of information to the parliamentarians in national parliaments about forthcoming Community regulations or decisions may simply be "leaks" in the Press. We will often have the advantage that we will be able to discuss Community decisions in advance in a way which is not possible in the ordinary political domestic life of the community.

The problems of informing parliamentarians about the progress of the Community, and particularly the development of the Community secondary legislation under different headings, should be clear. First of all, there is the problem of urgency. Parliamentarians should be ready to respond quickly and rapidly to any information they may receive on secondary legislation which is obviously going to be processed through the Community in a short span of time. There is the problem of coping with the great volume of material. The best example of the volume of material involved may be seen in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. Assuming that parliamentarians had at their disposal the best staff currently available to a committee, as committees are conventionally run, or even if they had access to and excellent relations with the Government Departments concerned, there is a real problem of how accurate information is, and particularly whether the information about the Community proposal is comprehensive.

This problem of deciding if all the information you have on a particular matter is truly comprehensive underlines the necessity for some form of committee system to deal with membership of the EEC. It is important that the Minister has so readily recognised and championed the need for such a committee. It is true that the Government and Ministers have been suspicious of the role of parliamentary committees, for which there may have been some grounds. But there is a watertight case for an EEC committee of some kind attached to the Oireachtas. This committee could supply information and assist the scrutiny of Community legislation.

Still talking in the abstract and not about the details of the committee, if one looks more closely at the problem of information the difficulty seems to exist of devising a structure which allows parliamentarians to pursue information adequately without bringing Parliament to a halt. This is a real difficulty which is related to actual library and copying facilities at present available in the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is also the question of circulating material to Members of the Oireachtas. We must consider the problems this creates when the volume of material will be much greater and of wider interest.

There has been a suggestion made that, if you set up a committee, this creates a special category of parliamentarian with particular rights and makes other parliamentarians second-class citizens, and that whatever committee structure is devised it should be open to all Members of the House. I sympathise with this point. It should be borne in mind. I regret I have not a copy of the Minister's opening speech as he may have referred to this. The problem of Parliament at the moment is a physical one. If a committee is one consisting of the whole House meeting in the Chamber, be it Dáil or Seanad, that effectively rules out the use of the Dáil or Seanad for other purposes at that time. Whatever committee system is devised, if it is to make a constructive contribution to the speeding up of the business of the Oireachtas it should be taken away from the floor of either House so that both Houses are available to deal with other matters at the same time as the committee may be functioning. If it is a joint committee, all Members of the Houses should have an opportunity of participating in, or monitoring, the work of the committee. If we are to advance, this great volume of work must be taken away from the floor of the Oireachtas.

The library facilities provided at present are entirely inadequate to cope with the volume of material concerned and to provide the type of guidance which is desirable to serve a committee or an interested parliamentarian. I do not mean to criticise any shortcomings on the part of the present librarian or his staff, who are most helpful. But we need something to cope with an entirely different situation. The existing staff will be completely lost if they have to serve parliamentarians and meet all the inquiries that will inevitably arise from trying to deal with the secondary legislation of the enlarged Community. It is important to recognise that more staff must be made available to the Library of this House if it is to serve the Oireachtas in future.

I suspect that when the staff of the House or the Department of Finance look at a matter of this kind they tend to ask what has been happening to date. I accept that if the Librarian of the House were asked how many Members of the Oireachtas went to the library counter and asked to read the English translation volume of the regulations listed in this explanatory memorandum, the answer might be four or five. It is easy to say then that there is no justification for more expenditure.

That is not the point. I agree with the tone of what Senator O'Higgins stated: that what we are deciding now and the decisions we make amount to taking a stance on behalf of Parliament and its sovereignty for the years that lie ahead. Now is the time, when people are thinking about the problems of entry into the EEC and the need for expenditure, to make the claim and argue for the facilities and equipment necessary to serve parliamentarians— even for hypothetical parliamentarians, the most inquisitive, the most active, the most intelligent, and the most diligent parliamentarians imaginable. That is the type who should always be envisaged in any decision made by this House. It is completely irrelevant when the question of expenditure or service to the House is being discussed to assume "The present bunch of parliamentarians are not very interested. They may not use it at all." The point is that the facilities and machinery of this House should be such as will service the best parliamentarian doing the best possible job on behalf of the people.

In this context it is appalling that there has been criticism of the increased salaries recommended for parliamentarians. For the work they do and for the demands being placed on them by legislation and the move into Europe such as we are dealing with here today, parliamentarians are underpaid and their facilities are disastrously poor. Money must be spent now on the Library, on the provision of periodicals, copying facilities, researchers, et cetera.

I should like to see a situation, which I gather exists in other countries, where Parliament would have its own budget for running its affairs and would be in a position to make its own decisions in matters of this kind and not be dependent on what some bureaucrat in some Department or other thinks of parliamentarians. We know the job that has to be done and we want the tools to get on with it.

I appreciate that the burdens on this country, relatively speaking, may be high in relation to the burdens in larger countries such as Britain. In the European Community, particularly in the Parliament and sitting round the conference table at the Council of Ministers, we will be there as equals with the other member states. Our point of view must be made as strongly, as effectively and in as well informed and researched a way as those of any other member states, large or small. We must face up to this and provide the facilities.

As an example, may I quote from the Short Guide to the Library of the House of Commons, published in 1970? I am sure the situation has improved since then. It states under the heading International Affairs Section:

The Library provides an active information service for Members in foreign and international affairs.

The principal International Affairs Desk is situated in A Room and is normally staffed by two Library Clerks who deal with requests for documentation and research on international, Commonwealth and foreign affairs. Documents of the United Nations and its agencies are handled at this Desk, together with a substantial selection of publications from other international organisations and from certain foreign governments, including the United States. A selective press cuttings service is maintained, and references to much of the material held at this Desk will be found on the International Affairs Index.

We have never heard of such luxuries as a selective press cutting service; yet when we will be contributing to debates at the European Parliament or any other meeting connected with the Community it is absolutely vital that we should make as good, if not better, a contribution as anyone else there. We will be competing with people with that kind of service at their disposal.

We need those services here. Now is the time to make the decisions and spend the money while people are aware that we are moving into Europe. If we come along in two years time, when we have learned the hard way that we cannot go in on a broken bit of elastic, everybody will laugh at us and we will have missed the great opportunity which we have now of making our own active, individual contribution to the Community at a stage when everybody is interested in what we are, who we are and when they regard us as great Europeans who achieved a referendum decision the like of which was not conceived in any part of Europe.

We are going in with all that behind us and we must have the facilities to make the most of it now. In case—and I hope this will not happen—some will accuse me at this stage of speaking too loudly and too late, let me say that on 29th July, 1971, I submitted my humble memorandum to the Committee on Reform of Dáil Procedure. I told them that it would be timely if they would include in their deliberations some consideration of the problems which may arise for the Dáil and Seanad, for Deputies and Senators, from the appointment of Oireachtas Members to a European Parliament and for the need for Oireachtas scrutiny and decision-making regarding EEC matters. That committee have not yet reported. We must have a report. We must have action on this front between now and 1st January, 1973, so that parliamentarians will be equipped to do the important job that lies ahead of them in Europe.

I referred specifically to the circulation of documents. Much more attention needs to be paid to the type of documentation submitted to Members of the Oireachtas. At column 920 of volume 263 of the Official Report of the Dáil the Minister drew attention to the fact that regulations which he might make under the Bill before us would appear in Iris Oifigiúil. That is all very well. I accept that they will and there probably is a duty on every Member of this House to look at Irish Oifigiúil, but I wonder how many Members of this House look at it? Iris Oifigiúil is a good example of a publication which, whatever the cost, should be sent by post to every Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I find this situation at times incredible. Our parliamentarians are supposed to function like a Sherlock Holmes with all the time in the world to ferret out every detail of Government thinking and decision-making into the remotest corner of the Custom House. That is not the situation. The most enthusiastic Deputy or Senator with the best will in the world is a hard-pressed man who needs the facilities and service. He is entitled to have sent to him by post something as important as Iris Oifigiúil will become when it carries notice of the regulations made under this Bill. He is entitled to have it sent to him on the day it appears, no matter where he lives.

Sadly, one of the problems we face in Dublin now is that if something is sent by post on Friday you do not receive it until Monday. That again raises a point. Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas are in the current affairs business. As a result of my remarks I hope people will look at the services provided by this House. Another matter that should be looked at from time to time is the necessity to ensure that parliamentarians get material as promptly as is humanly possible, even if special deliveries are necessary. People expect good government and if they expect their elected representatives to give immediate consideration to important matters they should be prepared to pay for it.

The points I have raised are preliminaries before we get to a functioning committee to deal with Community legislation. I welcome the setting up of such a committee for the particular reason that it will get business away from the floors of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I would also like to support the point made by the Minister that another very strong reason for a committee is to provide a service to Members of the European Parliament. That service, while important, should not be the be-all and the end-all. I hope the Minister will pursue the idea of making sure that there are at least as many nonMembers as Members of the European Parliament on the committee.

There is one problem which I hope will not beset our European parliamentarians or our Commissioner. It is this. Being away from a place, even for a couple of days, a person can begin to lose the feel of things, get out of touch and lose his acute awareness of what is worrying people on the ground in the native sod. While it is important to have the service there for European parliamentarians, the contact they would get in committee with the men and women who know what the people at home are worried about would be an important good in itself.

The staff of this joint committee of both Houses will be extremely important. I have not served on any committee of this kind so I do not know what the normal staffing arrangements are, whether someone is drawn in from the ordinary staffs of the Houses of the Oireachtas or whisked in from a Department to do the job. If this committee are to be served they should have a full-time secretariat of the highest possible calibre. If the job is to be well done, how could a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas staff do it simultaneously with looking after restaurant affairs or order papers and so on? Nor is it desirable that the person should be drawn from some other Government Department.

There is a job here for some enthusiastic and independent mind with an absolute commitment to Europe, who realises that his prime responsibility is to see that every available scrap of information on Europe, the advance and development of the Community and the Community secondary legislation is placed before his committee and duly discussed, as appropriate. If necessary, the committee might be staffed on some temporary basis initially and given the power to select and recruit their own staff so that that staff would be solely responsible to the committee and realise what their requirements were and then get on with performing what should, for the right individuals, be a totally absorbing and highly interesting job.

These are the main points I wish to make at this stage. As my last point I should like to refer to something the Minister said in another place at another time. I have been speaking rather strongly on the job facing Members of this House and future parliamentarians. I do not make any apologies for that because at present we are at the floundering stage. None of us knows in detail what we face in the future. What we do know is that it is an exciting challenge.

