I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the report: Developments in the European Communities—First Report.
Developments in the European Communities: Motion.
First of all I should like to say how pleased I am to be back in the House where I started my political career in a somewhat different capacity. Secondly, I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be present here several weeks ago when the European Communities (Regulations) Bill was being discussed. I was sorry to have missed that debate, which was a very constructive one. I hope in my concluding remarks to refer to some points raised there and to the attitude of the Government on the points raised.
Senators are aware of the provision in section 5 of the European Communities Act under which the Government are obliged to report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the Communities. This is the first such report. The last time that an opportunity was given for Ireland's interest in the activities of the Communities to be considered in this House in a comprehensive manner—apart from the debate on the passage of the European Communities Act—was on the occasion of the debate on the White Paper on Accession to the Communities. This covered developments in the Communities up to the time of signature of the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January, 1972.
It was thought well in this first report to cover developments in the Communities from then up to 15th May of this year, which was the most recent possible date. The first report is for this reason longer than subsequent reports may be expected to be in that it covers a period of about 16 months; subsequent reports will cover developments during a period of about six months only.
The first chapter of the report describes the developments connected with the enlargement of the Communities. These include: (i) the decision taken by an overwhelming majority of the electorate to amend our Constitution in order to allow the State to undertake the obligations necessitated by membership of the Communities, (ii) the resolution passed in Dáil Éireann on 26th October, 1972, approving the treaties governing the European Communities; (iii) the European Communities Act, 1972, which enables Ireland to fulfil its Community obligations; and (iv) the subsequent lodgment in Rome and Paris of the appropriate instruments of ratification.
Chapter two concerns the major event in the Communities last year which was the meeting of Heads of State or Government in Paris on 19th and 20th October. Therein the outcome of the Summit Conference is briefly described; briefly, because the reverberations of what was decided at this conference make themselves felt throughout the report and the effect of what was decided on activity in relation to, for instance, regional policy, social policy and economic monetary union becomes clear in subsequent chapters. Thus the report as a whole points up far-reaching implications of the final decision of the Summit to set as the objective of the Communities the transformation by the end of the decade of the whole complex of relations between member states into a European Union.
Chapter three, on the institutions of the Communities, discusses a number of Summit proposals concerning their roles in relation to each other and improvement of the decision-making procedures. These are of very great importance in the light of the need for the Communities to come more directly into the public arena where they can be seen to represent as well as to take account of democratic processes. The Government are fully conscious of the contribution that we can and should make in this field.
The chapter on the external relations of the Communities makes clear that, by membership, we have become involved in a network of relations which, in effect, covers the globe. The Community is the world's most important single trading entity and its interests accordingly are world-wide. Under the Common Commercial Policy member states no longer conclude bilateral trade agreements but the Commission negotiates with third countries on the basis of mandates agreed at the level of the Nine. This aspect of the Community activities will be highlighted at the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations in the context of the GATT where the Community, along with the United States and Japan as the three pillars of the world trading system, will have a major role to play.
In this context also we are involved with Community efforts to still further liberalise its relations with developing countries by, for instance, improving the system of preferential access to its markets for exports of manufactures from these countries and by increasing the volume of official development assistance to them. In this latter regard we shall shortly accede to the 1971 Food Aid Convention.
The developments in the area of Customs Policy are, as might be expected, of a rather technical nature, involving, for example, our phasing in to the Common Customs Tariff of the Community. One aspect of Community activity in this area, however, will have come to the notice of most travellers within the Community. This was the increase in the scales of duty-free goods allowable in intra-Community travel. This concession is designed to make more real to the citizens of the member states the progress being achieved in the creation of one internal market; in such a market, of course, as within a single state; no duties would be payable and there would not be any customs hindrance on internal movement of goods.
The Community's policy on free movement of persons, services and capital is designed to achieve the same freedom in these matters. Besides the agreements already made on the free movement of workers, which we shall apply from 1978, there are the complex provisions on right of establishment and recognition of diplomas. This is an extremely difficult area, especially in regard to the professions, and along with the other member states our purpose is to ensure that in realising the aims of the Treaty of Rome no essential interest of any profession is damaged. Action and proposals in regard to the movement of capital are dealt with in some detail at chapter 14—page 66 and 67.
The Common Agricultural Policy is the most important single area of present Community activity as far as this country is concerned. The two main aspects of Community policy in regard to agriculture are, on the one hand, the single Community market with common prices for agricultural produce and, on the other, structural improvement of agriculture. The Common Market is designed, by means of the common pricing policy, to raise the standard of living of those who earn their living from agriculture to a level comparable to that of those in other employment. The structural reform policy is designed to mitigate the adverse effects of the lowering of the agricultural population which is now a feature of all developed countries. The measures adopted in pursuit of the latter policy during the past year are very significant and programmes are at present being drawn up for their implementation in this country.
In regard to Competition Policy the Commission has always been active in ensuring that conditions of competition within the Community are not such as to distort trade between the member states. Chapter eight draws attention to an important interpretation of the Treaty by the European Court of Justice during the past year. The Court ruled that a take-over by a dominant firm in the Community could constitute an abuse of the Treaty provisions concerning competition. The chapter also refers to the current examinations of state aids in the three new member states. The results of these examinations are not yet known.
The Community Industrial Policy affects a number of areas of Community activity and is designed to develop Community industry by, for instance, encouraging co-operation between firms through the so-called "Marriage Bureau" recently set up. Under this funds are made available to foster links between enterprises, especially small and medium-sized firms.
Moves towards the approximation of company law are described in chapter ten. The adoption of a European Community Statute is another proposal in this area. It envisages the creation of companies under a law common to the member states and worker participation in the management of the company is also envisaged in the draft statute.
The elimination of technical obstacles to trade resulting from disparities between the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the member states and the approximation of their legislation are dealt with in chapter 11. Because of the many detailed and technical regulations now in being, the reality of the Common Market is brought home to many sectors of the economy. In this chapter also is described the effect of the adoption of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial matters to which, subject to any agreed adjustments, we are obliged to accede in due course. This is a step towards the creation of a common area of law for civil and commercial proceedings, in that the judgments in such proceedings in the Courts of each member state would be recognised and enforced by the other member states.
The problems of the preservation and improvement of the environment now exercise all developed states. These problems pre-eminently involve international co-operation as pollution and nuisances do not respect national boundaries. Accordingly, the Commission has made proposals for action at a Community level and the Council has decided to finance research projects in this area.
The activity at Community level in the field of science and technology has been mainly confined to the area covered by the EURATOM Treaty, which includes environmental research. However, the Community has taken certain initiatives in co-operation with third countries in science and technology and up to 19 European countries are now participating in a series of projects initiated under the general title of European Co-operation in Science and Technology.
The implications, described in chapter 14, of the creation of an economic and monetary union—the intention to establish which by the end of 1980 was re-affirmed by the Paris Summit—are of the most far-reaching kind. Its establishment is indeed closely bound up with the achievement of the European Union which the heads of state or Government set as an objective by the end of this decade. The recent disturbances of the international monetary system have been seen as a further incentive to achieve an economic and monetary union in the Community and the detailed decisions which have been taken on fiscal regulations, narrowing of margins, monetary co-operation, etc., are all designed to fulfil this aim.
Closely tied up, in our view, with the steps towards achievement of an economic and monetary union is the progress made towards the adoption of a Community regional policy. Without a regional policy it is to be feared that the resources of the member states would continue to concentrate themselves in the areas of greatest immediate return, to the detriment both of these areas, which would increasingly suffer from overcrowding and pollution of the environment, and of the underdeveloped areas of the Community, which would continue to decline and lose population. It was thus, with the interests of the Community as a whole as well as our own immediate interest in mind, that the Irish delegation at the Summit pressed for a decisive commitment on the development of a Community regional policy. The Commission has now laid before the Council the guidelines for such a policy.
The commitment to a Community Social Policy also derives from the Summit and from the need which became evident before the Summit to give the Community a more human face. The Community already of course had the European Social Fund for the retraining and resettlement of workers, to which we have made application for sums in the region of £3½ million in respect of various projects. The Summit, however, has given a major new impetus in this area as a whole and the Commission has laid before the Council its guidelines for the proposed new Social Action Programme designed to form the basis for a Community Social Policy by means of action aimed at full and better employment, improvement of living and working conditions and participation of the social partners in economic and social decisions.
In the field of transport policy activity hitherto has been concerned with transport by rail, road and inland waterway. The Commission has now, however, made proposals for Community action in regard to air transport and has been considering sea transport in a preliminary way. One of the most controversial proposals in the existing area is that of weights and dimensions of lorries— the so-called "Juggernauts". We take the line here that transport economies and road costs must be taken into account in arriving at a solution.
Finally, the Commission has also been active in the field of energy policy which has recently been giving rise to concern in all developed countries. The Community has already decided to take measures to guard against a short-term oil supply emergency.
Senators will have seen in the report how wide-ranging are the activities of the Communities, only some of which I have tried to highlight in my remarks. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, the present report is exceptional. It is so not alone because it covers 16 months of Community activity but also because this period emcompasses two major landmarks in the history of the Community—the Summit and the enlargement of the Community from six to nine members. Such major developments are not frequent occurrences and I think I can assure Senators that the second report for this year, while recording further progress in the evolution of the Communities, will not be as replete with major new departures as is the present one.
All that I have said so far is concerned with the First Report on Developments in the European Communities. I think, however, if the Leas-Chathaoirleach has no objection, it would be right for me to touch on a subject which is legitimately of great interest to this House and on which my colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, said I would speak, if the opportunity arose, in the debate we are about to have: that is the question of the involvement of the Oireachtas in regard to European Communities legislation and in regard to regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972.
I am authorised by the Government to say that it is their intention to introduce an expediency motion in this House and in the Dáil to the effect that a Joint Parliamentary Committee be appointed consisting of those members of the Dáil and Seanad who are designated delegates to the Assembly of the European Communities together with ten other members, seven of whom shall be drawn from the Dáil and three from the Seanad. This Joint Committee, in the opinion of the Government, should have the function of examining, firstly, such proposals for regulations, directives, decision and recommendations of the European Communities and their institutions and, secondly, such Acts of the European Communities and their institutions as it may select and, thirdly, of examining regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972; and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas. It should also have—and the Government consider this most important—the authority in the case of future regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, by a majority decision, to put down a motion in either the Seanad or the Dáil to annul any such regulation—the annulment to be by both Houses.