I see our role as extremely important, absorbing and time-consuming. Nobody, professional or otherwise, should think that our European interest will be looked after solely by Oireachtas Éireann. It is up to all sections of the community to become interested in Europe and to make the proper kind of preparation. In tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department—I should like to thank them personally—I should like to say they did a great deal to create something of the questioning spirit, the awareness of the problems and the need for information at a time when nobody was listening. We have come so far and, once this legislation is through, I hope everybody will approach 1st January with the right spirit so that the implementation of this legislation will bring nothing but good for our people and country.

Mrs. Robinson

I am afraid I regard this European Communities Bill as a blow to democracy and, although I share many of the sentiments—and I will comment on some of his remarks—made by Senator Keery, this view that it is a blow to democracy rather than a model of parliamentary draftmanship has been reinforced by side effects such as the refusal by the Leader of the House to accept a motion put down by the Independent Members of this House and also by the failure of the Minister in coming into this House to have the copy of his Second Reading speech, a long, detailed and difficult speech, circulated to Members of the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

May I interrupt on a point of correction? We did not refuse to accept the motion. I suggested to the Senator that she could talk about the point on this Bill.

Mrs. Robinson

I think the distinction is a very fine one. If I am allowed to talk about it on the Bill, then why did the Leader of the House, when he wanted to get rid of some motions from the Order Paper, not agree to take the motion in the names of the various Senators? I asked him at the time if he considered that it was out of order and not appropriate for the Seanad to discuss. He did not agree with this view. Therefore, I cannot understand why he did not allow this motion to be taken with this Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I told the Senator why.

Mrs. Robinson

As I have said, I regard this Bill as a blow to democracy. It is fair to make reference to parliamentary activity in the British Isles not because we must necessarily do what Britain does but because it is relevant to view on a comparative basis what is done there. The European Communities Act, 1972, was regarded by parliamentarians of both sides of the House in Westminster as minimal, yet it contained 37 pages of detailed provisions which I shall compare with the Irish Bill both now and on the Committee Stage. The Irish Bill consists of two pages and five sections. It would be very difficult to be any briefer. Brevity, in this instance, goes in line with a lack of democratic control.

The first point I should like to make at this stage is that I particularly regret the way in which the Government have chosen to implement into Irish law the obligations of the European Communities because they have chosen to minimise the democratic control, debate and responsiveness to parliamentarians and therefore ultimately to the people. At the moment there are visible signs in the European Communities of a lack of institutional development.

This was particularly evident at the recent summit conference in Paris. It was hailed by the Taoiseach on his return after the conference on 19th and 20th October as a successful conference and summit from the point of view of European development because of the commitments which had been achieved. To some extent, it was a success for the various substantial commitments made in areas such as economic and monetary union, in the commitment to set up a European-based regional fund and in the commitment to give the Community a human face by emphasis on social policy and environmental policy. All of this was certainly a constructive contribution.

However, there was an absence of a parallel development of institutional control. In other words, there was an absence of democratic control of the various matters to be implemented. Therefore, the real fear for those in Ireland and in Europe who are concerned about democracy is that the very success of the progress of a substantial nature at the Paris summit may accentuate the lack of democracy in Europe. I should like to refer very briefly to the part of the Community document which refers to reinforcement of the institutions. The reference is a very vague one.

The Community institutions and, where appropriate, representatives of the Governments of Member States are invited to decide before the end of the first stage in the achievement of the economic and monetary union on the basis of the report which the Commission, pursuant to a resolution of 22nd March, 1971, is to submit before 1st May, 1973, on the measures relating to the distribution of competences and responsibilities among the Community institutions and Member States which are necessary to the proper functioning of an economic and monetary union.

There is a proposal to have a further summit in 1975 to consider this institutional development.

What in effect happened at the Paris summit—the Minister was part of the Government delegation to that summit and he is very well aware of and was party to this communiqué—is that the nine heads of state or governments committed themselves to Community action in very important substantial economic and social areas of activity which are political matters in each of the countries. They did so without providing for institutional democratic control in order to ensure that what was done was done in a way which could be debated either on the European level or on the national level.

What has happened is that in the areas where commitments have been made to move forward on the European level these matters have been taken out of national control, which up to now had been the stronger control through the national parliament, and given to the European level without the building up of European institutional democratic control to balance this development.

As someone who regards herself as a European and who has advocated Ireland's entry into Europe, I deplore the fact that the Government are prepared to allow the institutional structure to become more of a problem because the substantial commitments are far greater than they were prior to the Paris summit. It has been said that it was difficult for the three applicant countries, Britain, Denmark and Ireland, to insist on institutional reform before becoming members of the Community. I do not accept this as a strong argument because they have agreed to and been party to a decision to go ahead with economic and monetary union, to go ahead with the setting up of a regional fund on a European basis and the beginnings of a Community regional policy, to go ahead with industrial and environmental policies and to go ahead with a social policy. All of these are very important commitments of a substantial nature and the same attitude should have been taken towards institutional development.

I have already spoken on and have been quoted as making the point that the democratic processes in Ireland have also been shown to be inadequate for our membership of the European Communities. The national Parliament in the past year has not scrutinised sufficiently the activity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in travelling to Europe on various occasions in preparation for the Paris summit. The Opposition parties have not made their own views sufficiently well known on what was decided at the Paris summit and therefore there was no commitment by the Government here beforehand to argue for a strong institutional development and there was no accountability to the national Parliament here in a way which would have posed these issues. The Opposition parties seem to be prepared to allow the Government a monopoly in deciding the attitudes that Ireland would take at the summit and complete freedom from a critical appraisal of what was decided at the summit. This is regrettable.

At the European level there is a great weakness in institutional development. What we are doing at the national level, in this European Communities Bill, is weakening our national democratic control. I view this with great regret, particularly because it is contrary to the type of conclusions which were reached in the discussions of the Vedel Group—the Commission's working party on the problem of the enlargement of the powers of the European Parliament on which I had the pleasure of being chosen by the Commission as the Irish member of the group—which recommended various ways of strengthening the European Parliament in order to ensure democratic control and also strengthening the national control and the links between the national parliaments and the European Parliament.

I should like to refer very briefly to some very relevant parts of this report particularly to Chapter VI dealing with relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. Section 1, page 65, of the report, refers to the need for those relations and states:

Though differing in detail the democratic systems of the Member States of the Community are essentially the same. During the whole period of the construction of a democratic community the peoples of the Member States will continue to regard the national constitutional systems as the level where the basic democratic process takes place.

It goes on to suggest that direct elections may reinforce the parliament but that for the moment the real control and the strong democratic base is the national parliament. It should not see itself as a rival to the European Parliament but there must be a reinforcement of control at the national level and very strong links with the European Parliament.

The kind of reinforcement of control envisaged is the type of committee system Senator Keery advocated. I thoroughly agree with him on many of the points he made and I will deal with them in greater detail later. In section 3 of Chapter VI, at page 69, the Videl Group make special reference to the need for national parliaments to adapt to Europe. The heading of section 3 states: "Special Treatment to be given to European Problems within National Parliaments." It states:

In the National Parliaments there are, as yet, hardly any specialised bodies of procedures for dealing with European problems. Consideration should be given to setting up, within the National Parliaments, committees for European affairs which would have the task of co-ordinating the national parliamentary work relating to Europe. Naturally, these committees would have to include many members of the European Parliament. One of the advantages of this procedure would be that it would help to ensure that national legislation is not drawn up simply side by side with European legislative work and without any connection with that work.

It goes on to advocate the possibility of obtaining more information on what is being debated at the European Parliament, more co-ordination between the work of the national parliaments and the work of the European Parliament and a more active part by the national parliament in the institutional and the social development of Europe.

I believe the method the Irish Parliament has chosen to implement the obligations to date and future obligations of the Treaties is to minimise the role which the Irish Parliament can play in the construction of Europe. We have chosen the least democratic and the least responsive method of implementing the obligations under the treaty.

I should like to refer to the substance of the motion put down by a number of Independent Senators and which the Leader of the House assures me is relevant to the Second Reading of this Bill. They call on the Government to initiate the procedure for setting up a committee, under Article 138 of the Rome Treaty. I should like to refer to the wording of Articles 137 and 138 of the Rome Treaty in so far as they are relevant to the appointment of members to the European Parliament. Article 137 provides, and I quote from the English translation of the Rome Treaty:

The Assembly which shall consist of representatives of the peoples of the states brought together in the Community shall exercise the advisory and supervisory powers which are conferred upon it by this Treaty.

Article 138 provides:

The Assembly shall consist of delegates who shall be nominated by their respective parliaments from among their members, in accordance with the procedure laid down by each member state.

In other words, the representatives to the European Parliament are to be representatives of the people and this is wider than a concept purely of representatives of the political parties. It is also clearly stated in Article 138 that this will be a matter for the parliaments: not for one House of the parliaments.

It is widely believed, and there have been newspaper comments to this effect, that the decisions in relation to the choice of delegates to the European Parliament are taken by the committee of another House, in other words not of the Parliament, and that they are taken purely on the basis of the political parties. This is not in the spirit of the provisions of the Rome Treaty. It is necessary to set up a procedure under Article 138. In addition it is not in the spirit of the obligations of the Rome Treaty that the decisions will be taken privately and merely ratified in open committee. It is necessary to allow both Houses of the Parliament to consider the criteria on which the representatives of the European Parliament will be chosen and that the Seanad would not be disregarded in this process. This is one type of joint committee appointed to consider the delegates to the European Parliament. A more important joint committee, in the long run, is one to which the Minister made reference in his opening speech, that is, a permanent committee on European legislation to consider the draft proposals, the draft regulations and directives issuing from the European institutions.

In common with other Senators, I find myself greatly embarrassed at not having the text of what the Minister said. Perhaps I misunderstood what he said, but I had difficulty in understanding one or two points he made. For example, if I heard him correctly, he stated, in comparing the difference between regulations and directives, that the European Court has decided that certain directives are directly operative in the member countries. In other words, they are self-executing.

I find this very hard to believe. I do not know of any such case and it seems to be contrary to the express provisions of Article 189 of the treaty, where the regulations are self-executing and the directives are only binding as to their result. I agree with the Minister that many directives now are so phrased that there is nothing to do but confirm the result. Nevertheless, the point of principle is that directives are not directly applicable in the member states. If I have quoted the Minister correctly, then I would like him to give an example or to give the judgement of the Court of Justice where it was stated that a directive was directly applicable in member states. If he is not able to do this, then much of the argument he made in a debate in another place on the section of the Bill does not hold as much weight; there is a distinction, but the distinction is not maintained in the Bill, between the regulations and the Treaty provisions on the one hand, and then the directives and decisions of the institutions of the Community.

I digressed from the point I wanted to make about the joint committee of both Houses to which the Minister made reference. As I understand him, he said it would consist of the same number of members as the parliamentarians to be sent to the European Parliament, that is, ten parliamentarians to the European Parliament and ten members of this committee. He stated that this would be a joint committee of both Houses. For the record I should like to ask him if there will be an Independent member on this committee. I do so because there has been a tendency so far to exclude Independent Members of either House from participating in the procedure for nominating members to the European Parliament. I fear lest the same procedure may be used to eliminate Independents from the possibility of membership of this joint committee. This would be a great pity and also a novel approach, in that Independents have been accorded seats on various committees. I serve on the Committee on Statutory Instruments of this House; other Senators serve on committees, such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Is it now envisaged that we will not be allowed to participate constructively on joint committees of the Oireachtas?

I should now like to refer to the text of the European Communities Bill. It is a brief Bill but I have not the advantage of having the Minister's Second Reading speech in front of me, and I particularly regret this because the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill is deceptive. It looks bulky until you start to read it and then you realise that the memorandum is shorter than the Bill itself. In my view it consists of very lazy homework. It is lazy homework to list some secondary legislation of the European Communities, making it clear that this list is not purporting to be comprehensive but that these are some of the regulations and directives which will affect Ireland from January, 1973. It is even lazier homework to list in Appendix II the existing Irish legislation which will be affected by Community law. What is meant exactly by "which will be affected by Community law"? Even this list is not exhaustive because it involves perhaps too much real homework and too much genuine research to be comprehensive.

I should like to refer to various provisions under this second appendix in the memorandum, particularly on page 130. It states that the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts, 1953 and 1959, will be affected by entry to the Community. Why did we not choose the same type of approach that the British Act chose in explicitly writing into the statute the effect that this would have on the restrictive practices court in Britain? Similarly, in the next provision on page 130 in relation to the Companies Act, 1963, it is stated:

Provisions regarding the disclosure of accounts, etc., in certain cases...

will be affected by entry to the Community. This is a model of clarity and precise description of the effect that entry into the Community will have It is an incredibly lazy approach, without doing the homework and without allowing the Members of this House and of the other House to know what the effect of the regulations and the directives will be on entry into the Community. Again, I should like to refer parliamentarians who are interested in seeing how poorly we compare with the legislation of another parliament preparing for European entry to section 9 of the English Act in which a much more detailed approach was taken to the effect on company law, again a very important part of our legislation. I shall deal with this in more detail on Committee Stage.

On page 131 I am intrigued to find that the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 also will be affected by our entry into the Community and the part that will be affected will be because of "Treaty provisions on equal pay," according to the cryptic note beside it. Is it intended to consider only this aspect of the question of equal pay in Ireland, or is this part of an intention by the Government to change the many discriminations and provide for full equal pay? Is this to be done by a ministerial regulation which will be effective for six months before it can be challenged by the Oireachtas, and will this be done without considering——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is the Senator against equal pay?

Mrs. Robinson

No. I am querying the rather cryptic note in the appendix as being utterly meaningless, and no guide to parliamentarians. I wonder what is meant by it. I do not believe we are going to have a change in the whole area relating to equal pay by ministerial regulation under the European Communities Bill. I hope that is not what is meant, but it is vague enough for that to be the supposition.

The British Act has provided for the offence of committing perjury before the court of the Communities and has provided that this would be an offence which can be prosecuted in the British Isles. It has amended the Perjury Acts in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to that effect. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, in allowing the implementation of the obligations of the treaty and of the regulations and so on by ministerial regulation, no attempt will be made to create criminal offences in this way. In order to preserve what is left of our democratic control it is necessary to assert that it is for Parliament to decide what will be a criminal offence and if a matter is to be the subject of either fines or imprisonment. This is a matter for open debate before Parliament and I would hope that this will not be part of the general implementation of regulations either now or after we have joined the Community in January.

I want to ask the Minister whether the directives which are operating in the Community up to now and which we are under obligation to implement before January, 1973, have been actively considered by the various Departments, whether there are directives implementing this and whether we will be able to meet this obligation before 1973? I have tried, with the limited means at my disposal, to get some information on whether this backlog of Community legislation is going to be implemented before January and it seems to be impossible to get any information on this. I would welcome some details from the Minister as to the stage to which this has got and also if he would inform the Parliament of whether the directives, such as directives relating to company law, will be implemented before January, 1973.

I would like to leave the more detailed scrutiny of the sections of the Bill to the Committee Stage but again to express disappointment at the debate in the Dáil. In so far as I have read it, there did not appear to be willingness to consider amending this legislation in order to allow a possibility of control and a distinction to be made between the regulations which are directly part of our law from January, 1973, and directives which although binding on member states are not part of the domestic law unless implemented, so that more control and participation could be entered into in relation to the process of implementation and so that Parliament could be more directly involved in this. This was the intention of the drafters of the treaties when they made a distinction between regulations and directives. It was intended that the national parliaments would have more of a role in relation to the directives. It is hard to see how any joint committee which is specially appointed to review Community legislation can do so effectively under the type of implementing procedure we have in this Bill. Therefore I would hope that the Minister will leave his mind open to the possibility of amendment and that it will be possible for the Oireachtas to assert the importance of maintaining and reinforcing national democratic control, because this has not been maintained on the European level and, after the Paris summit, has, if anything, diminished, because the commitments are greater and there is no institutional control to parallel this development.

Mícheál Cranitch

Ar an gcéad dul síos tá sé de dhualgas orm traoslú don Aire as ucht a bheith tofa mar Choimisinéir that ceann an Stáit seo ins an Eoraip. Is fear maith é chuige agus tá iontaoibh as gach duine as. Gan dabht beidh sé thar bárr mar Choimisinéir agus beidh muintir na hÉireann buíoch dó agus guidhim fad saol dó ins na cúramaí móra atá roimhe.

We have heard some interesting points today in connection with this Bill. The people spoke loudly and clearly in the Referendum and now the day approaches when we will take our part fully as a State in the European Parliament and in the enlarged EEC. One of the things which was causing anxiety and concern to us Irish speakers during the last year or two, when movement towards integration with the EEC was mooted, was the position of the first official language under the new conditions. As we all know, we have a first and second official language in this country and both may be used. Our fears were modified by the booklet entitled The Accession of Ireland to the European Communities which was laid by the Government before each House of the Oireachtas in January, 1972, paragraph 30 of which states on page 83:

Irish is being recognised as an official language of the enlarged Communities. The languages of the other new Member States, Danish, English and Norwegian, will also be official languages together with the official languages of the present Community, namely, Dutch, French, German and Italian. The translation into Irish of all Community legislation both present and future would give rise to serious practical difficulties and it has, therefore, been agreed that Irish translations of secondary Community legislation will not be prepared. There will be an authentic Irish version of the Treaty of Accession and its related Acts, as well as authentic versions in the other official languages. Authentic Irish versions of the EEC and EURATOM Treaties have also been prepared and an official version of the ECSC Treaty, the text of which is authentic only in the French language.

On the 22nd October an advertisement appeared in the national papers as follows—

The Council of the European Communities in Brussels is organising a competitive examination with a view to drawing up a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators of English mother tongue standard at the initial grade of the administrative career bracket.

Duties include planning research and supervision in one of the following fields: economics, law, political and social matters, budgetary affairs and general administration.

Qualifications required

—a degree or equivalent professional experience;

—a thorough knowledge of English and a satisfactory knowledge of one of the following languages: Dutch, French, German or Italian;

—date of birth after 31 December, 1936.

There is then a paragraph dealing with the conditions offered, et cetera, and then we read:

For full conditions and application form, apply before 31 October, 1972, to:

General Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities,

Personnel Department,

Brussels,

Belguim.

That caused consternation among Irish speakers because from the terminology used two categories of persons of Irish nationality were immediately ruled out. That is those who were born and reared in the Gaeltacht and Irish-speaking families outside the Gaeltacht. We have many Irish-speaking families known as na Teaghlaí Gaelacha throughout all Ireland where the first language of the children is Irish and they become native speakers even though the majority of the community in which they live speak English. These two classes are automatically ruled out if "English mother tongue" means the first language a child hears in his own home. Comhdháil Naisiúnta na Gaeilge got in touch with the Minister and they also wrote to M. Le Directeur General in Brussels on 10th of this month as follows:

A Dhuine Uasail,

Is í Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge áisíneacht chomhordaithe na bpriomh-eagras Gaeilge, agus tá sí aitheanta dá réir ag pobal agus Rialtas na tíre seo.

Thar cheann eagrais chomhpháirteacha na Comhdhála táimse ag scríobh chugat d'fhonn fiosrú a dhéanamh faoi ghníomhaíocht seirbhísí eolais na gComhphobal in Éirinn ó 1 Eanair 1973 ar aghaidh.

Ós rud é go mbeidh an Ghaeilge ar cheann de theangacha oifigiúla na gComhphobal, tá an Chomhdháil ag súil go gcuirfidh seirbhísí eolais na gComhphobal raon iomlán dá gcuid chaipéisí ar fáil do lucht labhartha na Gaeilge, chomh tapaidh agus is féidir.

Measann an Chomhdháil go bhfuil tábhacht ar leith le h-ábhair maidir leis na Comhphobail a bheith ar fáil as Gaeilge do scoileanna Gaelacha, go h-áirithe na "dossiers pedagogiques". Tá mé cinnte go dtuigfidh tú go mbeadh sé ciotrúnta ó thaobh polaitíochta de dá ndéanfadh na Comhphobail neamháird de riachtanais lucht labhartha na Gaeilge tré cáipéisí a dháileadh in Éirinn sa teanga Bhéarla amháin.

B'ábhar buartha ar leith don Chomhdháil fógra a bheith foilsithe i nuachtáin na hÉireann ar an Domhnach 15 Deireadh Fómhair 1972 in ainm Choimisiúin na gComhphobal Eorpacha, ag lorg iarratas do cheapacháin mar clóscríobhaithe agus do luath clóscríobhaithe, ó "suitably qualified Irish citizens". Ar na cáilíochtaí a lorgaíodh, theastaigh eolas cruinn ar Bhéarla agus eolas sásúil ar aon cheann de theangacha oifigiúla eile na gComhphobal leathnaithe, seachas an Ghaeilge amháil. Ní hamháin nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge, (cheann de theangacha oifigiúla na gComhphobal leathnaithe agus príomh-theanga oifigiúil an Stáit seo) san áireamh i measc na roghanna atá ceadaithe do na h-iarrthóirí, ach tá an deallramh air nach bhfuil eolas ar Ghaeilge inglactha i measc cáilíochta inmhianaithe fiú, le haghaidh "saoránaigh Éireannacha le cáilíochtaí oiriúnacha".