In coming to their decision that such a power should be available to the Joint Committee the Government were highly conscious of the need to ensure that the Joint Committee has a clear-cut watch-dog role not merely in regard to proposed Community legislation but also in regard to regulations made by Ministers under section 3 of the European Communities Act, 1972.
This gives the Joint Committee power to intervene at three different stages in regard to legislation emanating from our membership of the European Communities. At the first stage the Committee is entitled to examine such proposals for regulations, directives etc. as it may choose and to report its views to the Oireachtas. These views would necessarily be taken into account by the Government in making up their own mind on what policy they should pursue. It must be understood, of course, that the Government are not bound to follow the Committee's views. The Government remain responsible for their own decisions—and these can ultimately be challenged either in the Oireachtas as a whole or by the public in periodical exercise of the franchise. Nevertheless, the opportunity thus given to a Joint Committee of both Houses to influence Government thinking and have an effect upon it is an important departure from normal practice and one which, I think, will be welcomed by the Oireachtas.
At a second stage, when the Communities have made a directive, the Joint Committee may again report to the Oireachtas its views on how the directive should be implemented. This is a function which is no less important that the previous one as it enables the expertise of the Oireachtas, expressed through its Joint Committee, to be brought to bear on the formation of regulations designed to put into effect non-self-enacting Community legislation.
It could be at times that the lapse of time between the creation of a directive and its implementation by a regulation under the European Communities Act, 1972, would be so short as to make a full examination by the Joint Committee inpracticable. This would happen only in rare cases but, even in such cases, there remains the third stage—that of examining the regulation itself. In this respect I should say that, in the examination of a regulation or, indeed, in the examination of any matter brought within the purview of the Joint Committee, it is the intention that the appropriae Minisers will make themselves available to the Committee, at mutually convenient times, for a discussion of the subject concerned.
As I mentioned earlier, it is the intention of the Government that the Joint Committee, if it should not be satisfied with a regulation made following its coming into being, should have the authority, by majority decision, to put down a motion for the annulment of any such regulation.
The precise way to arrange for such authority is at present being studied but we consider, following our preliminary examination, that it will best be done by bringing in an amendment to section 4 of the European Communities Act, 1972. Such an amendment will probably take the form of removing the existing requirement to confirm regulations made under section 3 of that Act and substituting instead the authority for the Joint Committee to put down a motion of annulment, as I have just described.
In effect the Government's view is that it is more in keeping with the dignity and authority of the Oireachtas that the confirmation procedure should disappear and be replaced with a far more important provision to allow for the annulment of regulations instead. In approaching the matter in this way I feel that the Government have gone all the way that it is possible to go in satisfying the legitimate demand in both Houses for a proper involvement of the Oireachtas in European Community matters. We are consciously responding to this demand by the Oireachtas and, in doing so, we hope that we are putting to rest any idea that the Oireachtas is merely a rubber stamp for decisions already taken elsewhere and for their consequences.
May I add a comment at that point? I would be concerned that, in giving these additional powers to the Oireachtas, this should not so satisfy the concern of legislators in this country for the democratic control of Community decisions that the pressure for increased power by the European Parliament over such decisions should be in any way reduced. I emphasised that because in the past I personally have had some hesitation about going so far in the Oireachtas in giving powers here that people might feel that that has in some way resolved the problem and that we need not press on with securing adequate democratic control within the Community structure itself.
Finally, I am authorised by the Minister for Finance to inform the House that proposals by the Joint Committee for secretarial assistance will be sympathetically considered.
I am very glad the Minister brought into his last sentence the matter which I was about to mention. That is the importance of the administrative back-up for any such Joint Committee. It goes without saying that we, on this side of the House, welcome entirely the whole idea of having a Joint Committee. In particular I welcome the idea of having the annulment procedure introduced. If this is to work it can only do so with a very substantial administrative back-up. This is all-important. There is no point in talking about shadows here in a matter as important as this. It cannot work unless there is a completely organised Secretariat and a completely organised administrative back-up. I welcome the principles adumbrated by the Minister in regard to the Joint Committee and in regard to the annulment procedure. I do not think what he envisages will work unless there is a complete administrative back-up. To go into that caveat which the Minister mentioned in his last sentence, I hope in whatever discussions he has with the Minister for Finance on these urgent matters that this will be borne in mind. Otherwise, it could result in total chaos and failure. There is no point in talking about matters of this kind unless we are serious.
I agree with the view that nothing we do at this level should in any way hinder the objective which we have to give greater powers to the European Parliament, our declared objective in this respect, in order to ensure that the European Parliament itself has greater control than heretofore. The European Parliament at present has tended to be a talking shop. We must get down to the reality of giving the European Parliament itself the teeth envisaged by the Minister in regard to our own Parliament here. It is envisaged that by 1975 the European Parliament will have budgetary functions. All we can do to hasten that development, which is basic in regard to any Parliament, must be expedited. If we do not get down to the basics of ensuring that the European Parliament will have budgetary functions as soon as possible—and January, 1975, has been mentioned—the European Parliament will become a chimera.
The overall debate on this matter centres on the report which must be presented, and rightly so, every six months in regard to developments within the Communities. Ireland's interests should be paramount so far as we are concerned. I should like to spell out here, loudly and clearly, what these interests are. It is important we should strip this debate of verbiage and involvement in matters which may not be real and concentrate on the matters which are real so far as the people on this island are concerned.
Number one is the common agricultural policy. It should be emphasised, to a far greater degree than has been done, that the common agricultural policy as it pertains to Ireland is in effect a regional policy vis-a-vis rural rehabilitation. So far as circumstances of Ireland are concerned, with about 20 per cent of our people depending on agriculture for their income, with the highest percentage of any member country involved in agriculture, for us the common agricultural policy is basic. I am glad to see that the Minister has adopted this attitude within the Community and at the Council of Ministers meeting. This attitude is fundamental.
There is considerable pressure from many sources to dilute the common agricultural policy. We know well the British attitude towards a cheap food policy, which has been traditional over 130 years since the abolition of the Corn Laws. We realise now the pressures coming from the United States of America to work towards the dilution of the common agricultural policy. Our attitude stands with the French attitude. France, like Ireland, has the next highest percentage of people dependent on the land. The caveat I should like to mention here is that we should not allow our stance in this direction to hinder or impede our investigation, from Ireland's point of view, of alternative methods of working out a high income, and a guarantee situation for our farming community. I want to emphasise here that, if there is any change in the common agricultural policy, if over a period we engaged in strong action to retain it in its present form, or if we are faced with a situation where it must change or be amended, we are fully aware of the alternatives to the common agricultural policy as it exists at present. We must be very careful in this direction not to abandon our legitimate claim that the common agricultural policy in its present form represents the best guarantees we have. This is our diplomatic stance.
It is arguable that there are other income-related alternatives as far as medium and small-sized farmers are concerned. If there is any change in that direction we must ensure that we have all the alternatives worked out so that the same amount of financial in-take to the farming community will continue or be enhanced on the same percentage basis as it is at present under the CAP as it is organised at present. There are pressures towards a deficiency payments system and income-related systems. I would suspect very much the areas from which these pressures come. I know they come from areas, Britain and the United States of America, which want to dilute the common agricultural policy. If by any chance these pressures look like succeeding we should have a series of options open to us which would give us an advantage equal to that given us by the present CAP policy.
This is very important. It is a very logical planning area for the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance, and the other Departments. We must be in the position that, if there is any amendment or change in the common agricultural policy, we will benefit as well as we do at the moment, or indeed even better. This sort of investigation in depth as to the various options open to us in the event of the dilution of the present common agricultural policy should be engaged in a very detailed fashion by Government Departments here at home. This matter, particularly under American pressure in the current year, could become a very pertinent factor in the whole debate concerning the CAP within the Community.
I say this because we have a very real interest in ensuring that the small and medium-sized farmers are enabled to derive an income which assures them of a similar standard of livelihood as people in other income-earning capacities in this country—a right which has been denied them over the years. We have a particular interest in this aspect. It needs to be emphasised that, as far as Ireland is concerned, the CAP or whatever varied version of the CAP is adopted, is a regional policy vis-a-vis our people living in rural Ireland. To that extent, we have a very positive interest in ensuring that the CAP, or a version of it, result in the same income benefits as far as the small or medium-sized farmer is concerned and that this is maintained or enhanced.
The reason I mention this point is because one of the criticisms which is made of the CAP as at present organised is that it benefits very large farmers as well as small and medium-sized farmers. This is to some extent a criticism which carries some weight. But, as far as Ireland is concerned, it carries very little weight because of the limited number of large farmers. Whereas this particular criticism may have validity in regard to the under 3 per cent of farmers in Great Britain or the small percentage of large farmers in some other member countries who derive a tremendous income by reason of a CAP, it has very little validity as far as our medium and small-sized farmers are concerned. If there is any shift in the common agricultural policy our emphasis must be to ensure that it will be income-related to our medium and small-sized farmers and that if anything else is devised, our farmers below a certain level will benefit to a greater degree than they benefit under the existing common agricultural policy.
It is important to emphasise this matter because I felt, when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, that this aspect was not stressed sufficiently. If we get the figure of $600,000 or £200,000, which is the sort of money being talked about in the budget preparations going on within the Commission at the present time, allocated to the Regional Development Fund over the Community as a whole, and if it is parcelled out in the most advantageous manner possible, we would of course benefit from that because we satisfy all the criteria which go to mark a region qualifying for aid of this kind. Allowing for all that, however, the amount of money which could be allocated to us in the year starting 1st January, 1974, would be still small enough related to the type of benefit that we are now deriving under the common agricultural policy or under any alternative to the common agricultural policy. We should look at this matter as a totality in the common agricultural policy, regional development policy and in the social policy. Policies of the Community are all entwined as far as we are concerned. We will be seeking a very high proportion of money from the Regional Development Fund, but it should not blind us to the fact that the basic matter from our point of view is the common agricultural policy or, if there is any alternative or change in that, a common agricultural policy which will primarily develop and help the small and medium-sized farmers.
In regard to the Regional Development Fund and the progress that has been made towards preparing a budget and projects to gather up whatever budget is prepared, I had a discussion yesterday with Commissioner Thompson in Brussels on this matter and there was one aspect that he emphasised —and I am certain that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is also fully au fait with this respect—and that is the importance to a country like Ireland, which satisfies all the desiderata in regard to aid out of whatever fund is available, to have specific projects ready on the table by 1st October which is their deadline in regard to announcement of what budget will be available and what percentage of budget will be available to each member country. From the practical point of view we all appreciate that, for a small country that will be entitled to a percentage over the odds by reason of satisfying the criteria, it is tremendously important that we should be in there with specific projects properly researched, properly prepared, properly costed and that they should be on the table before the Commission on 1st October or within the immediate days after that date. I am certain the Government are doing this, but I wish to emphasise it because it is all-important and essential. There is no point in going to the Commission with half-baked proposals or proposals couched in terms of generalisation or anything of that kind. What we want are specific projects related to specific areas that will qualify.