Tá an Chomhdháil buartha chomh maith faoin dara fógra a foilsíodh i nuachtáin na hÉireann seachtain ina dhiaidh sin, an 22 Deireadh Fómhair 1972 in ainm Chomhairle na gComhphobal Eorpacha, maidir le hearcú Riarthóirí "of English mother tongue". Dar ndóigh tá na mílte Éireannach ann gurb í an Ghaeilge a máthairtheanga, ach mar sin féin dealráionn sé go ndéanfar leatrom orthu siúd, fiú amháin dá mbeadh Béarla agus teangacha eile de chuid na gComhphobal go líofa acu.

Tá an Chomhdháil ag braith air go gcuirfear na nithe seo i gceart.

Thairis sin is gá go mbeadh cainteóirí Gaeilge forstaithe ag oifig eolais na gComhphobal i mBaile Átha Cliath, go dtabharfaí aitheantas cothrom leis an mBéarla don Ghaeilge i bhfógarthaí poiblí, preasráitis, páipéar, litreacha na h-oifige etc., agus go ndéanfar deimhin de go dtabharfar stádas cuí don Ghaeilge i bhfoilseacháin oifigiúla uilig na h-oifige.

Ag tabhairt san áireamh, go bhfuil na Comhphobail, agus an Coimisiún go h-áirithe, faoi gheasa an idéil "aontacht san éagsúlacht", tá mé cinnte go nglacfaidh an Stiúrthóireacht le polasaí a shasóidh lucht labhartha na Gaeilge sna Chomhphobail.

Mar sin féin bhéinnse thar a bheith buíoch, d'fhonn amhras agus beaguchtach cuid áirithe de lucht labhartha na Gaeilge a scapaidh, dá gcuirfeá in iúl dúinne sa Chomhdháil cad é an polasaí teanga atá ar inntin ag an Stiúrthóireacht maidir le hÉireann, agus cad iad na céimeanna praiticiúla agá beartaithe agaibh d'fhonn an polasaí sin a chur i ngímh i 1973.

Is mise, le deá-dhúthracht,

Col. Eoghan Ó Néill,

Stiúrthóir.

Gan dabht tuigeann an chuid is mó dóibh annso cad é búnús nalitre sin.

Concern is expressed at the action of the Commission in its attitude towards our first official language. If we are to take our part as a nation in the European Community, it is absolutely essential that our first national language gets its rightful place. We all know the great work the Minister has done, we know the standing of the Government and we are all united in the ideal of the revival of our own language and its preservation. If we are not seen to be adamant in our attitude towards the status of our first national language in the EEC there is cause for alarm.

I ask the Minister when he is replying to the debate to let us know exactly what the position is. We understand our first national language is an official language. There may possibly be a mistake in this advertisement which appeared on the 22nd October last. Perhaps the Minister could find out if those people mean that native Irish speakers, and native Irish speakers in the teaghlaí Gaelacha in the English-speaking parts of this country are being deliberately prevented from applying for these positions. Many native Irish speakers from all parts of the country are fluent English speakers as well, and could be suitably qualified for these positions. Perhaps this advertisement was framed by somebody who did not realise exactly what the effect would be in the context of the language position in Ireland.

I should like the Minister to deal with these points when he is replying as otherwise there will be grave disappointment all over the country and as we are nearing the 1st January, 1973, people might ask is there more than a grain of truth in the saying —"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive."

Mr. McDonald

First of all, I should like to wish the Minister well in his new appointment and trust that his term of office will be a fruitful one. This debate has been an interesting one in that a number of important issues have been raised. The Bill before us has been criticised elsewhere. I would agree to section 1 of the Bill which is merely the definition section. Section 2 states:

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing the European Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.

This is a reasonable section. If we are to be a full member of the Community we should in all sincerity accept our full responsibilities and should adhere to the Community decisions and consider them binding. What worries many people are the very wide powers which the Minister seeks in section 3. Over the past few years there has been an increasing tendency for all Government Ministers to seek greater powers of legislation by regulations and ministerial order. Many parliamentarians object to this because it is difficult for them to know what the Ministers may have in mind. Legislation may be guided through Parliament by a Minister who may have a very clear set of ideas as to why he needs a particular piece of legislation but it does not follow that his successors will share his opinion. There is a danger to Parliament in having too much legislation by regulation or order.

Recently an attempt has been made to attach to ordinary circular letters the powers and importance attaching to ministerial orders and regulations. One case that comes to mind was in the Department of Local Government where they sought to change the car taxation system by means of a circular letter. When Ministers and Departments abuse the powers conferred on them by Parliament in this way there could be great room for misapprehension. When we look at the very wide powers which section 3 gives to the Government there could also be misapprehension. This section has not been amended even though there was an exhaustive debate on it. We have been told also of the vast amount of Community regulations and the regulations which emanate from the European institutions. If they come direct from the European institutions it is bad enough to have to accept them and put them into operation but if, in addition to that, the public are going to be beset with a particular Government Minister's slant on what these regulations are, this is going to place an intolerable burden on the people. I should like to see the Minister change his attitude on this section.

This country is taking a tremendous stride forward in joining the EEC on 1st January next. It is reasonable to expect that the Government should take this decision with their eyes open and in a spirit of co-operation, bringing the entire country with them. We must accept that all virtue is not deposited in any one group of individuals. I was happy to hear the Minister in his Second Reading speech mention the fact that it was proposed to set up a joint all-party committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to deal with European affairs. This is very important. We should have a committee with sufficient numbers so that they can divide up into a few sub-committees. In this way the sub-committees could apply their minds to the various areas in which their members have a special interest. I should like to see sub-committees dealing with agriculture, industry and commerce, regional planning and ecology. This is highly desirable. If, as has been suggested, the committee are only to be composed of 20 members—the ten Oireachtas Members who will be members of the European Parliament plus ten other Members of the House —a system should be devised whereby it would be possible for all Members of the Oireachtas to attend the meetings of this committee.

If something like this were arranged it would give every Member of the Oireachtas an opportunity to keep abreast of the regulations and business of the committee. This would at the same time give the committee the benefit of their views on the business in progress. We are told that the amount of business is large. Surely we should ask for the widest possible co-operation from all Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that we will get the best possible benefits from our decision to join the European Community.

The Seanad is ideally a vocational body and it should not be merely looked upon as being composed of members of two, three or more political parties. This is important. If provision for a sufficient number of Senators is not made on this proposed joint committee the members who represent the two constituencies of our universities might very well not have a voice on this committee.

Over the years I have been very interested in the manner in which the people from the University panel treat the different Bills. They do not have a political bias. The committee would benefit from having their expertise on the many technical problems which will arise. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that if he is considering a joint committee and if it is not possible to give every Member of the Oireachtas a hearing at the sessions of the proposed committee, it is imperative to include a representative from each of the Seanad panels.

Senator Keery in his contribution raised many interesting questions. I should like to ask what assistance the Members of the Oireachtas who are also Members of the European Parliament can expect after 1st January to make their work—here or on the Continent—more meaningful and a little easier. The Minister will be aware that the Members have very few facilities for research. It is very difficult for them, with their present allowances, to apply on their own for the positions being offered in the European Parliament.

On our visit to the Parliament last year it was interesting to observe the fast pace at which work progressed. Unless the Irish parliamentary representatives receive some kind of support in the clerical and research fields they will not come up to the standard of the European Parliament. It is very necessary that Members should address the Parliament with prepared scripts. There is a time limit of ten or 15 minutes, so it is necessary for our representatives to put forward the maximum number of weighted arguments in our country's favour. Surely the Minister and Government do not expect a Senator, if he opts to go to the European Parliament and be a full-time politician on £1,500 per annum — to engage for his personal use the technical or professional staff required to keep him on a par with his colleagues from the wealthier countries who have these political aids at their disposal. The Irish delegation will be hampered from the start if they do not get this assistance.

We will find that it is only the wealthy class who will be able to attend the European Parliament. I would prefer to stay at home rather than appear ill-equipped to carry out my duties. All our representatives would wish to be on an equal footing with their international colleagues. This we cannot expect to achieve unless we have the appropriate tools. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister, who has experienced the fast pace of work in Europe, to get a Government decision to ensure that the proper technical assistance and advice by way of aids will be made available to the Irish delegation at the European Parliament.

I should like to ask the Minister, on the question of a regional policy, when can we expect the Government to make some positive proposals. In 1969-70 we had what was known as Conservation Year. By any standards, this was a very successful campaign and was organised by the Department of Lands which also had the co-operation of the Board of Works and the other Departments whose work related to it. That year was very successful in focussing the attention of the public on conservation and its importance for this country. I very much regret that since then no legislation has been introduced to put any of the proposals into practice. No legislation has been enacted to safeguard the environment. People who have been to Europe will appreciate the fresh air which we enjoy in this country. While the rest of the world does very little to solve the pollution problem, we could make some positive contribution. Under the new regional policy we will be able to draw on the regional fund to aid our tourist industry and develop our regions. We have a number of regions in this country at the present time. In my own country we have several different regions in respect of health, tourism and planning and development. We should have a definite regional policy. It is through regional policies that we will be able to stimulate our economy.

I regret that the necessary legislation will come only second to the European decision. The Government should have forged ahead to resolve those problems so that we would not have to take whatever we were handed in Europe. According to the Paris summit the regional development fund must be set up before the end of 1973. I should like to ask the Minister if we are in a position to avail of and draw resources from that fund. We must press the Government to take action in this regard so that we will have our priorities right.

With regard to conservation of the environment, is the legislation which we were promised during the European Conservation Year in hand or are the Government going to sit back and wait for the European institutions to put through the legislation so that they will only have to implement the regulations and decisions of the European Parliament? We have many beautiful regions in this country which are completely free of and unspoiled by pollution. We should all like to see industrial development resulting from our regional policy but it must go hand in hand with conservation of the environment. I was glad to hear concern expressed some weeks ago when a proposition was put forward for the establishment of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay. We have ignored the problem of pollution for far too long and I hope that the Oireachtas will have full control in this area when we enter the EEC. While we may not have a grave problem at present with regard to pollution, as the years go by it will become an increasingly difficult problem to solve.

I should like to refer to section 4 (2) of the Bill. No mention is made in it of Seanad Éireann. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to substitute "Oireachtas Éireann" for "Dáil Éireann" or, alternatively, consider inserting a new subsection giving the same rights to this House. We should be afforded an opportunity of being consulted on these matters because this House contains Members who come from all walks of life. I believe this House is ideally suited for considering the various regulations or draft proposals. We should be afforded an opportunity of examining and discussing all regulations and we should insist that in section 4 (2) where "Dáil Éireann" is mentioned it should be amended to read "Oireachtas Éireann".

Mr. O'Higgins

"Oireachtas" would include the President.

Mr. McDonald

Perhaps it would be better to include the words "Seanad Éireann". The Minister might consider accepting an amendment to this effect on Committee Stage.