A further matter I should like to mention in this context is that the whole island—I will not talk about part of the island which jurisdictionally is not within our control at the moment—will be regarded as a peripheral area for development. We satisfy all the criteria in that respect but—and here is the gloss I want to put on this situation—within that definition it is recognised in Brussels that part of this island, the north-west, the west, the south-west, deserves particular attention and treatment. While we can retain the status of an underdeveloped area for the whole island, or a peripheral area which is the phrase now being used, we can, in addition to that, get extra and special treatment for the areas that within that definition are still more underdeveloped than the overall underdeveloped region. I have been again assured by Commissioner Thompson and the Commission itself is fully aware of this particular nuance in our situation—that whereas Dublin, the east and south of Ireland are developed areas and qualify under the overall peripheral definition, in addition to that the underdeveloped areas to the west, south-west and north-west qualify for whatever special development projects we can present to the Commission. What this amounts to is that, on the basis of whatever amount of money is allocated to us on the 1st October, 80 per cent of that will be available for spending by the national governments concerned. We will get priority within that expenditure for projects situated in the underdeveloped parts of the overall underdeveloped areas so that the projects that we submit in the areas I have mentioned will receive much greater attention and be expedited to a far greater degree than projects in the developed part of what may be called the underdeveloped area as a whole.
I also wish to emphasise that this should be looked at in a total manner by the Government and I am informed that the Commission will do so; also in this respect that there are particular projects which were submitted by the last Government, and I presume they are being followed up by the present Government, such as a main highway to the west of Ireland from Dublin to Galway, with the highway offshoots from that. This would be a very immediate way of attracting industry into the western undeveloped area because distribution and transport are all important in regard to industrial establishment. Industry will follow a highway. It is as simple and straightforward as that. In our time as Government we did have proposals which envisaged the European Investment Bank giving loan finance to projects such as I have just mentioned and we had processed that to some degree. I presume the present Government is following this on. Here again there is ideal scope for a link-up with the regional development policy, under which the Regional Development Fund will make available grant assistance up to a certain percentage towards infrastructural works of that kind. There should immediately be a liaison adopted between the Government here, the Regional Development Fund and the European Investment Bank to ensure that not alone will the grant assistance be made available but the finance assistance as well.
One of the areas in which the Regional Development Fund can be helpful is in subsidising interest rates from the European Investment Bank. Instead of people working off at tangents or in different areas there can be immediate liaison between the European Investment Bank, the regional development people in Brussels and the Government here. Here again there is a field for co-operation. I mention that because I feel the Government here, in order to get the most immediate and practical benefits out of the Regional Development Fund, must between now and the 1st October —and that is only a matter of a few months—have the lines cleared with the loan agency which is the European Investment Bank and with the grant agency which is the European Development Fund and ensure that, whatever projects are being processed, there is total agreement and that the lines are cleared between now and 1st October so as to enable us to move in very fast. As I have mentioned 80 per cent of the grants that will be available will be made available to the home Government here provided the national government have adopted criteria in regard to their projects and that they are in accord with the criteria which are now being prepared by the regional development office within the Commission and which are well known to the Government.
Putting the matter very clearly and bluntly, the criteria will be the criteria of overall contribution by whatever finance is made available towards a positive rehabilitation in the economic and social sense of the particular area of the region that is being helped. It is not going to be a "pork barrel" operation. It is not going to be a question of just giving money on the say-so of the Government. It is important for the Government to have their homework done in regard to each particular project presented by the Government to indicate that there are very positive economic and social reasons why a particular project or projects should be developed in regard to a particular region. It must be proved that particular region will benefit in a positive way by such induction of finance. It is not just going to be a question of giving the 80 per cent to a national government just because the national government says it wants it. It is not going to be a political handout or a handout generated by some particular pressure group that does not stand up on examination. It will be a grant given towards a positive programme, a project that has a positive attitude and will be in accordance with the regional rehabilitation and development of an area as envisaged in the policy of the Community. The other 20 per cent will be directed to Community involvement in what they think, on the advice of member countries, would be appropriate development of a particular area.
It is important that we be with this. The major criticism that I have heard in Brussels in regard to other funds that have been operated, such as the FOEGA Fund under the agricultural policy and the Social Fund, has been a weakness on our part here in regard to presenting detailed, documented, properly researched projects to the Commission. I am told that some other countries are ahead of us in this respect and that now we have a chance under a new fund for which we are particularly qualified to benefit to a greater degree than any other country in the Community, and in this instance we must really be "good on the job". The point of view I am expressing now in regard to the Regional Development Fund is one that is equally applicable to the presentation of cases under the Agricultural Guidance Fund and also under the Social Fund. I do not know what staff or administrative adjustments is required to ensure that this whole area of our dealings with the EEC is improved and expedited, but whatever is necessary in this area I am mentioning should be given top priority. I am certain that I will not find the Minister lacking in agreement on this particular aspect that I am just mentioning, but it is all-important and, so far as the EEC means something to us from the economic and financial point of view, this is the area in which we should be totally concerned and totally operative. I might say that it behoves a small country to be more efficient in this area than larger countries. This is one aspect in which we should be up and doing.
We will be designated a peripheral area so that overall we will be regarded as coming under the definition of being eligible for help from the regional fund. I have said that whenever such help comes it will be weighted towards the underdeveloped areas of our region. I think the importance of being designated a peripheral area as a whole lies in the tax remission on exports which the IDA utilise as a very attractive inducement to industries to come to Ireland. I am sure that the Minister is very much aware of the importance of maintaining this inducement situation in the months and years ahead because in the negotiations we secured a situation whereby we are allowed to carry this particular inducement into the EEC.
The Minister is aware that there is a tug-of-war within the Commission between different departmental areas and that there is an overall aspiration towards the elimination of any elements in a member state's policy that distort competition in any way and that the department of competition within the commission looks ashamed at our particular tax-free inducements and profits from exports, which we alone have within the EEC in that sense, and it was a considerable achievement on the part of Dr. Hillery as our negotiator to ensure that we carried this situation through.
But, having carried it through, it is very important that we maintain it. I would argue again, looking at the totality of Community policy, that as far as Ireland is concerned and with the agreement now that we are an underdeveloped country as a whole, we can make a very strong case that the 100 per cent tax remission is an essential ingredient in attracting industry to Ireland by reason of the definition which the Community have adopted. Therefore, if we can carry that very single measure which is on our Statute Book right through whenever discussions and negotiations take place with the other member states and the Commission, I feel we will have done a major job. We have won the first round in ensuring that we retain that by reason of the definition of the country as a whole as coming within the underdeveloped category. That means that we have a very strong case to maintain and retain the tax remission provision which is across the board throughout the State, even though it may be running contrary to the provisions and the regulations which have been adopted under the Treaty of Rome.
This is a very fundamental matter. On the very criteria adopted by the Community in defining us as overall an underdeveloped region, and by reason of their own definition of us as a peripheral region in the island as a whole, I believe we are entitled to retain the tax remission incentive.
There is no point in talking about regional policy or any new-fangled policy developments if we forget the basics of our situation. I would say that the two basics of our situation from the economic point of view are, first of all, the Common Market agricultural policy or whatever variation of it is adopted that gives us equal if not greater yield, and, secondly, the 100 per cent tax remission on our exports which we now have for the whole of the State and which we want to retain. We should not allow any blandishments in any other direction towards regional policy or towards moneys from whatever source to ignore these two basic factors, one in the agricultural area and the other in the industrial area. The Community may talk about all sorts of aids and incentives towards an underdeveloped area or towards a regional area, but it is the aids and incentives that are there already under the 100 per cent tax remission legislation that will be most helpful to us. Under those who headings we have a very large amount of what we would want in regard to aids and incentives towards agriculture and industry. We want to get more, of course, from the Regional Development Fund but I would not be dissuaded from those two safety rocks of policy to which I am certain we will continue to adhere.
There are other matters mentioned in the report. I do not propose to go into them because I thought I would bring the matter down to the basics of Irish farm policy; vis-a-vis the Community, if I have any criticism to make of the Minister in regard to his statement on his Estimate and on his attitude generally I would make it on this level, that I do not believe in chasing shadows as against substance. I do not believe in having wide-ranging foreign policy for a small nation unless the policy or policies are totally geared to Ireland's requirements. First and foremost, we are a small nation and I do not believe in posturing or adopting postures. I believe that foreign policy should be an expression of the practicalities and needs of the Irish nation and the touchstone in the criteria to be adopted at all stages must be just what I have stated.
I have sought to make my contribution here a severely practical one. Engaging in foreign policy postures that are not related to realities in Ireland and the requirements of Ireland from the social and economic point of view are too expensive a luxury to indulge in. We should be totally concerned in everything we do with what is needed and good for Ireland. It is with that attitude of mind in view that one of my last executive actions before leaving office was to recommend to the Government—it was adopted by the Government—that we appoint an ambassador in Tokyo. Our contacts in Japan from the trade point of view and from the point of view of industrial investment here in Ireland by Japanese coming into Ireland as a basis for operating in Europe show that this was a priority area for the appointment of an ambassador and that this should take precedence over whatever other notions we might have in regard to appointments in Moscow or Warsaw. While I agree in principle that we should extend our embassy strength I feel that we must set an order of priorities where first things come first. A small nation must devise its priorities. There is no point in a small nation having a global strategy in which we interest ourselves in everything and anything if we do not concentrate on priorities and put money where the priorities lie.
I am very glad to see that the present Minister is going ahead with the appointment of an ambassador in Tokyo and one in Luxembourg, which is basic to our needs vis-a-vis the European Parliament which we hope to see develop. Anything we can do as a country to develop the European Parliament, to enhance parliamentary control and to ensure a stronger role for the European Parliament is one with which, I am sure, all political parties in the Oireachtas will be in full accord. In regard to embassies, the criteria attached to such developments should be what is good, what is needed and what the requirements of Ireland are. As a small country it would be quite crazy to adopt any other yardstick. I issue that as a cautionary admonition on foot of a very detailed reading of the Minister's Estimate speech on foreign affairs.