Mr. Crinion

In listening to the debate I have been surprised that nobody has complimented the Minister on the deal he completed on our terms of accession. In the cattle trade, in particular, we have seen the benefits of this deal. Tariffs were lifted when there was a shortage of beef in Europe and we are getting the benefits earlier than we anticipated. This shows the wisdom of the decision of the people in voting overwhelmingly in favour in the referendum.

While I am on the subject of agricultural prices I notice that one of the regulations states that prices will be based on market prices in the particular country. I hope when the Department analyse the average prices in the sales yards they will analyse them on five or six of the main cattle marts here. There is a better chance of getting an average price in the big marts. If we include the smaller marts, where there may be only a small number of cattle for sale and where there may be a number of buyers, it will result in inflated prices. In the larger marts where there would be an average of 2,000 or 3,000 cattle on sale on any day it would take a great number of buyers to inflate the prices. We would reach a more average price variation if we included some of the larger marts from all parts of the country.

This Bill gives power to the Minister to make regulations which the European Parliament will formulate. Both Houses of the Oireachtas will be obliged to pass such regulations within a year of their formulation. It is a compliment to our draftsmen that we were able to get this Bill into a reasonably brief form and still cover every aspect.

Senator Robinson cited another parliament whose legislation went into much greater detail. Why draft a Bill of 20 pages when one or two pages would suffice? Our draftsmen are quite capable because very few Acts are declared unconstitutional. I do not see why the legislation of another parliament should be quoted here. It is mostly the regulations of the European Parliament that are outlined in fairly brief form in the explanatory memorandum and it is just the headings that are given. When the regulations are drawn up, a circular should be issued to us in an abbreviated form, something like what we have here.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Mr. Crinion

Looking at some of the Community directives and orders which have been circulated with the Bill I would draw the Seanad's attention to regulation No. 63262 of 2nd April, 1963. It concerns the laying down of procedure for achieving freedom of establishment on agricultural holdings deserted for more than two years. Most of the land in Ireland has been cultivated in some form or another, except rocky land, which is usually used for rearing sheep. It does not arise that non-nationalists could come in here and buy our land. This is a regulation which is endorsed in our Bill.

There are a number of directives on page 42 dealing with motor vehicles and lorries. I should like to see car accessories being standardised. At the present time every car you get has different door handles and so on. They seem to be changing every year. Directive 311 of 8th June, 1970 is very important. It relates to the steering equipment on motor vehicles and trailers. I hope that heavy axle weights will not be imposed on lorries. There has been no direction here as yet, but in France it is 39 tons or 11 tons per axle, which could run up a heavy weight. I do not know whether our roads would take it or not. I presume our Commissioner will keep an eye on things like that. Heavy containers on the Continent are usually run at night. I would not like to be living within 100 yards of a main road while they are passing up and down at night carrying 30 to 40 tons. Any of the continental containers I have seen travelling on our roads travel at a high speed. I hope that there will not be a directive for too high a weight on lorries because there is a limit to what our roads would be able to take.

Directive 726166 deals with motor insurance. Anybody who has had a car on the continent will have found different rules and regulations regarding insurance and they should be standardised so that you would have the same coverage. There would be more danger of accidents with our right hand drivers and the left hand drivers on the Continent.

There may be some difficulties on the section dealing with the agriculture structure. It determines revenue from agricultural holdings. There may be difficulty in devising a fair method of phasing this. The Department should take an average cross-section of farming incomes. We usually hear about the farms which are doing well and relate them to the average farm.

There is a directive on animal feeding stuffs and I hope that future directives in relation to animal feed additives will ensure that such additions to food will be well tested. This is of the highest importance to farmers who fear the effects of certain ingredients may have on their stock.

As I mentioned at the start of my speech, nobody complimented the Minister on the deal he negotiated. The farmers are very satisfied with the sugar quota. When you go to the fair you look for more than you expect to get, and coming from County Clare I am sure the Minister understands this.

I should like to deal with the election of Members of the Oireachtas to the European Parliament. We should follow the example of the Dutch and have direct elections to the European Parliament. In both Houses of the Oireachtas the Members have more than enough to do. The pressure is building up as more Government regulations come in. This means people are waiting longer for benefits and they are coming more often to public representatives. So if Deputies and Senators have the responsibilities of the European Parliament heaped on to them nobody will want to take on the job. Deputies would be lessening their chances of being re-elected to the Dáil by being out of the country for long periods. There should be direct elections for members of the European Parliament. They should have no other responsibility and have all the necessary facilities for dealing with their duties.

The Houses of the Oireachtas would like to have a say in this Parliament. I do not know if they would have the right of audience but they should be able to sit in on a debate. As I have been saying, direct elections would be the obvious thing. Going into Europe is a momentous occasion and we have experienced some of the benefits since the referendum.

Professor Quinlan

At the outset it is pleasant to join with other Senators in congratulating the Minister on his appointment as Commissioner and offering him our best wishes. We will miss him here. We have always enjoyed his visits to the Seanad where he was prepared to meet the Members in open debate. We can recollect the many amendments the Minister conceded simply by straightforward presentation of the case. We all know he will bring the same qualities to bear in his new post in Brussels. We wish him God speed. We hope he will return to Ireland in the not too distant future. It is well to note that the regional policy has taken shape. It is fortunate for us that we are joining the European Communities at this stage. It is the hope of many that the Minister may be entrusted with the task of getting a regional policy going. If so, we will all feel very happy.

The Bill before us is a direct consequence of the referendum and the decision to join the European Communities. It was a very happy augury that the poll of 83 per cent showed that in all areas there was a strong majority for entry. Not one single group can claim that they have been dragged into this by the voting power of others. It is an example of people working together. I hope this attitude will continue in our efforts to play a part in Europe and, above all, to use our connection with Europe primarily for the development of our own country. The Bill is a short one. I do not share Senator Crinion's opinion that that is a great merit. I might suggest that it could be shortened to one sentence, according to Senator Crinion's logic—"That the Government shall have power to do whatever they like in this regard". One sentence would suffice.

Mr. Crinion

I would say the Minister would have no objection.

Professor Quinlan

It is difficult to approach it. The framework provided here is all right but I shall have some queries about the follow-up. Section 2 of the Bill is consequential on acceding to the Communities. We have got to accept the Treaties of Rome and Paris and the enactments that have been carried out under those treaties since they came into being. That is likely to impinge on us in the coming year.

A number of those directives may cause some hardship in certain areas. It will mean that people will have to get used to doing things somewhat differently than in the past. We know the reluctance of many people to change. We are now committed to this. This is what the people voted for on 10th May last. I only hope that in the coming year—which undoubtedly will be an election year—any hardships which arise under section 2 of this Bill will not be capitalised on by any group for party politics—either to claim the advantages flowing or more likely to blame the Government of the day for being responsible for whatever inconveniences may arise under section 2 of the Bill, by acceptance of all the directives and regulations which have taken place up to now.

The Government will have themselves to blame if the Opposition parties take this line in the coming year and make political capital out of these inconveniences. If the Government are not generous in their approach to other groups in involving them in the tasks of the EEC and in giving them their proper share in the work done, they cannot cavil if these groups blame them for whatever inconveniences are caused under section 2 of this Bill. I hope that will not be the case.

I am worried about section 3, which is giving the power to make regulations. It is perhaps necessary in that it deals with directives and the choice of the Government to take whichever course they consider best to carry them through. There is the alternative that most of these directives could be carried through by Acts of the Oireachtas. That would be a more democratic and acceptable way of doing things and would also ensure reasonable debate on whatever was at stake. I know we have got to strike a balance here. Some things would be proper for regulation and would not merit an Act of the Oireachtas. With the trend in recent years to government by order and by regulation, many of us will be very dissatisfied with the material that the Government will try to implement by order rather than facing up to a proper debate of both Houses of the Oireachtas and regular legislation. I appeal to the Government to see that as much scope as possible is availed of for using Acts of the Oireachtas rather than regulation under section 3.

We as legislators should be very much on our toes especially in the first couple of years to see that section 3 is not over-used and we must insist that sufficient Acts come through to enable us to have scope for reasonable debate on the developments as they proceed.

The answer to all these problems is the involvement of all national groups in the task of adjusting to membership of the EEC and to avail of the opportunities presented for the development of our country. This task calls for united effort. For us here, that means that the committee referred to by the Minister should be established without delay. The committee, as suggested by the Minister, will be based on the ten members of the European Parliament together with an equal number from the Dáil and Seanad. This is not enough. Such a committee would not properly involve the Dáil and Seanad in the work.

I should like to think that the involvement would include both Houses in the fullest sense. By this I do not mean both Houses meeting as committees, as that is obviously not the answer. This committee should operate through sub-committees. The members suggested would have their special interests in the work of the EEC, whether they are on the parliamentary, agricultural, transport or development of the monetary union sections. Each of the ten members selected from the House would either be a chairman or a deputy-chairman of a sub-committee of this committee. These sub-committees would have effective membership drawn from both Houses, small, effective committees, of the order of ten, 15 or at most 20 members. They would be members who had a real interest in the work concerned and were prepared to study the matter in detail, coupled with occasional visits to Europe to see developments there. These members would regard this work as their special task. We would hope to see parallel developments outside of the Oireachtas—that the farming, trade union and industrial organisations would have their parallel committees which would meet frequently with the corresponding Oireachtas sub-committees. This means, everybody would have an opportunity of contributing to the tasks ahead.

The development of a committee would serve to make our ten members in the European Parliament into a single unit. The idea of some members being in the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists and so on does not appeal to me. I would be insular enough to feel that, in going abroad we should be Irishmen first. We are only a small country and our main task is to develop it. The main contribution we can make to Europe is in developing our own country and in showing the many prize assets we have here and how they can be developed further. I should like to feel that this committee would keep our members together. If they are in different groups in Europe, it will perhaps be useful to know what is happening, but I hope we will command their first allegiance.

We must examine what is happening and see what the future unfolds. We must always take account of the fact that this is only an entrance stage in the development of the concept of a European Community; that the ultimate goal is to build—in the words of the Rome Treaty—"an ever closer union between European peoples". That is a very laudable objective. The peace and stability of the world will be greatly aided if it is attained. We can play our part in this task but we must realise that, if and when another stage is reached in the evolution of that prospect in ten or 15 years time with another treaty setting out defence, foreign affairs and other commitments, that treaty has to come back to the several national parliaments for ratification in accordance with their constitutional provisions. That means that the Irish people will again have to announce at that stage whether they accept this new treaty or not. If they do not accept we are out. If they accept we continue. Being an Independent, I feel we are in economically and we stand to gain a great deal in the next decade through our association. We can contribute a great deal to the thinking and the evolution of the European concept in that period. But at the end of that time we must look at how it has worked for our people and how the world has progressed in that period. I should like to feel that, armed with those facts, we will make a decision in ten to 15 years' time which will be based on what is good for this little island.