I had intended to spend some time at the start of my speech in dealing with the question of Government regulations but the Minister has disarmed me and, indeed, to a considerable extent, delighted me by the section of his speech dealing with this matter. I felt, and I suspect that other Senators felt, that the manner in which the 22 regulations in this year's EEC Regulations Bill were passed through both Houses was nothing short of deplorable.
Listening to the Minister's speech, and rapidly reading through his script, I think the proposals made in it are, on the whole, admirable. His proposal is that when the Community submit a directive which requires action by us in order to implement the directive in this country the Joint Committee should consider the matter prior to the making of the Government regulation. I am not quite clear what the Minister means when he says, in his speech:
At Second Stage when the Community submits a directive the Joint Committee may again report to the Oireachtas its views on how the directive should be implemented.
Taking that literally, it does not seem to be workable because I cannot imagine how a Committee can say how something should be implemented. I take it what is meant is that the Civil Service officials will provide a draft regulation and bring this before the Committee to be considered by them.
What we have in mind is that a directive may leave a certain leeway as to how things are done. I feel it would be appropriate for the Committee, for example, if the matter were of grave importance, to propose that it should be done by statute rather than by order. The Government may or may not accept that. Secondly, as regards the normal procedure as to whether it should be done by order or by regulation, if the directive leaves, as it would normally do—that is the reason why it is a directive because it leaves some leeway for each country to do it in its own way—enough leeway for it to be worth the Committee's while to advise the Government as to which of the number of alternative approaches should be adopted, the Committee have the opportunity of doing so. Again, the Government might or might not accept the Committee's view but we feel that, unless there is such urgency where there is no time for the Committee to do this, they should have the opportunity of advising the Government on that matter. If the Government do not take its advice or do not like what is proposed, the Government can on the Third Stage put down a motion against the regulation.
I have a feeling that this is not really the way in which a Committee would be in a position to work. I would prefer—as a potential member of the Committee —if the Government would come along with a draft statute or a draft regulation and allow the Committee make its way through it and decide whether, in their view, it should be amended or not. Taking some of the regulations that we passed last week, a number of them were highly technical in their form. There were all kinds of proposals taken out of various pieces of legislation that had gone in past years in relation to, for example, the sale of eggs, giving powers to Department inspectors to go into premises, inspect them, withdraw licences on breach of conditions of the EEC or the Government, powers of bringing to court and fining. I do not think the Committee is in a position to list these types of provisions which should be put in a directive. If the Minister would like to try it the other way, by all means let him, but he will find that it will work much more smoothly and efficiently if a draft of some kind is brought before the Committee for their consideration. Certainly, the general principle that the matter will normally be considered by the Committee before the Government actually makes a regulation is ideal.
If the Committee wish to do so. We feel that the onus should be on the Committee to take the matter up with the Government. When they have been able to give advice to the Government and following the line the Government have taken with the Council of Ministers, when they see what emerges, if not satisfied that this reflects their views and wishes, they could then move later on to another regulation. If, in fact, the directive meets broad requirements but leaves leeway for being implemented in a different way, then the Committee should have the opportunity to press a view. However, I think the onus should be on the Committee to take the matter up with the Government.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I am not referring to what the Minister has described as the first duty of the Committee —I shall come to that later. Going through the 300 or so assorted regulations, directives, and so on, that stem from the Community each year, that is the first thing. I am dealing with the specific case where a directive has been made which requires some form of Irish legislation to bring it into force. I am limiting myself to that. I take it that in such a case the Government would make it clear to the Committee that some action of the Irish Government was required. There will be some directives which possibly would not really need any action on the part of the Irish Government to bring them into force. I do not think that the Committee are in the position to decide which is which. The Committee need guidance.
I envisage the Secretariat would, with whatever advice and assistance we can give, be able to advise the Committee on that.
Ultimately, it is the Government which would decide the borderline cases. The civil servants in the various Departments will ultimately have to decide in each case whether an Irish Government regulation is required. In that case, surely they ought to tell the Committee that a regulation is needed. Then here is the question of how best the Committee can give their advice as to what kind of regulation will be put in. The Government, through their various Departments, will need to see if in each specific case a regulation is needed.
However, I am very happy with the general principle, that the Committee will be given the power to advise on these matters of regulations. It is an enormous improvement on the situation we had with this recent Bill and indeed it is an improvement on the terms of reference that were originally drafted last January for this Committee. It is a very satisfactory improvement and I am delighted to see it.
On the general question of this report, it gives us a chance throughout the year to have a general debate on events in the European Communities. I will have a number of criticisms to make on the manner in which this report has been prepared and I should like to assure the Minister that I am not trying to make any political point. We are new in the EEC and are only just embarking on this great enterprise. We are all learning as we go along and I think it is very important that, this being the very first report that has come out, anyone who has anything to do with it should be willing to produce suggestions as to how the form and the wording of the report can be improved. To my mind, the whole way in which it has been put out could be greatly improved but I want to assure the Minister that I am not simply trying to make a political point. It is important that we should start right, and as we go along in coming years we should gradually establish a pattern which, as far as possible, will enable us to supervise in a democratic way the activities of the European Communities. In particular, it is vital that all Members of each House of the Oireachtas should, as far as possible, have a very accurate view as to precisely what is going on.
The Minister knows far better than I that there is an immense range of activities in the EEC. For example, I took up one single issue of the official journal, which happens to be dated 4th June, but it could be any date— these come through our doors week after week—which lists the various directives and opinions of all kinds going through the EEC for discussion in the European Parliament. I find that there is a directive, for example, on the approximation of member states legislation on radio interference caused by fluorescent lighting tubes, which is a point of interest to those who make such things.
There is a regulation for a common system for the import of hydrocarbon oils; there is an opinion on the proposal for a regulation on the carriage arrangement on ships, boats, hovercraft, and so on. There is a regulation dealing with bonded goods and the amount of processing that can be done to them before they are made available for consumption. There is a resolution for an agreement between the EEC and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Other matters deal with road, rail and inland waterways; common rules for the normalisation of types of railway undertakings; a directive for agriculture and mountain areas and certain other types of poor farming areas. That is of great interest to us and I shall be dealing with it later. There are trade arrangements for agricultural products, matters dealing with inter-Community trade in cattle and pigs and the question of imports of raw sugar from African states and Madagascar.
The point I am making is that in one single issue of the official journal some of these matters are important, others are less important. Everyone of them, in its own way, to a lesser or greater extent, is derogating from the democratic rights that we have as a Parliament. In other words, it is vital we should ensure that we manage to exercise a continuing supervision and, in so far as it is possible, control of all this immense mass of material that is going through the EEC at any particular time. For the most part these are rather unimportant matters, but some of them are important enough. When one considers the programme set before the EEC for the coming years, such as the entire question of economic and monetary union, regional policy, social policy, the picture before us is still of a very amorphous and unknown form of European union in 1980. It is therefore vital that on all these matters we should try to establish a pattern, through both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament, of preserving the democratic rights of the Irish people, as far as possible.
One important thing is that individual Members should be informed about what is going on and, of course, the Joint Committee which is now to be set up will be one of the most important elements in this. One of the important duties clearly which the Committee must perform, almost before they do anything else, will be to consider very carefully what type of information should be provided, in particular what type of information should be available in the Library. They should make recommendations about the indexing of this material and the number of staff which they think would be needed to look after it. On matters of this kind they can perform a valuable service even before they do anything else. I certainly hope that the Minister will do his utmost to see that, whatever the requirements of the Committee may be, they will be made available. The burden on the Committee will, of course, be very great and indeed the burden on the Government and the Civil Service in providing the various facilities that will be needed will also be great.
With regard to each of the 300 or so legislative proposals that come out each year in the EEC the Committee would certainly need a note from the relevant Department about the general affect of the proposal, what Department is concerned with it, its effect on existing Irish law, if any, and a very general statement of the views of the Government, which ultimately, will be reflected in the Government's attitude in the Council of Ministers.
The Committee then, as the Minister has said in his speech, can work through all this material. I am doubtful if it would be possible for the Committee to keep up, as the Minister knows. Other countries in the EEC have attempted to keep an eye on this enormous mass of assorted legislation. It is easier for the continental countries than it is for us because they have a highly developed committee system. We will have one EEC Committee. They have 12, 15 or more committees dealing with a whole lot of different matters and these questions of EEC legislation are sent to whatever committee has competence in that particular subject.
Even with a number of committees dealing with these matters, I think it has been found, on the whole quite impossible to keep any kind of real track of these matters. Our single Committee, particularly since ten of its 20 members will be absent very frequently and not able to go to its meetings, will find it impossible, even with very adequate secretarial assistance to deal at all intensively with much of this material. All they will be able to do is to sift through it, and the more important items that are clearly of great importance to this country can be dealt with in detail. I am afraid it is inevitable that a very large proportion of the 300 or so directives and regulations that will come before them will simply have to go unreported.
The report itself is, as I have mentioned, inadequate in certain respects. I agree that this first report on development of the EEC was a difficult one to prepare. There were a good many matters in arrears. It covers a much longer period than the six months which will normally be involved and to a considerable extent a very good job has been done. It covers a very wide range of material and, so far as it goes, it does so very competently.
There are certain missing details. Perhaps of less importance is the criticism I would make that in many cases the directives listed are not listed by their number, which is really vital for anyone who wants to trace it down. In many cases, the date of the directive is given, which at least would be of some help in finding it, but in other cases the directives are merely mentioned without any dates, which makes it impossible to track them down. That is a relatively small matter and I certainly hope that in future any directives, regulations or matters of that kind will be given by their official numbers to enable them to be found.
A more important point, which is reflected almost through the whole report, is that there is very little said about Government policy. Mainly there are bald statements as to what has happened, what has been decided —I shall come to many of these matters later on—but there is very little in the way of a statement about what the Government think. The Minister's speech just now on certain issues that were dealt with in the report brought out matters of Government attitudes, policies and opinions which could very conveniently have been put into the report, but were not.
The European Parliament as dealt with in one section of the report, is clearly a matter of very great importance to us. Year by year, as the volume of Community legislation grows ever greater and as the degree of economic social and regional union, —political union even ultimately—of the Community grows greater, it is clear that the powers and functions of the Oireachtas and the other Parliaments throughout the EEC will tend to be diluted. When one, therefore, speaks of greater powers for the European Parliament this is not a suggestion that those greater powers should be such as would take over from us, it merely is that authority and functions that we are losing any way, which are still going abegging and disappearing into the bureaucratic morgue of the EEC, should end up in the hands of the European Parliament.