I do not think our participation is a vital factor. We are on the periphery. But we all have high hopes of what can be achieved in the next decade through this involvement. I hope we will still retain our critical faculties. The best contribution we can make is the development of this little country. We must plot our course to achieve this aim.

Mr. Sheldon

Like other Senators, I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on his appointment as a Commissioner. We are losing a Minister whose presence in the Seanad has always been welcome. He is one who has always conducted his business here as a good Parliamentarian, ready to listen without rancour to those who opposed him but not necessarily yielding from his own point of view. If I may introduce a third language and use a Latin tag, he has known how to combine the fortiter in re with the suaviter in modo. I should also like to congratulate Senator Keery on, if for nothing else, his enthusiasm. It is very pleasant to find a man who has devoted so much care and attention to his brief, and it is a pleasant task to find oneself in agreement with someone who has undertaken so much work in the preparation of his speech.

I should like to mention the joint committee with the European members. I would not go quite so far as Senator Quinlan, but I think that ten extra members is a little limited. There is, of course, a committee already established in the Seanad which deals with our own statutory instruments. It might well be used as a basis for the new committee. We could add to it Members of the Dáil and utilise Members of the Committee in the Seanad who are accustomed to dealing with statutory instruments and have them link with the members of the European Parliament. It will certainly take a bigger committee than the 20 the Minister is suggesting.

There is something to be said for Senator Quinlan's idea that the mass of work which will need to be done might well be divided between sub-committees. If the workload of this committee follows the course of the Statutory Instruments Committee they will find that, in effect, what they can usefully do tends to diminish. The more efficient they are, the less they will find in the way of trouble. This is true of the Statutory Instruments Committee but it may not be quite so true of the other committee.

Senator Keery rightly pointed out the large number of staff that will be needed. Even with the limited number of our statutory instruments compared to Europe, the physical work of reading through them to see if they conform with the parent statutes will be enormous. This work will be largely done by staff. But even when we are supported by our own staff in this matter there will be great difficulty in keeping up with the flow. We are going to be faced with all those instruments coming from Europe. I do not care how brilliant a parliamentary committee may be. Because of their nature they depend very much on being well served by a qualified staff who are permanently on the job.

I want to make another point in regard to the European Parliament. It has been referred to previously, but from my point of view this is one of the main features of the whole business and will, because of public and parliamentary pressures in the various countries, become increasingly important. I do not think that parliaments in the new Community will really be content with the present European Parliament or even with the rather tentative plans for its strengthening. They will demand a great deal more and it is important that they should if the public is to be continued to be carried along with the European idea.

It is very important that we should contribute everything we possibly can to it, even as it exists. It is a pity that our number is limited to ten. It is not easy to get a fair selection out of 204 Members of the Joint Houses which will reflect reasonably the various points of view. That difficulty has already arisen. I know it is hoped eventually to get direct elections and through them the membership for each country will be trebled; but when we think of the mechanics of electing even 30 people representing the whole country as a constituency it makes one pause and wonder. Almost anything could happen. It might be better to agree with some of our new neighbours that the longer this is put off the better. It might be an advantage if the European Parliament could be enlarged without going to that extreme, so that a country the size of ours could get a few more people on it. I understand there are 12 committees of reasonable importance in Europe. If we have only ten members they will have to do more work than they expect. Anyone seriously thinking of going forward for Europe must realise that it will not be a sinecure, leaving aside what will be happening at home while his back is turned.

I must confess that what has been done so far here, in relation to selecting Members, is disquieting. There seems to have been a minimum of recognition that there were two Houses. I understand that a process was started last week with a meeting of the party Whips in the other House. By courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach I was allowed into that meeting. No one else from the Seanad was present. The points of view I endeavoured to express did not get anywhere, for obvious reasons.

I believe this is an unfortunate start. It does nothing to improve relations between the Members of the two Houses. I understand that, eventually, nominations by each House by motion will be required but it is coming in rather late in the day. I believe more consultation should have been embarked upon in the earlier stages, particularly where there was the difficulty of selecting only ten people. It has been suggested that there should be a Joint Committee set up. First of all, I do not see any necessity, if that idea were accepted, for a new Joint Committee. The sensible thing would be, if there is to be a Joint Committee, that it should consist of the two Committee of Selection meeting together or the two Committees on Procedure and Privilege, whichever committees were considered more suitable. That would get over the question of consultation.

I would prefer an entirely different system. It is proposed that eventually there should be direct elections, which is the obviously pure democratic way of doing it, whatever reservations I might have as to what might happen in the pure mechanics and the kind of side issues which could crop up in such an election and which could have very little to do with Europe.

In the meantime, we ought to do it by direct election of the Members of the two Houses in much the same way as the Members of the Seanad used be elected, in which the Members of the two Houses had a vote under proportional representation. That system produced excellent results, judging by Senators who were elected then. It would have the virtue that everyone was in.

I think certain restrictions should apply. First of all, no one should be accepted as a candidate unless he gives a prior undertaking that he really is interested and will work. You would not want to elect someone who would say: "I could not care less". Secondly, the old system by which every candidate required four nominators from the Houses would be a good way to prevent a possible freak candidate. It is difficult to get four people stupid enough to propose somebody who is obviously unacceptable. I say that with a certain amount of reservation.

I wish to refer to another point which would be of importance, but one which I know would not be popular with some of my colleagues. If this type of system were adopted, another restriction should be placed on candidates: no one should be allowed to go forward as a candidate unless he or she has five years' parliamentary experience in one House or the other. This would ensure that under normal circumstances anyone who would then be accepted as a candidate would have had two elections. It would not matter so much about the two elections, but they would have cut their wisdom teeth as parliamentarians. It has been my experience over 29 years in both Houses that a great many potentially good parliamentarians got spoilt from the start by jumping off the deep end. They did not wait to find out exactly what being a parliamentarian meant before they rushed in. A number of very able men, who got into office much too soon after having been elected, have littered the byways.

Parliament is a funny place in the sense that there is a great deal more to it than might appear to the casual observer. To be a good parliamentarian does not necessarily mean being a good politician. If I may say so, the Minister is a perfect example of a good parliamentarian. He appreciates that he has his job to do in getting his Bills through the Oireachtas and he goes about it in the right way: he gets his own way but he does it in the nicest possible way. This is the sort of thing that I consider to be the mark of a good parliamentarian. It is not acquired overnight. Therefore, it would not be too much to suggest that people should have some experience at home before they venture on the European stage. If they are inclined to make mistakes I would prefer them to be made locally rather than under the glare of Europe. I think that five years, say, would be a fair time in which people might prove themselves. In addition, apart from acquiring parliamentary wisdom, by this time their fellow-parliamentarians would have a more shrewd idea as to just what their capabilities were. It is not unknown in politics for people to go up like a rocket and come down like a stick. It is going to be very important that we cut a good figure in Europe. As Senator Quinlan has said, not only is it a function to keep our own end up and think of our own country, but we have something to offer Europe.

In conclusion, there are people who are worried about our entry into Europe generally, even more so than was shown in the referendum. They are worried that this will mean a diminution of Irish nationality; that our individuality will become merged in this Europe and that we will lose something. Politically speaking, this is probably true. If one really believes in a united states of Europe, as I do, it is inevitable and a good thing. I do not think that it does any harm to the various states in the United States of America to be united in one country. California has not lost anything of its differences from Minnesota or anywhere else through being united politically. I am not afraid that by becoming united politically in Europe we shall lose what really matters: our own special culture and our own special way of looking at things, apart from politics. This is what I think constitutes a nation—not its political system half as much as its essential culture.

For example, consider America or the countries of Europe, such as Italy, which have come together only recently. I do not think that the various parts of Italy have lost anything of their traditional culture through having become politically united. I am not afraid of the future in the sense that we shall lose our essential qualities. The fact that you lose some political initiative does not really matter in the long run. A united and strong Europe is very much more important.

Mr. Russell

First, I should like to join with other Senators in congratulating the Minister, Deputy Hillery, on his appointment to Brussels and to wish him every possible success there. I am sure he will be a worthy representative of this country. His presence will be missed in the Houses of the Oireachtas, principally in the Dáil and to a lesser extent in the Seanad, and I suppose to an unknown degree in the Lahinch Golf Club.

This Bill is unique in many ways. It is so not because of its size, being a very brief Bill, but because it brings to an end our endeavours to secure our place as a member of the European Economic Community which has been in existence now for over 11 years. People seem to forget that. The first time the decision was made to apply for membership of the Community was in 1961, more than 11 years ago. It lapsed in the interim, largely due to the influence of a French gentleman who has since gone to his eternal reward. The intention and the wish of the Irish people to become a part of Europe never flagged in the interim. That feeling was demonstrated in no uncertain manner in the recent referendum when a very representative cross-section of the Irish people—no particular section, class or creed but every section— voted by a majority of four to one to enter into Europe. They did so because the campaign that was mounted on behalf of our entry into Europe was generally an honest one.

I remember speaking here in the Seanad some weeks before the compaign was opened, when I advised the Minister—I do not know what right I had to advise him or the Government; but I was expressing my views—that if they were honest with the people and told them the facts about entry into Europe, they would get an overwhelming majority. They got that majority. The Minister may recall that there was a tendency to overpaint the picture, to some degree at least. Perhaps that is understandable in politics and in public life but, by and large, a fair case was made. To me, as one public representative who has supported it during the last 11 years, it was an answer to those who were either too timid or too reluctant to take on the challenge of Europe. It was a great tribute to those who had the courage, the foresight and the wish to join Europe, notwithstanding the difficulties that will undoubtedly emerge.

This Bill is like the final curtain to a play that has been going on for 11 or 12 years. On reading it through quickly, it is quite an innocuous Bill but in enacting it we, in the two Houses of the Oireachtas, are accepting the realities of the situation. First of all, we are accepting the fact that there must be a diminution of our sovereignty to quite a marked degree. In doing that we must remember that other nations are making the same sacrifice for the common good and that we believe in doing this, by sinking our differences and joining with other nations in western Europe, we are doing so for the good of all peoples in all countries. That would be the wish of the authors of the EEC. This would be the sort of thinking that would actuate the peoples in the various countries of Europe, particularly the new members like ourselves who are coming along to contribute, as we can do in our own unique way, to European civilisation as we have done over the past centuries.