Even now, to my mind, the European Parliament is a body of some considerable importance. It clearly has a great many faults. It clearly lacks to put it mildly, authority. None the less, if one visualises the situation in the EEC without the European Parliament, which would make it a complete bureaucratic wilderness without any element of democracy at all, one can understand the importance even of its present position. The fact that, for practical purposes, every single item that comes from the Commission before being acted upon by the Council of Ministers must be discussed in the European Parliament in itself is of considerable importance. Quite clearly, however, increased powers are needed.
I am not very happy about Government policy on this matter. In the report the only really solid statement of policy with regard to the European Parliament is at paragraph 3.12. It says:
In the view of the Government the introduction of elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage could constitute a worthwhile step in enhancing the democratic character of the Communities ...
They are fairly ongoing with regard to that; but, when it comes to discussing actual increased power to the Parliament, then an element of considerable vagueness creeps in. We are told in paragraph 3.10, for example, that the Government think:
It is desirable for the Governments of the member States to examine together possible ways of introducing a more democratic tension into the relationship between the Parliament and the Council while respecting at the same time the position of the Council as the Communities' primary decision-making body.
I think I know what is meant by "a more democratic tension", but nobody could suggest that it is a very solid undertaking to give greater powers to the European Parliament. I may be unjust, but I have a feeling that not merely our Government but other Governments are tending to push the idea of direct elections in order to seem to be doing something without at the same time giving any real authority to the European Parliament. It is a nice easy thing to do. "Oh, yes, let's have direct elections; everyone is happy." But the introduction of direct elections in themselves would not increase the authority of the Parliament in any way.
Might I intervene to assure the Senator that the absence of more detail here, apart from reflecting the fact that the report is factual rather than intended to make policy, also reflects the fact that a proposal from the European Commission on this question is just coming forward. The Government's attitude to the matter is best formulated in the light of a concrete proposal. I hope the Senator will not feel that because more is not said here we are not most concerned about this. Indeed, it is one of the primary objects of Government policy in the Community and one on which I am consulting with other Foreign Ministers with a view to achieving the maximum progress.
I am delighted to hear this, but I am sorry it was not put into the report. "A more democratic tension" is all we get in the report.
That was to tantalise you.
With regard to direct elections, clearly the introduction of direct elections would have certain advantages from the point of view of the people of the various member countries of the EEC in that they would be directly involved, and might thereby think that the European Parliament was their Parliament in a way they do not feel now I am not certain there would be any great public interest in direct elections unless the European Parliament at the same time was given increased powers. There might be a situation, which would be entirely deplorable, where you have a 20 per cent poll. The situation is made more difficult in this country because, the Minister knows, we have a system of proportional representation, which he helped to bring about. There must be three seats minimum in a constituency. That means electing ten people by proportional representation in Irish conditions. The maximum number of constituencies you can have is three, the average population of each would be one million and the average number of voters would be about 700,000. These are enormous constituencies electing three or four members to Parliament.
The Deputy is perhaps assuming that in direct elections the European Parliament would retain its present size.
I appreciate there have been various suggestions made for dealing with this matter. I am merely pointing out there are considerable difficulties. You would have people who were almost presidential candidates who would be far removed from the ordinary man in the street and equally they would be far removed from Parliament itself. One advantage of having representatives who are Members of the Dáil or Seanad is that they are exposed directly to the political life of the country, and this has considerable advantages. If we had direct elections as they stand with ten members they would be so far removed from the electorate that it is difficult to see the electorate taking much interest and equally they would be cut off from Parliament. As the Minister states, there have been various suggestions for dealing with this by increasing the number of four delegates, say, from ten to 30, of whom ten might still be from the Parliament and 20 from the electorate. Direct elections will not necessarily solve any problems and could create a great many more. In the absence of increased powers to the European Parliament I am not at all certain that there would be much advantage and there could indeed be disadvantages.
The Minister mentioned the question of the Commission giving increased powers to the Parliament. I notice the Commission have within the last day or so produced some relatively far-reaching proposals for Parliament. I gather this was announced in Brussels last Wednesday. According to the new French Commissioner, Monsieur Claude Cheysson this proposal has a two-fold objective: first, to increase Parliamentary control over all Community activities and, second, to give Parliament the right to express itself effectively on all guidelines and decisions involving the Community as such. It is proposed that there should be a so-called Second Reading procedure, that in cases where the Council of Ministers might stray very far from the opinion of the Parliament in any given draft decision, the matter should again be brought up before the Assembly and the Council representative would be obliged to explain why the Council disagreed. The difficulty with this procedure is that there is nothing to make the Council take a different decision a second time round; but at least it would be an advantage in that they would have to listen again to the parliamentarians and, as the Commission now point out, it would also give them a chance to cope with our national parliament, complain bitterly to their own government representatives and try to persuade them to do something about it.
Perhaps the more sizeable step forward is what seems to be a proposal to increase the total of the Community budget which will be controlled by the Parliament from 5 per cent to 15 or 20 per cent. If one considers any national budget, including our own, allowing for matters which are spent from year to year and over which we have no control, probably not as much as 15 or 20 per cent is really free to be dealt with in any sort of manoeuvreable way. These new proposals would go a long way towards giving the Parliament some teeth. I hope, when it comes up before the Council of Ministers, that the Minister will take an affirmative line on these or any other proposals that will come up from the Commission.
One portion of this report which is very unsatisfactory is that dealing with the common agricultural policy. Even though it is some 15 pages long and is the longest section of any part of this report, it is rather uninformative. There is, for example at paragraph 72, a discussion of the various development programmes for structural reform. It lists the titles of these programmes, which it is hoped to bring into operation early in 1974. It states that Ireland is at present drawing up these programmes. As I understand it, these programmes should have been ready from our Government and the other governments last April. They were not ready and the Commission had therefore to ask the Council of Ministers to extend the time to the end of the year. I am not blaming the Government for this. As I understand it, no country has been ready for this programme. We are all in the same mess. In a report of this kind, nonetheless, it would be more candid and more informative if matters of this kind were listed, if it were stated that in fact the proposals were late, that an extension has been given and that it is hoped to have them by the end of the year.
I mention that not to criticise the Government, as there were serious problems in preparing these, but to criticise the nature of the report in which is too much bald statement of fact. I should like to see more opinions. I should like to see more facts. The report is worded in such a way that no one could criticise any opinions which have been expressed. I would not mind if the Minister put in chunks of subeditorial matter giving his and the Government's views. If one disagreed it would not matter because it would be the Minister's or the Government's view. This is a political issue. This is too cautious a document right through.
At chapter 7.5 we have this very interesting matter of the scheme for mountain and poorer farming areas. This proposal is one which covers areas throughout the Community where slopes of the mountains are such that it is impossible to carry out agriculture without special expensive machinery and also poorer areas. These are defined by various criteria: where the average income is only two-thirds of the national level and so on.
There is a difficulty which I am sure has been exercising the Government but which is not stated at all in the report. The mountain areas are straightforward. If the conditions pertaining to the slope are right, you are in. The other poorer farming areas must be listed by the government of each state and they must not exceed in all 2.5 per cent of the total area of the country. In our western areas, including Donegal, Sligo, Galway and Mayo, it is obvious they are far greater than 2½ per cent of the entire area of the country. The Government have to prepare this list. I understand—I may be wrong—that the list has already been prepared and sent off to the Commission.
Incidentally, in chapter 7.5 the report says that the Council at its meeting at the end of April adopted a resolution and so on. I understand the meeting was on May 15th. It is an unimportant point, but it seems odd that the date of a meeting so very recent cannot be got right.
However, I should like to know if the Government have sent this list. If so, how on earth did they prepare it? Surely this is a matter of very great importance because the whole of the West of Ireland, and maybe other areas, are entitled to hope that they would benefit from this very valuable scheme. We have a curious situation where these areas appear to have been selected without any reference that anyone knows of—I am not suggesting that it was done in a wrong way. I am sure the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries made out the list in accordance with all the right criteria, but this is a highly political matter which ought to be made known. Certainly it should be dealt with in detail in this report.
We all know what happened in regard to the price negotiations. We all read the newspapers. Therefore, I am not suggesting that anyone is misled by this report, but this example is highly expressive of the kind of criticism I am making of the report. We know that when it came to the price negotiations, meeting after meeting was held, midnight sessions, all-night sessions, a very strong onslaught was made from a number of sources on the whole concept of the common agricultural policy. A compromise was ultimately reached, but not a particularly satisfactory one for us. It was a long drawn out, dramatic and very hard-fought battle of very great importance. It is dealt with in the report by classic understatement:
The proposals were discussed by the Council (Agriculture) at their meetings of 26/27 March, 9/10 April, 15/17 April and again of 28 April to 1 May when the following decisions were taken:
Full stop, end of report so far as that goes. We know the kind of situation which existed. As a report of developments of interest to Ireland and the EEC, it seems to me extraordinarily inadequate. I should much rather see a sort of candid report from the Government and the Minister about what happened, about how happy or unhappy he was at the results. When you get on to the prices listed, immediately after this, the situation is not much better. We are given bald statements about export prices for crop products, livestock products, cereals, sugar and so on—the actual increases that were given. When, for example, we are told that adult cattle are up by 10.5 per cent, that is utterly irrelevant in the context of rising world prices and world shortages. What we would like to know is: how did Ireland do? What real benefit do any of these price increases mean for the Irish farmer? We are not told in this report.
We need be in no doubt, certainly the Minister is in no doubt, that there is on the way at the moment—in full swing, you might say—a sustained and embittered attack on the whole idea of the common agricultural policy. It comes from many sources. Quite clearly, the entry of Britain into the Common Market has changed things considerably. In agreeing to enter the EEC they accepted, along with everything else, the concept of the CAP. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that they hope to demolish it at the earliest opportunity. Reform is the great word in use at the moment, but we know what reform means when it comes to this matter.
The United States also is engaged in an attack on the CAP, particularly in connection with the forthcoming GATT negotiations. Even the socialist groups in various European countries are engaged in an attack on the CAP in the guise of a search for cheap food for the workers. It shows how far things have gone when even the Community's own newspaper, European Community, a week or so ago had a veiled and not so veiled attack on the idea of the CAP and a suggestion that the time had come to change it. I omitted to read the first page of that journal. It says carefully that the views of contributors are not necessarily those of the Communities. Nevertheless when in the Community's own paper an attack of this kind can be printed it shows that we are up against a situation which we must take very seriously.