Another unusual feature of this Bill is the explanatory memorandum which accompanies it. The actual explanation only takes about one-and-a-half pages and there are 129 pages setting out the various secondary enactments of the Community. I suppose it is the only way to do it. The last four or five pages will probably be of more interest to the people of this country. They contain an indication of what effects the laws of the Community will have on enactments passed by successive Irish Governments in the fields of agriculture, land finance, commerce, transport, justice, et cetera. They are the really significant pages. These are the fields in which we have decided to limit our sovereignty and in which we have decided to give away something for the general good. We cannot expect to have only gains out of Europe and give nothing. The Irish people are broadminded and mature enough to appreciate that and to realise that the only hope of mutual success is by mutual sacrifice.

It is a challenge, but we are going to get something out of it. I was encouraged recently at the re-election of Herr Willi Brandt as Chancellor of the German Federal Republic. He has laid it on the line that he is committed to improving the lot of underprivileged people. I am sure that our representatives on the various institutions of the Community will give him and his representatives full support in doing everything they can to help the less fortunate, particularly those in the regions of Europe that have fallen behind in the general progress towards prosperity and affluence over the past 20 or 25 years.

We also have regional problems in this country. I am sure that our ten Irish representatives on the Council of Europe and the Minister himself will as one of their prime aims, advance the regional programme of the Community and ensure that the disparity in wealth, influence and affluence will be made up in the years ahead.

We must accept the greater part of this Bill. Most of the enactments of the Community are obligatory on us. We are obliged to accept these directives. There is a very small field left in which we have a certain freedom of action and the Dáil and Seanad are trying to ensure that within these narrow limits every possible effort will be made to ensure that the Parliament in this country is supreme, that we are not giving away anything to an outside authority or, indeed, that we are giving no additional power to a Minister of the present or any future Government. The Dáil did its best to ensure, as far as it could, that it restricted the power of Ministers to make regulations until such time as it had had an opportunity of considering these, The Minister has gone some of the way to meet the objections that were raised in the Dáil: he has shortened from two years to six months the period during which, if an Act is not passed, it fails to become law. That is a step in the right direction.

The Minister also accepted the proposals from the Opposition that a committee should be set up. This committee has been discussed at considerable length by various Senators tonight. It was suggested that the committee is too small. I can see the point of having a number of sub-committees, but I have found small committees to be the most effective ones. Big committees tend to get bogged down in detail and are slow to produce any results, unless they form sub-committees. What is more important is the content of the committee. I would like to support what Senator Sheldon said on that.

It is essential that our representatives in Europe, whether they are Members of the Dáil and Seanad or civil servants, should be of the highest calibre, and even though it means sacrifices—political sacrifices—there should be no question whatever but that the people we send out to represent this small country must be the best. Nothing else will do. It is particularly essential for this small country to have the best people to support it, otherwise there will be a danger that in the huge institutions of the Community our voice may go unheeded. Our voice will not be heeded if it is not effective. I am more concerned about the quality of the Committee which the Minister has agreed to set up than about the number of people on it. I should like to seen it chaired by a Minister. I think the new Minister for Foreign Affairs should be the chairman. It would give status to the committee and would involve, through a Minister's presence, the ordinary members of the committee in a greater way with Europe.

I regret the Minister did not see his way to accepting a proposal in the Dáil that less than a simple majority of the Members of Dáil Éireann, by notice in writing, could request the Ceann Comhairle to re-assemble the Dáil. The majority, which is 73 Deputies, is a substantial number. It is possible to have 50 or 60 Members anxious to recall the Dáil for good reasons and because they lack ten in number they could not do so. I should like to see that number reduced, as the majority is too great. If there were 50 Members or two-fifths who feel strongly enough they should not be prevented from recalling the Dáil. The majority figure is too high and this may become higher if what we hear about the division of the constituencies is true. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment in that regard.

Membership of the EEC will bring great opportunities for this country and will bring many challenges to our way of life and to our existing institutions, political, social, cultural, educational and judicial. Some of our institutions need a challenge if they are to survive and prosper in the context of Europe. As Senator Cranitch stated, we have other institutions which mark us as a separate and distinct people, such as our language, culture and all the traditions of a small western civilisation. These will need continued protection if they are to survive in a community of 260 million people with the vast bureaucratic structure and powerful institutions far removed from the small towns and parishes of this country. One way of ensuring that these mighty institutions of the Community will be the servants and not the masters of the people will be the direct election of the members of the Council of Europe by the votes of the people. Our delegate should press for this development at the earliest possible date.

Senator Sheldon commented on the difficulties of electing TDs or MPs or Deputies for a parliament representing 260 million people. We should not be awed at the size of this. The United States has a population of 210 million people and they manage effectively to elect their Congress and Senate. I should imagine the elections would take place on some form of regional basis. The Parliament of Europe should be enlarged to give us an opportunity—particularly with a bias towards the smaller countries—to elect, say, 20 members. That would make a significant difference and our representatives in Europe should press for something to be done in this regard. Ten extra delegates will not mean much to a country like Germany or Great Britain but to a tiny country like ours it would make a big difference. It would help to bring more people into participation in Europe.

This is the closing scene on our entry into Europe and I hope, with other Senators, that it will fulfill our hopes and mean a new way of life. I am certain that within the context of the new Europe a solution will be found for some of the very serious and worrying problems nearer to home and that in the wider context of Europe our people, North and South, will find common ground which will lead to the reunification of this small country by peaceful means.

Mr. Nash

May I be permitted to join in paying my humble tribute to the Minister for the herculean task he has performed over the past few years? It makes one shudder to think that one person could have done so much by industry, tact, patience and effort. Throughout, he was swimming against the tide of emotiveness. For only half a century we have enjoyed sovereignty. The Minister had to establish, by irrefutable logic, that it would be to our advantage to forfeit some of that sovereignty. The Minister had also to establish that we could do so without diminishing our pride. He did this so effectively that more than 80 per cent of the people voted in favour of our entry to EEC in the referendum. This happened, despite a massive attack which was mounted against it. We are all very proud of the Minister and I have no doubt that representing us for the future, outside the Government, in Europe we will continue to be proud of him. I wish him very many years of equal success there.

The EEC will set up within itself a framework under the umbrella of which a large number of countries can improve conditions for each and all on social, economic, environmental and health bases. These are the things which are the light and existence of all.

More than four out of five Irish people have expressed the wish to join that Community and accept all the current existing obligations which are entailed in our joining it. If regulations are made which are deemed to be for the benefit of all the members of the Community we cannot say: "This regulations pinches us slightly but some other regulations is in our favour and we will only have what suits us". When you join any organisation you must in honour, if not in law, abide by the spirit and the letter of its rules, regulations and obligations. This Bill gives legislative effect to that and no more. It states our obligation in honour, in justice to the other members, in justice to ourselves and to our own sense of pride. It was scarcely generous to suggest, in the Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated with this Bill that somebody had not done his homework. This was particularly ungenerous coming from a lawyer who appreciated the circumstances and the conditions. Fault was found in the list of secondary legislation of the European Communities which was added in Appendix I. It was stated that the list was intended as a guide to the secondary legislation and does not purport to be definitive or exhaustive. Any lawyer knows that a regulation may affect something either directly or indirectly. It may affect it closely or only very remotely. No one could possibly say what indirect or very remote effects some regulation in existence might have, if not at the present time, at least in the future. If Appendix I had been published on the basis that it was complete and if at sometime in the future it was felt that there was a remote connection of some kind or other between some regulation in existence and its effect on us, it would be open to say we were misled in the House or to say that the Minister or the Department misled us. I regret very much in the course of a serious debate that recourse was had to such an argument.

Professor Kelly

It is not fair of the Senator to say it was ungenerous. It was simply pointing out the simple fact, as the Senator says, that it is not possible to foresee these things.

Mr. Nash

It was not said it was not possible. That is not how it was presented in the course of the debate. The Bill is a very short one. Again, having recourse to emotive arguments, we have heard that it is a pity that it is not very much longer. Let us look at the Bill as it stands. The first section is simply the definition section of the Bill. There are five sections. The last section gives the name of the Bill, so we can forget those two sections. The three important sections are sections 2, 3 and 4. Section 2 says nothing whatsoever other than what everybody knows and understands to be the effect of joining the Common Market. It simply gives legal effect to what 83 per cent of the Irish people decided. It gives effect to it in the simplest words. It reads as follows:

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing the European Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.

The people decided that, even if those regulations impinge on our Constitution, that in so far as our Constitution was in conflict with them, to that extent our Constitution would for the future be amended. This likewise applied to our legislation. In so far as our existing or future legislation impinges on regulations which are made for the common good of us and of the other members of the Community. to that extent only, they are ineffective.

It has been suggested also that, where it became necessary to have a regulation to fall into line with directives, this should not be done by ministerial order but by an Act of the Oireachtas. Progress, whether socially, economically or environmentally, is fluid. All those things are fluid and, if we are to advance, they must continue to be fluid.

Professor Kelly

Article 44.

Mr. Nash

What is deemed best yesterday is not necessarily considered as best today. What is deemed best today is not necessarily considered as good tomorrow. When all the Communities have met, have considered, have discussed in committee, have discussed elsewhere and have come to a conclusion that some particular thing is good for the Community at large and for all its members and that it is something to which effect should be given and must be given indubitably, it would be the essence of futility to suggest that in those circumstances all pending legislation in both Houses of the Oireachtas should come to a halt, and that such a regulation would have to come before the Dáil and Seanad in the form of a Bill to be debated and to have amendments on it. It would be doubly futile in that in any event the regulation would be binding on us. It was suggested that it weakens our national democratic control. It is completely unjust to suggest that our national democratic control is weakened because effect is given to these regulations of the Community by a ministerial order.

We have at the moment between 300 and 400 statutory orders made by ministerial act without reference to either House of the Oireachtas under the umbrellas of existing statutes. Those orders were made. They are laid before the Houses for 21 days. Unless there is a motion in either House of the Oireachtas revoking them within the 21 days, they become law. It is quite possible, and can easily happen, that nobody will notice them for the 21 days and thereby they become law. What happens then is that the order is made by the Minister. It immediately has effect, as it must have if we are to have any active part in the European Economic Community. Its effect terminates and it becomes null and void unless it is debated, and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas within six months.

On the basis of the regulations up to the moment we are told that there will be approximately 20 such orders. Effect has to be given to those within six months. We can, therefore, assume that the Dáil and the Seanad will have to discuss some one or more of those regulations on average about every four months. This means that every four months both Houses of the Oireachtas will have the opportunity to have a full, frank and open debate on the regulations. They can then decide whether these regulations greatly interfere with us or if they are to our disadvantage.

The only freedom given to the Minister in the matter is that in section 3, subsection (2):

Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister making the regulations to be necessary....

That is the only discretion he has. They are binding on us anyway but he has a certain discretion—that if it appears to him to be necessary that these regulations should contain something incidental, supplementary or consequential he can make the necessary provision. If he should over-reach his discretion, the House on average will have an opportunity within three to four months of discussing it and bringing him to book. I believe this is an adequate safeguard for any House to have. To suggest that in those circumstances our national, democratic control is weakened is without the slightest foundation in fact.

Reference has already been made to section 4, the right to recall the Dáil. On average, every four months both Houses of the Oireachtas will have an opportunity of discussing the European Community and everything germane to it. If something should arise, say, during the summer recess, and Members of the House feel so strongly about it—that they consider the Minister has abused his powers and his authority, that he has abused his discretion and made a regulation which he considers essential because it is incidental supplementary or consequential—they can recall the House to have it discussed. To ensure that this is not done simply by somebody with a sore head, surely it is not unreasonable in all the circumstances, and having regard to all the background, that it would require a majority of the Dáil.

Somebody asked why not recall the Seanad? Why not? The Leader of the Seanad at any time, on petition—subject to correction—may direct the Cathaoirleach to recall the Seanad. If a number of Senators feel so strongly about it and are logical in their request it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the Leader of the Seanad would in these circumstances be prepared to recall the Seanad if there was any reason to think that a Minister had abused his discretion to that extent.

We have talked a great deal about what we will get out of the European Community: we would want to give much more thought to what we will give to the European Community. We have considered at great length what we will get out of the European Community by way of economic advantage. No doubt, we can again a great deal also by learning from them some improvements in economic principles. We can possibly learn much from them also in regard to improvements in our social principles and social philosophy.

We, too, should be prepared to contribute from our culture. We have many things of which other nations could and would be proud. We should be at this stage considering what we propose to give to the Community. Can we make our mark on the Community? Many a boy in school boasts because he was in a well-known public school. The boy that should really be proud is the boy who has been able to make his mark on his school, not the boy whose school has left its mark on him. We may be small; we may not have great economic advantages but there are many ways in which we could, and I hope we will, make our imprint on the Community. In that regard, we are fortunate in having as our first represenatives on this Community our present Minister for Foreign Affairs. As I began I will finish, by wishing him every success in that position. We should be proud of his efforts and I have no doubt that he will give of his best for the good of this country.

Professor Jessop

I should like to echo what Senator Nash has just said in congratulating the Minister on his new role. It gives me very great personal pleasure to see him in this position. I wish him success in this new venture. We shall miss him here. Everyone who has spoken so far has said that. We shall miss his modesty, his integrity and his constructive approach to everything and the courtesy with which he has invariably treated this House.

I welcome this debate because it has brought so many points into the open. They have been covered very well by the various Senators who have taken part. There is only one of these points to which I should like to refer now and that is the suggestion that perhaps in the working out of the arrangements with the European Community in the future, the Seanad will somehow be in an inferior position as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Having looked at the Bill and at the Minister's references to it in his opening remarks, I do not think this is intended or that we shall be in that position. Everything that is enacted by Parliaments in this country must come before the Seanad. The fact that it originates in the Dáil, as does most of our legislation, does not worry me in the slighest. We will have to pass it here in any case and that is what the Minister meant when he referred to this in his speech. It is certainly the meaning I take out of section 4 of this Bill.

The Bill is commendably short and clear. It is so short and clear that if it were taken at its face value there would be a very pleasant sense of understanding everything and all its implications. One is shaken out of any sense of complacency in this regard when one looks at the explanatory memorandum. The memorandum itself is short and clear but Appendices I and II occupy 126 pages of material which is neither short nor clear. They cover nearly every aspect of human activity in these countries. It is a very impressive list of enactments which we shall take on, apparently as soon as we enter the Common Market.

There will be in the future, the Minister has said, at an "educated guess" about 20 of these enactments each year to consider. In appendix I of the explanatory memorandum there are about 2,000 enactments. A few of them were enacted in the fifties but the great majority of them were enacted during the last ten years. This works out at a rate of about 200 a year. I do not know how the Minister boils that figure down to 20 or what degree of educational expertise is required for the calculation. Presumably, at the beginning there was a great rash of them but there is a big difference between 20 and 200.

They cover nearly every aspect of life expect the two subjects I am interested in, namely health and education. Section 19 deals with animal health and section 35 deals with plant health but there is no section at all on human health and there is no section on education. Perhaps the latter subject is a little difficult because of discrepancies in educational procedures in different countries. It will take some time to work out a common procedure in that field.

We are repealing certain parts of our Health Acts here—at least we are acknowledging that certain aspects of the Health Acts, 1947-1970, will be influenced by regulations now in force in the Community. Other than indirectly in relation to the food we eat, there is no reference to human health in these regulations. The regulations about food regulations are very impressive indeed. There is quite a long section on additives and preservatives in food. This is acknowledged by everybody connected with food processing to be the most difficult of all areas in relation to food because there are so many different opinions about which additives are satisfactory as far as human health is concerned and which are unsatisfactory. They differ about which colouring materials may be used and which colouring material should not be used. The colouring material that is regarded as all right to day is carcinogenic tomorrow.

The food regulations cover almost everything, but most of them deal not with the health aspects of food but with the economic aspects and, consequently, the implications for health are not quite as prominent as I should have liked. There is one item in section 19 regarding a list of veterinary experts, but there is nothing about a regulation list of experts in human diseases. If there was such a regulation I wonder how it would be drafted? I think I asked the Minister before in this House what are we going to do when we try to equate the level of medical practice and so on between this country and the EEC countries.

The Minister's reference to the question of a committee is very interesting and very important. The committee of 20, the ten representatives on the Commission and the ten people added to it, will be from the Houses of the Oireachtas. Their particular function is to educate the rest of us about what is going on. If the regulations that are to be enacted are as complicated, as detailed and as technical as those listed in the appendix to the explanatory memorandum are I do not think this committee can cope with all aspects of future regulations and directives. I think we will have to set up a system rather than a committee. The Minister will have to think in terms of a series of committees with a specifically arranged structure. I would imagine that each area will have to have a committee which will have to be composed of civil servants from the Government Department concerned, experts from perhaps university departments who can advise on recent work on the topic under consideration and one or two Members of the Oireachtas who can sit in with those people and be helped by them to digest the material under consideration so that they can come and explain it, in an informed way, to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

As an example, if I sit on a committee to consider a directive "on the marketing of silvicultural propagation material" (Directive 66/404 of 14th June 1966)—I could not envisage myself as understanding it sufficiently to discuss it with other Members of the Oireachtas—it would put me in a better position to explain it to someone else. We have to set up the machinery but I am convinced that a committee of 20 people, all of whom are Members of the Houses, will not achieve very much. I should like to finish my contribution by again congratulating the Minister and wishing him well in his new job.

Dr. West

I also should like to add my voice to those of Senators on all sides of the House who have congratulated the Minister on the work he has done in negotiating the agreements. I wish him continued success in his new post as Commissioner.

I should like to refer to some of the points already raised in the debate. We have to deal with legislation in this way and we cannot take the items individually. We need blanket legislation such as this and it is up to the Members of the House to pick out the aspects which affect this country in a particular way. To do this the committee, which the Minister has suggested, of 20 Members from both Houses of the Oireachtas, including the ten European representatives, will need a great deal of back-up work. It will need to split up into subcommittees. The regulations are so voluminous and the items involved are so complex that no one person could deal with more than one or two areas of legislation. Therefore, subcommittees of the general committee will be needed to deal with the individual areas.

I have an interest in the section dealing with transport policy. I am interested in the regulations, the decisions and directives contained in it. Whereas the explanatory memorandum to the Bill devotes three and a half pages to transport, the European Community's secondary legislation has 300 pages of regulations, directives and decisions. The ideas Senator Jessop suggested are designed to give a chance to get a grip of one particular area and deal with the legislation in that field.

When we are choosing Members for the European Parliament from the Houses of the Oireachtas, this House should be consulted in the appropriate way. When one considers that in this House there are 60 Members out of a total of 204, I hope that the Seanad will be represented in the team which we send forward to Europe. There appears to have been some misunderstanding, from reading press reports, that the Dáil would have the monopoly in the choice of these representatives. I hope that this House will play the role it should in sending members to the European Parliament and that it will be consulted in the way it should, as the Upper House.

I should like to mention three areas in which the Minister as Commissioner —who, of course, is neutral—will have a special interest and to which I hope our team will make special contributions. One of these areas arises from the fact that in many parts of the policy which will be considered in Europe the case which Northern Ireland will wish to make will be much more similar to the case which we will be making than that made by the United Kingdom. I hope that our team in Brussels will take every opportunity to make real contributions to Northern Ireland's position in the EEC. I know that there will be many items of common interest and many ways in which we can help our fellow-Irishmen and I hope that our team will be geared to doing this as often as possible. I am sure that in Brussels we shall be seeking to put forward the EEC ideas on regional policy. We should do everything possible to see that the benefits which would accrue from this policy come to both parts of this island, North and South, which so obviously need regional support. In fact, they need more than regional support: they need regional involvement in a big way in the making of legislation.

In addition, our team in Brussels should pay particular attention to something for which this country can be justifiably proud. That is its involvement with the Third World and with many parts of the world which are now no longer classified as the Third World, in our missionary efforts since the earliest Christian times. This missionary spirit takes many different forms nowadays. One does not need be in holy orders any longer to consider oneself a missionary and to go and work in areas less privileged than those in which one was brought up.

In this country we have never been able to contribute a great deal in terms of finance to the underdeveloped countries, but we have done a great deal in terms of manpower. We have done many things which we should be proud to remember and I hope we shall continue to do so. One of the ways in which we can forward this work is by encouraging our representatives in the European Parliament and in the decision-making areas in Brussels and Strasbourg to ensure that the Community's relationship with the Third World is not lost in a welter of inter-Community legislation. They should also ensure that the Community develops meaningful ways of helping the less well-off countries and that our efforts in this direction can be forwarded and our experience in helping these countries can be used and can be set up as an example to the EEC.

I myself have been very pleased to have been involved with a group of people who laid some proposals before the Department to set up an Irish voluntary overseas service. These sort of ideas can be developed in the way in which we have done traditionally and our experience in this area can provide an example to the rest of the Community. They will be found worth pursuing and will make the Community into an outward-looking body by cementing its position vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and particularly the Third World.

I hope that by pursuing these activities the presence of our team in Brussels and our involvement with the Community will not just mean economic benefits for this part of the country. I hope it will mean that many spiritual and cultural benefits will accrue to us in our attempts to live in peace and harmony on this island and with our neighbouring countries. I will conclude by wishing the Minister every success in his very onerous role as European Commissioner.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I would not wish to subtract from the congratulations to the Minister by choosing to speak at this moment and thereby, unfortunately for him, extending the debate to another day. I wish to congratulate him and to wish him well in the position he is to occupy and in the performance of the duties attached to that position. It is very interesting to reflect on the ideological background to the Common Market.

Debate adjourned.