I think the Senator is referring to the English edition. He might find a different approach in the French version.
That may be, but it is published by the Communities. It is symptomatic of a situation of which I am sure the Minister is far more aware than I am, that we have a fight on our hands. I do not need to urge any Irish Minister to stand fast on this whole concept of the CAP. It is quite clear that the Government must not budge an inch from the Irish position which is not simply a selfish position. We, of course, are concerned about our own special interests, but it is not simply a matter of being selfish. It is quite clear that in this country as in other countries, for generations the average income in farming areas has been and continues to be far below that in the industrial areas. This is still the situation in Ireland even after the very large rises in food prices over the past year or so. If we go back over the last 20 years it is quite clear that the increased income accruing to the farmer has been considerably less than that accruing to those living in cities.
The great catchcry these days is of food surpluses. It is quite extraordinary that, in the context of a situation where millions upon millions of people are actually starving, and probably half or more than half the world's population are under nourished, there can be a situation where there are food surpluses. Instead of cutting down on agricultural production, what is needed is a better rationalisation of world trade in order to see that there are no food surpluses, because certainly, in world terms, there could not possibly be such a thing as a food surplus.
On the question of peripheral areas, the decision as to whether all or only part of our rus is to be counted as a peripheral area has not yet been announced. It was to have been announced first on the 14th June and now it has been postponed to today or tomorrow. It may be that the Minister already knows the ultimate result. I certainly hope that we will come out of it well.
Here again, there is a danger that if peripheral areas, not just in Ireland but in the Community as a whole, are fixed on too wide a scale whatever funds are made available for the regional fund will be diluted and will be of no great benefit to any particular area. I hope the Minister will resist any suggestion that, for example, large parts of our neighbours in Britain or other industrial areas should be included. It is quite clear that if huge sums are to be allotted for the rationalisation and improvement of inefficient industries it will mean that the areas that really need these funds will simply not get them.
There is a reference in chapter 8.4 of the report to the examination of State aids, that is our own regional aids. The Minister says that these have not yet been done. According to the report, the Irish aids were scheduled to be examined about the end of May. I gather this has not yet been done. I hope there is no danger that we will suffer as a result. I notice, for example, that recently some Belgian aids were declared by the Commission to be invalid and were disallowed.
It could be a very serious matter for us if steps of this kind were taken. I do not know whether the Minister has any idea of whether we are in any danger of losing some of our aids to underdeveloped areas. The real test of regional policy will be how much there will be and whether it is adequate. I hope the Minister will be absolutely firm on this, that he will not agree at the council to any proposal that is not adequate. We have just got to dig our heels in here. If there is any suggestion that the fund will be such that the regional policy will be stymied at the start, we should resist it very strongly and if necessary refuse to agree to any regional policy at all rather than have a situation of that kind.
We should know whether the Government have taken any decision about the fifth directive on company law. There is a very interesting section on it which proposes that there should be extensive work of participation in all plants of more than 500 workers. This seems to be a very valuable step forward which if agreed would, of course, be introduced here. I should be interested to know if the Government have any opinion on that.
In external relations, the Community in one way are carrying out a very extensive and to some extent successful policy of development aid to countries particularly in Africa but also in the Mediterranean countries as a whole. To some extent these policies do not go as far as they could. The amount allotted as yet for development aid is not sufficient and, even though it would cost us in Ireland something to aid these matters, I hope the Minister will press constantly for as active a Community policy as possible, because our own problems which we have suffered in the past put us in the position to understand the problems of other countries now developing.
On the association with Greece at chapter 48 of the report, I thought that this again its somewhat inadequate. It merely states that agreements with Greece and Turkey provide for eventual full membership of the Community for Greece and Turkey. If only in order to avoid misunderstanding it might have been pointed out that the association agreement with Greece has been frozen pending the re-introduction of some element of democracy there. The trading concessions are still maintained. It is, I suppose, an arguable matter as to whether they should be. In my opinion they should be, because if you are to start to decide whether you are going to trade with a country or not according to the colour of its government there would not be much world trade. Nevertheless it is important that the Community have refused to go any further with any kind of discussions, or meetings with regard to the association with Greece. This could have been stated in the report. That section of the report has already caused some misunderstanding.
With regard to relations with EFTA, the Community had been less than generous. The negotiations with the former countries of EFTA provided for certain what we would call sensitive products—for example timber from Finland—to be admitted only on quotas to the Community and the quotas are very small. This is an example of a somewhat too mean approach by the Community. This has now been put through, but if future negotiations of this type take place the Minister should try to persuade the Community to be somewhat more generous because, for example, exports of paper from Finland to the Community are a very small part— about 6 per cent—of the Community imports of paper, but they form a very high proportion of Finland's exports.
I was very glad to see in the Minister's speech the statement that under the common commercial policy member states no longer conclude bilateral trade agreements, but the Commission negotiate with third countries on the basis of mandates agreed at the level of the Nine. I was glad to see it not because it was any surprise to me, because we all knew this when we entered the EEC, but at least it shows that this is the Government's view. I was stupified—stupified is the only word—to read a very remarkable speech in last Friday's Irish Times by the Minister for Labour at the ILO Conference in Geneva. It was very remarkable. If I may, I should like to quote sections of it which must have caused very great misunderstanding at the ILO:
The Minister for Labour, Mr. O'Leary, suggested yesterday that Ireland might combine with other small European nations in a joint programme of development aid concentrating on providing expert assistance particularly in training.
It continues:
...Parallel to the desirability of undeveloped nations to combine, is there a case for a like combination, a pooling of aid resources by those nations like my own, sharing no colonial past, desirous of gaining no spheres of political influence amongst the underdeveloped and entertaining no ambitions to revive imperial glory under another guise?
The imperial glory under another guise I take as a reference to our fellow-members of the EEC, Britain, France, Germany and Italy. It can refer to nobody else. It strikes me as a very strange remark indeed coming from an Irish Minister for Labour at the ILO. The prose is rather fascinating. "The cruel irony," we are told, "of certain aid programmes is that they result in the creation of a whole new class of client capitalists whose conspicuous consumption, and Riveria-like revels"—that is a nice phrase—"throw into sharper relief the agony of millions."
I do not know what all this means but he was suggesting to the ILO at Geneva that all small European countries could join together in trading and aiding various undeveloped countries because they have not got the imperialist ambitions that our larger colleagues in the EEC have. Apart from anything else, as the Minister has rightly pointed out in his speech, this kind of thing is simply not allowed in the EEC and I do wish he would tell his colleague that we no longer have the power to do this type of bilateral trade.
I understood the Deputy's references to be to aid, but perhaps I misheard the Senator.
I am not too clear what the reference is to but——
It seems clear to me.
"Development aid" is the phrase.
Which is a matter for each individual country although there is, of course, much multilateral aid.
The Minister for Labour first attacked current world trading patterns. It is not quite clear what he had in mind but he definitely attacked current trading patterns, the implication being that small countries, by getting together, could improve on the trading patterns, nevertheless it does seem——
The Senator should quote the whole speech before posing it quite as accurately as that on the basis of a newspaper report.
All this is in inverted commas, from which one concludes it is taken from a script. However, irrespective of whether it is trade or aid I do not think it is quite the thing for a Minister of an Irish Government to talk about the imperialist ambitions of our colleagues in the EEC.
That is a matter of opinion.
I certainly hope that the Minister will endeavour to restrain him.
On a point of information, I have a copy of the Minister's speech here and I feel that the report in The Irish Times does not give the context in which he made his remarks. Certainly he refers specifically to aid programmes. There is a whole section dealing with aid, so it is not specifically a trade section. As the Minister has pointed out, there is no restriction on us aiding countries by ourselves or in any other association inside the EEC.
Perhaps I might intervene here to say that long and repeated quotations are not in order. I do not think it is permissible for the House to enter into an argument on what the Minister for Labour said on that occasion.
I appreciate that this kind of coming and going is not in order. Nevertheless, I would hope that in the original script we do not find references to providing "imperial glory in another guise", which is a most insulting statement to make.
That is a matter of opinion.
I have a few questions that I should like to ask the Minister. First of all, on customs simplification, it seems to me that one of the most unfortunate aspects of the EEC up to now is that, instead of getting simpler, customs formalities seem to get more difficult. I know in our earlier and more innocent days, as I certainly thought one could get into one's car or lorry at one end and drive to the far end and no customs men or formalities would interfere. There would be no bother—it is all one big happy family. We all know that not only are there still customs men but for anybody involved in shipping goods things have to a large extent grown more difficult. There are a fantastic number of complications involved.
I would urge the Minister to press as hard as he can whenever the question arises at the Council of Ministers, even though it may mean some loss of efficiency, to try to eliminate some of these complications. I know the Commission have this passion for harmonisation, for everything being in a neat order, that all laws and different matters are the same in each country so that nobody gets an unfair advantage; but I think this passion for harmonisation, for order, can go too far. Even though it may mean that some fish escape the Community net I think we should try to simplify these incredibly complex customs formalities.
Some years ago—and if I had not been a strong EEC enthusiast and not prepared to be shifted from my views it would have soured me for life against the Common Market—I had the curious experience of bringing a German musical instrument into Germany and it took me four hours with incredible complications to combat efforts to prevent me from doing it. The people who are constantly finding themselves in this situation must find it very difficult. I would ask the Minister to try to do something about this. I know that he is only one of nine, but at least he can exercise influence.
Then we have the question of public supply contracts. We are told in chapter 6.16 that Ireland's observations on a draft directive for the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts were forwarded to the Commission early in 1973 so that our views could be taken into consideration by the Commission. I do not know whether these reports are confidential, but I should have thought that what the views were could be listed.
We have the European Investment Bank to which Senator Lenihan said we were to submit the schemes. The report states that schemes have been submitted in the public sector. I wonder could the Minister tell us what these are, or is that a confidential matter perhaps? Why not schemes in the private sector? I notice that recently quite considerable loans were granted by the bank—for example, in the case of a private factory in Hamburg shipping in and out of Hamburg into a more rural area. It seems to me to be the very type of thing that could be used in Ireland. In the public sector I notice that there is great interest that in Italy quite a considerable sum has been provided by the bank for the improvement of telephone services in Sardinia. This sounds to me a delightful idea.
We could do with it here.
I hope it is one of the things we have put in for because heaven knows our telephone system could be improved, and if the European Investment Bank are prepared to do it in Sardinia they certainly should do it in Ireland also. It sounds a highly desirable idea.
On the question of VAT, we have the situation as yet somewhat inchoate, that sometime in the future there will be harmonisation of VAT throughout the Community. I think that the Government have the feeling, and they may or may not be justified, that this is a long way away, that with any luck it will never happen. I have a feeling that it is a good deal nearer than we may be willing to admit. For one thing it is obviously very desirable. It is not just a matter of harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. It is very desirable that there should be uniformity of VAT throughout the Community. From 1st January, 1975, the member States, including us, will be asked to pay a portion of receipts from VAT, not more than 1 per cent, in order to pay for the upkeep of the Community. Obviously any country that has a global rate of VAT higher than other countries will be paying an undue amount.
My understanding is that the 1 per cent is related to the tax base and that levels of taxation levied locally are not relevant to it.
It is not 1 per cent of the revenue from VAT.
Of the tax base. There are goods zero rated which are brought into the tax base. This is with a view to ensuring uniformity and equity between countries.
That does not affect the issue but it affects communications in another way, and perhaps even in a more important way. I mentioned the question of border supervision, customs men and all that paraphernalia. Quite obviously, so long as there are different rates of VAT in different countries this must remain. Because if there is 10 per cent on a particular item in one country and not in a neighbouring country then clearly there will have to be a border situation to collect this 10 per cent, whereas if it is 10 per cent in each country it does not matter. Goods can be shipped from place to place and VAT is paid at the point of origin. If there is ever to be a proper Common Market in that sense of the word and any real reciprocation of border supervision there must be harmonisation of VAT. This will of course, raise problems for us. There is a very great difference in VAT as administered in this country and our neighbours in Britain. We have four rates, in Britain there are two, a zero and a 10 per cent, as I understand. I do not know if there are any of the other members of EEC that have as many as four rates of VAT.
I think there are. I will check it.
I think it is hardly likely. If there is any question of harmonisation of VAT I should imagine that they would insist on having probably two and certainly a maximum of three rates which would affect us. Also, it is quite clear that since only two countries out of the nine have removed VAT from food it seems very likely that we will be required to put it back and it may be that the Government will regret very much having taken this step. However this is a matter for another day. I will not go into this in any great detail.
We could also lead Europe in socially progressive policies.
That is a matter of opinion. If I went into my views on it I might be terrible. I shall reserve this for another day, perhaps 20th August. I think the Government should be considering this matter. I doubt if the Minister can tell me, but I should like to ask him how our rates of VAT conflict with other countries. In other words, are our average VAT rates higher or lower than the Community norm and how do the number of different rates compare?
It is not a Community norm. Each country is very different from the other.
I am using the wrong word. I mean the average rate in countries. Are we higher or lower than the other European countries?
The word "average" may be misleading. I hope to have some information on it when I reply to this debate.
All I want to know is, taking total consumer expenditure in each country, do we take more or less in VAT than other countries? How do the various rates go?
Globally, less I would say.
If it is less then we may expect to have to put it up ultimately. If it is higher we may have the happy prospect of bringing it down. It is clearly a matter of some importance to us anyhow. I was disappointed to read this morning that the Government had apparently turned down, or at any rate ignored, a request from the Commission to introduce what one might describe as cheap letters to the EEC. The Commission suggested, as is the practice in the original Six, that we should have a local rate for letters which would cover the entire EEC. In other words, it costs the same to send a letter from Dublin to Cork as it would to send it from Dublin to Milan, Bonn or Amsterdam. This suggestion would not have cost very much. The Commission felt, and I think they were right, that this kind of facility while not costing a great deal would bring home to the public, in a very direct way, the fact that we were members now of a single Community. I am disappointed to find that Britain and Denmark have said they will not come in on this scheme also. I think it is a great pity. If the Minister has any influence in that matter I would urge him to try and get our Government to agree to that suggestion. I do not know whether it is possible for us to agree to it if Britain do not but, if we said that we were prepared to do so if the others agreed also, it would be an advance.
I should like to stress again—I know the Minister is fully aware of the necessity—the need for maximum information not just on the basic type of fact as set out in this report but particularly on our own Government's attitude. I know one can always get people to put down questions in the Dáil asking for the Government's attitude on this and that but I would like to see a situation where, whenever any directive came up, the Government made it plain in one way or another what their views were.
I know that very often the Government might not be able to form a view but it is fairly easy to say so but, as far as matters are not confidential, I think the line our Ministers are taking at the Council of Ministers ought to be known to us in advance. I can see that there is a good deal of bargaining and, obviously, a Government do not want to have itself bound in any way before it goes to the Council of Ministers but, to a considerable extent, I think it should be possible for our Government and the various Ministers concerned to give their views on what the general attitude was and, certainly, it should be possible for them to give views on how each particular directive, regulation and so forth is going to affect us. I am convinced that the vital matter in EEC conditions is that the public in general and politicians in particular should have the absolute maximum amount of information on everything that goes on especially in so far as it concerns ourselves.
I will be very brief on this because there really is only one point with which I want to deal. It concerns the point that Senator Yeats finished with. I am diametrically opposed to his view on this. I would hope that the Minister and the Government would not succumb to the temptation, and it probably is a temptation, to present in this report their own policy ideas in relation to the EEC. I do not think that was the intention of the section of the Act which provided for the making of these reports. The section was quoted at the beginning of this report and says:
Section 5 of the European Communities Act provides that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Communities.
I was hoping they would improve on it.
To my mind it would not be an improvement on it. The work of the involvement of the Oireachtas in the development of the Community in relation to regulations, directives and so on which come from the Community would be, to a very large extent, vitiated if consideration of these reports as they come up twice a year was to be side-tracked by a discussion, possibly a political discussion, on the policy or the slant of whichever Government was here in relation to foreign policy generally. There should be, and there will be, other opportunities for the Government to state their policy and their views on policy with regard to various aspects of the Community and it is proper that they should do so. It would be proper for this House and the other House to have a discussion then on Government policy in relation to these matters. I do not think that there would be the type of consideration which should be given—let me compliment Senator Yeats and the other speakers—and has been given to this report. That kind of consideration would not be given if it were to be tied up with a critical discussion, or even a laudatory discussion, of Government policy. I wish to express the hope that the Minister and the Government will resist that temptation.
May I suggest that a way of summarising that is: facts are sacred and comment free, and if comment is not free I think it should be sacred.
I am very glad that the Minister has, notwithstanding what I have just said, announced his intentions with regard to the formation of what he described as a watch-dog Committee. I know that Senators and Members of the Dáil have expressed their views regarding the desirability of having such a body in existence. Speaking as a Member of this House, I would have liked to see slightly more representation from the Seanad on that Committee because, in many ways, the full potential of the Seanad is not being used or has not been used in the past. It occurred to me that this was an area in which Senators, in particular, could play a very effective and very vital role. The Minister and the Government if they consider the matter further, may possibly feel that, with the demands on Members of the Dáil these days, perhaps it might be fairer to the Dáil to throw some more of the work in relation to this Committee on to the Seanad. In doing so, they would help to make the Seanad more of a reality. Whether they do so or not, the fact that the Government have decided to go ahead with the formation of this Committee will be welcomed from all sides of the House.
Having become members of the Community it is very important that we should not be ultra-nationalistic in our approach. At the same time we should be very careful that we are not simply going to throw out of the window our own parliamentary institutions and the involvement of our own parliamentry institutions and personnel in the work of the community, in overseeing it, so far as we can, in its relationship with ourselves. The Minister and the Government are to be complimented on the approach which the Minister indicated the Government were taking to this matter, even though it obviously is out of the question that it would be mandatory on the Government to accept without question any recommendation put up by this committee when it is established. It is very much a step in the right direction that the committee should be put in the position, as it obviously is going to be, of expressing views and tendering advice on matters which could be, in many respects, of considerable importance to the people.
It is useful, since this is the first occasion on which the Seanad has debated a report from the Government under section 5 of the European Communities Act, to be clear on exactly what the nature of this report should be. I should like to say straight away that I side very much with the view expressed by Senator Yeats, who gave a comprehensive analysis of this report. I would remind this House that section 5 of the European Communities Act was, in fact, brought in as an amendment in this House by Dr. Hillery, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. He did so in response to criticisms made in both Houses, but particularly in the Seanad, and in response to a demand for a report of developments, but not in a narrow factual sense, of political developments in the Communities. This must be so, because the Community cannot be reduced to facts about cotton, jute and tariff quotas. That is not what the Community is about. We would be fooling ourselves and would be taking a very narrow perspective if we imagined that it was. Therefore, if the Community is a political concept and if the development of the Community is intensely political, then the attitude of the Government on the development of the Community is political and the Government ought to put much more policy content into this report, if the report is going to serve the purpose for which it was introduced.
I believe that that purpose was to allow for accountability by the Government for the development in the Community and Ireland's role in relation to the development. To me this suggests that what is really desired and what is really useful is that the Government should outline the political and economic developments in the Communities, the problems or the policy decisions which this poses for this country and give an indication of the Government attitude, and then allow Parliament to express views on this. This is a meaningful relationship.
If this report, which will be submitted twice-yearly to each House of the Oireachtas, is confined to a factual account, then it is not worth having, because we can get this factual information elsewhere, such as from the Government Information Bureau, or from the bulletins of the Communities themselves. We can get factual indigestible information elsewhere. What we want in this report is much more than that. Therefore, it would be interesting and imperative to have an undertaking from the Minister that the reports will contain the attitude of the Government on the various developments in the European Communities, and the role which this country has played in the discussions, and the role which it intends to play in relation to proposed programmes, such as the programme on social or regional policy and also on draft regulations and directives.
I begin by making the same sort of criticism that Senator Yeats was making of the nature of this report. It is much too much a factual, bald document, containing matter which can be found elsewhere; containing a very bare outline of the policy consideration behind the various matters dealt with and—this is the real point— not allowing this House, if it confines itself to the report, to play a very useful role, by not allowing it really to understand what the implications are and to express views which would then be helpful to the Government and to the Ministers concerned.
I propose to examine some areas of the report in more detail and to illustrate this and I hope that it will be possible to influence future reports. I accept the statement made by the Minister that this report is perhaps an unusual one in that it covers a longer period, and a period in which there was a great rate of development through the enlargement of the Irish participation and through all the agreements we had to enter into. After this, each report will cover a six-months' period and it will be possible to have a shorter report. I would prefer if the report remained the same length, but dealt in more detail with specific aspects, giving a policy content and Government attitude, and allowing the Parliament to have this sort of dialogue with the Government on the basis of an accountability of what is happening on development in the Communities.
The first chapter deals with a factual account of an enlargement in the Communities—a matter which can be found very easily elsewhere. Chapter 2 deals with the summit and the conference with the heads of state in Paris. It does not indicate that, although there was a commitment to go forward with economic and monetary policy, with regional policy, and with a rather new commitment to a more developed form of social policy which is an industrial environmental policy, that there was not a commitment to an institutional development which would allow for a healthy democratic control in the Community. Here there would have been an opportunity to express, perhaps, a commitment by the Irish Government to strive for greater institutional control.
On page 10 of the report, paragraph 2.7, there is a heading "Political Co-operation". Contained in that short paragraph is a whole area which never comes before the Parliament, which is never debated in a constructive way in either House and which is of enormous significance at the moment. This is the procedure by which the Foreign Ministers of the nine member states meet four times a year. Their officials meet monthly in what is known as the d'Avignon Committee. This d'Avignon Committee is not strictly an institution of the Community; it is not under any control, nor is it accountable to the European Parliament; nor is there any way in which the actual discussions and the matters which are debated at the meetings of the d'Avignon Committee can come before any European forum of accountability. It is an intergovernmental machinery to debate matters of foreign policy and, it would appear, matters of defence. This is an increasingly important question which we never seem to raise in Parliament for discussion.
It is immensely important that this Parliament be given an opportunity to know, at least in general terms, what is being discussed in a committee like the d'Avignon Committee, and to know in particular what the Irish Government's attitude is to the various issues raised. This is particularly important if one looks at the types of subject matter which have come up in the discussions of the Committee. One of the matters which has come up and on which there has been a number of detailed discussions—sub-committees of the d'Avignon Committee have been formed in relation to this—relate to the Security Conference in Helsinki. There is no mention in this report about this conference. In strict legal terms you could say that it did not necessarily fall within what one would call development in the Community. It is probably the most important political development. The Community has taken an attitude towards the Helsinki Conference and has decided that the nine member countries would be represented by single spokesmen and would have a Community attitude in so far as possible towards it.
We are not given any indication of the Irish Government's attitude towards this critical question of security of European defence. We need this all the more because we are not members of NATO and, therefore we are the odd country out in these discussions. I would like much more information on what the Irish representative, be he the Foreign Minister or his official does, when questions relating to NATO come up. Do they absent themselves? Do they make a specific distinction? Is there an attempt to carve out what I would believe would be a very complex, and probably a very well worthwhile Irish policy on the most involved questions that come up? If we are playing this very complex role in this d'Avignon Committee can we not know about it? Can there not be more accountability to the Parliament about Ireland's role in relation to this whole question of security as it will come at the Helsinki Conference?
Other subjects which have come up at this meeting include questions like the Middle East and the recognition of Bangladesh and other questions where one would expect that there would be some feed-back to the Parliament on what attitude the Irish Foreign Minister was taking at the session of this d'Avignon Committee.
This is an example of the very sharp policy content behind what appears to be a most innocent paragraph which does not really reveal at all what the problems are, or what role Ireland must play. We have to play a different role because we are not members of NATO and we cannot go along with the crowd. We either join NATO and go along with the crowd or we have got to do something different. We have to carve out the special role which we have. I would like to know to what extent the Government are prepared to provide the necessary information for a constructive debate on this whole area particularly in light of the fact that the Helsinki Conference itself is scheduled to open in July.
The next chapter deals with the question of the institutions of the Communities. Here, again, I think the weakness—Senator Yeats has already pointed this out very clearly—is the lack of a Government view on the question of the development of the institutions or, indeed, of the Community itself. It is a pity, because it either illustrates extreme caution or else it indicates that not much thinking has been done in this area. In relation to the Council of Ministers it is stated that after the commitment to the summit that practical steps could be taken to improve the decision-making procedures and the cohesion of Community action. To what extent is Ireland really trying to institute a relationship between the Council and the European Parliament which has now formed some control and co-operation at the European level which is democratic as well as being efficient? I think that there is a grave danger that the Council of Ministers, which is badly in need of becoming more efficient, will try to become more efficient at the expense of the democratic element. It would be interesting to know what the attitude of the Irish Government is in relation to this question of improving the actual decision-making process within the council. Is it also combined with a real attempt to make the Council more open, less secret, and more accountable for decisions taken?
I agree with Senator Yeats that the paragraphs relating to the European Parliament are extremely weak. If this report, as we are told it is, indicates developments in the communities up to 15th May, I find it extraordinary that there is no reference to the very substantial procedural changes which have begun to be introduced into the Parliament and to the attempts which have been made very largely by the British delegates to the Parliament— not, I am sorry to say, quite so noticeably by the Irish delegates, though I am sure they have supported the proposals made—to allow for a more political role for the Parliament and to allow it to have a procedure providing for oral questions, et cetera. Senator Yeats has already quoted the section involved and they do not reflect any Government attitude. They do not show the current political thinking on this subject in the Community and indicate what our attitude is towards it.
The next matter I want to deal with is the names of Irish members of Community bodies. It would be factual information. Most of us know who the delegates to the European Parliament are and who the judge of the European Court is, but it would be very interesting to have a full breakdown on who the Irish appointments were in the Secretariat of the Council, in the Commission and in the European Parliament. I think this would be a matter of some real interest.
Virtually none.
On 15th May?
Very few today. They have yet to be made. It is a good suggestion for the future.
Even that would be a very interesting comment. The chapter on external relations and trade is not just a very helpful chapter. It does not start with what I believe is generally agreed to be the most important aspect of external relations and trade, mainly the trade relations between Community and the United States. This is an externally important area. It is one in which there has been a lot of thinking and writing. It would be possible to reduce the core of that writing to an indication of the political involvement of the Community and of the question of how it bargained with the United States, what the factors are, Ireland's role and Ireland's attitude towards this whole question. There is no indication of this. Once again it is a factual account of certain rather minor aspects of the foreign trade which really disguises and draws attention away from what are the main foreign trade issues. The question of trade with Japan is another aspect of the whole question of foreign trade with the United States.
On the question of free movement of persons, services and capital, in chapter 6, I think it would be helpful if there was more indication of the degree of consultation with professional and vocational bodies in the country. I say this because I believe that we do not sufficiently appreciate the extent to which membership of the Communities places a strain on our resources and the main resource on which it places a strain is our manpower.
We must learn, as a small country, to meet the European Community commitment by using our manpower. I believe that the Government must be much more ready than they have been to reach out to people outside the Government machine, outside the Civil Service, and to reach out to people who will provide certain expertise, who have a knowledge in the particular area who wish to be consulted and who would have a very decided role to play.
We could tap more sources of manpower. The attitude of Ireland would be on a national basis which would not bring up the problem of different political viewpoints. On many Community issues there is an Irish national standpoint on which there is no basic disagreement. Therefore, I should like the Government to consider being ready to call for expertise in the community, to seek help from either bodies or individuals with that sort of expertise.
Looking at paragraph 6.7 on the question of rights of establishment it states, in a very cryptic way in referring to the establishment of the professionals and their right to supply services, as follows:
These proposals raise problems for us which are under consideration in consultation with the Irish professional organisation concerned.
What is the degree of this consultation? Is it a uniform sort of consultation or is it a sort of phone call to the president of an association or a letter to the secretary saying "Have you any views on this"? What is the procedure and machinery for a consultation? This whole area is under review and there are proposals for a National Economic Council which would be helpful in co-ordinating the information and the policy; but the professional and vocational groups in this country ought to be consulted a great deal more about draft directives or draft regulations or even draft proposals at Community level which if they are implemented will vastly affect the lifestyle and the methods of operation of these bodies. If this consultation was introduced in a constructive way the Government would be met more than half way by these bodies. They are very willing to be consulted and they feel there is a great lack of consultation and are very worried about the criteria for either a right of establishment or free movement. In the university context the question of the equivalence of degrees and diplomas is a matter of concern.
In chapter 6.14 the paragraph we are quoting states:
We were represented in the final stages of the deliberation for the working party which was set up to review progress generally in this matter——
that is the matter of the equivalence of degrees and diplomas
——and which met between February and October, 1972. The working party submitted a report to the Commission in December, 1972. Consultations are continuing with university authorities here in the matter.
We were represented. Who represented us? What was the basis on which this representation took place? "Consultations are continuing with university authorities." With what university authorities? At what level in the universities? At what level in the universities is this whole question of the equivalence of degrees and diplomas, a matter which is being discussed and which ought to be discussed and on which views ought to be sought? There is a danger of further erosion of university independence, in a sense, if the consultation comes too late and if it is at too high a level to penetrate down to the areas where decisions are beginning to be taken in the university at more democratic level.
I do not propose to dwell on the common agricultural policy, which has been referred to by those more expert than I in dealing with it. I wish to move on to the chapters on more legal aspects. There is a chapter on the competition policy of the Community with reference to the Continental Can Company position and that, although the Commission lost on the facts by not having sufficiently proved their case against Continental Can, they won the principle of being able to control mergers. There is a rather vague attitude that there probably will be a regulation controlling mergers and that this may have to take place under Article 235 because there is no clear specific authority for it.
What is the attitude of the Government on this question. To what extent will it influence the legislation which is promised here and about which there is doubt about its imminence? What problems does it pose for this country? What sort of controls have we already of supranational companies? To what extent would we implement the merger proposals in the third directive on companies where there would be a responsibility to the workers in a company where a merger ensued? None of these basic questions is raised at all by this unhelpful cryptic paragraph, which is typical of the way in which the report is written. Looking at the chapter on company law, I have already made brief reference to the third directive on mergers. Senator Yeats made reference to the directive on worker participation. I should like to support his desire for an indication of the Government's attitude on this and to stress the importance of the proposal contained in this draft directive. This last directive would apply only to public companies and to large public companies at that. It would require the creation of three distinct organs in a company which are quite new to Irish, large public companies. One would be a management body, the second would be a supervisory board and the third would be a general meeting of shareholders. As well as that, the proposal would require worker participation on the supervisory board.
Perhaps I could intervene to indicate it is the customary time for Adjournment.
What arrangements are envisaged for the debate on the Social Welfare Bill tomorrow?
It is proposed to continue with the discussion on this motion tomorrow, as arranged today, to finish not later than 5 o'clock. The Social Welfare Bill will be ordered after the motion. It is possible there might be a hiatus if the discussion on this motion were to conclude before 5 o'clock. That may have been overcome. It will be ordered with the understanding there might be a gap should this discussion conclude earlier.
That is reasonable.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21st June, 1973.