Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jun 1973

Vol. 75 No. 3

Private Business. - Developments in the European Communities: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the report: Developments in the European Communities—First Report.

—(Senator M.J. O'Higgins).

Mrs. Robinson

Last night I had been making a case for having this report give an indication of the political development of the Communities and also Government policy in relation to these developments, so that the Oireachtas could play a useful role in debating this report and have some accountability from the Government. Therefore, I had expressed criticisms of the content of this the first report because it is a bare factual report, summarising matters which can be found elsewhere; indeed, often disguising the real policy considerations behind the report. Going progressively through the chapters of the report, I had come to the chapter on Company Law and I had referred to the fifth draft directive on company law from the European Communities. This directive could result in a fundamental change in Irish company law by a new structure of companies, particularly by this concept of worker-participation.

I am disappointed to see how little debate either in the trade unions, in this House or in general in Irish life there has been on this question of industrial democracy. If this directive is to be implemented in the near future, we ought to have much more consideration of its implications here and adopt a much more positive approach to it. Therefore, I regret that the very minimal coverage in this report does not give an indication of Government thinking and does not really give an opportunity for a fuller debate on this very important subject.

The next item I should like to look at is chapter 11.13 on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters. This convention has come into force since February, 1973, for the original six member states and will come into force soon for the three new members. It is an extremely important legal convention. It will make a vast change in the role of the courts in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments. It will have vast legal implications. It will always have important political implications too, which are not indicated here at all. One area in which it will have significant political implications is that of the recognition of maintenance payments. Every public representative is aware of the hardship caused by the failure to have maintenance orders made in Ireland enforceable in England and vice versa.

Efforts have been made over the years to get agreement on a bilateral basis in relation to this. It does seem that this convention will require the enforcement of maintenance payments. This is extremely important. It is a matter of high policy content but there is no indication here of what is involved. I regret this very much because it means that the debate cannot be a very constructive one. The wording about the present position is rather typical of the approach of this report. I quote from the second paragraph under this heading, which states:

...A working group representative of all member states of the enlarged Community, is now engaged in the examination of the problems of adaptation of the Convention to meet the requirements of the new member states.

Who is on this working group? Have consultations been held? What are the factors involved? Surely we could have a little more information as to the background of what is, in fact, a very important convention. To what extent has there been consultation either with the judiciary or with the legal profession? To what extent is there involvement of the people to whom this makes a vast difference? To what extent will there be more publicity about the discussions which are going on?

The next chapter deals with the policy in regard to the environment. Here, again, if we are to believe that this report covers the developments in the Communities up until the 15th May I find it very disappointing that it does not cover the draft Council's resolution on the environment which is dated the 10th April and which is an extremely important draft resolution recommending extensive Community action relating to the environment, recommending that the Community would have a sort of monitoring role in relation to even State activity in relation to the environment. None of this is clear although this was all published on the 10th April. It does not appear in this report which was supposed to cover developments until the 15th May. What would be useful here would be an indication of the Irish approach to this question of the environment. Are we going to take it more seriously on a national basis? There have been rumours about a Department of the Environment. If one looks at the scope of the Community activity and the extent to which there will be an exchange of information and joint enterprises, there is a very strong case for a Department of the Environment to allow us to play a full part in the Community activity and to expand our national activity in protecting the environment.

The next subject I should like to look at is the question of regional policy. This is the area which has given rise to most of the discussion. We seem to view the Community through the eyes of a regional policy. That is not a bad way to look at it but once again the actual chapter on regional policy, although it does refer to Commissioner Thompson's report on regional policy which was published early in May, is disappointing, because it does not really give an indication of the consideration involved or of the necessity that the regional policy be more than just a word. There is no attempt to go deeper into the whole concept of regions. It is important that we appreciate that within the complexity of the European countries there are at least four different types of regions. There is the region which has a national minority in it and which has a strong cultural and historical difference such as in Brittany, Wales or Flanders. That is the first type of region. There is the second type of region in which an existing administrative unit has been formed, very often not of a very long historical background such as some of the Laender in Germany and the Italian regions. The third type of region is the trans-frontier region where for various reasons to do with the development of a particular area which crosses countries' boundaries there is a joint administrative machinery. Examples of this are the Regio Basiliensis and Schleswig-Holstein. There are strong arguments for trying to create this sort of unit between the north-west and northern part of this country. Fourthly there is the economic region in the sense of a Community regional financial policy.

We ought to look closely at the Thompson report for this reason, because it only deals with the economic region. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Europe has not achieved, as yet, the human face that is talked about so much. There is a great deal more to regionalism than the economic aspects of it, important as they may be. There is the importance of treasuring and fostering cultural diversity, recognising the traditions that are there. We ought not to allow all debate on regional policy to be narrowed purely to the economic aspects. It might very well be that Europe could achieve much more relevance and popularity with the people living in the unit of the Community if we were to emphasise the importance of this cultural diversity and if we were to try to work out a convention which protected cultural minorities, the rights to a language, the right to self-determination within areas, which reconciled differences and which encouraged the peoples of Brittany, Flanders, Wales, Scotland and particularly the Gaelic areas of Ireland to realise that Europe protected rather than destroyed them. We do not want a homogenised single culture Europe. This is part of regional policy in its full sense but it is not part of the present regional policy as conceived by the Community.

The other point I wish to make about the Thompson proposals is that they rely very much on national regional policies. In chapter 15.5 paragraph (a) it is stated:

Community regional policy cannot be a substitute for the national regional policies which member states have been conducting for many years. It must complement them with the aim of reducing the main disparities across the Community....

Here the responsibility lies with ourselves. We do not have, I would maintain, a sufficiently co-ordinated, clear and devolved regional policy. We have various types of regions for various reasons. We have one type of region according to the IDA, another type of region according to Bord Fáilte, another type of region for purposes of health. We do not have any representative structures at the regional level. This is very important. If the Community regional policy is to be a reality, then the Commission is going to look for structures beneath the national level which are representative and with which it can deal. This must come. The Commission must be able to talk to representatives of regions. We do not have representative bodies at regional level.

Senator Lenihan was much too optimistic about the approach of the Commission that has designated Ireland as one region, but is prepared to say that within that one region there are areas of greater need than others, for example, the west and the south-west. What the west and the south-west should have is representative regional bodies to articulate this point, to speak for that region to the Commission and to examine and plan for the needs of that region. This is the trend in other countries. In Britain, for example, the Kilbrandon report will recommend regional assembles for Scotland and Wales. There will be a devolution of power. We ought to examine how to set up in our own internal regions representative structures which can benefit from a Community regional policy. This ought to be done as a matter of urgency. As a complement to this in our legislative policy we ought to examine whether in all cases centralisation is a good thing. We do not ask the question any more when it is decided that the Government will be involved in a new activity.

There is always the demand that the Government do something, that they set up a particular machinery, or that they take over a particular activity. This is the increasing tendency. We never say it would be better to let it be carried out at a regional level rather than at a centralised, Dublin level. If we have representative structures at the regional level we could ask this healthy question: "Do we really want this also centralised in a Dublin bureaucracy or do we want it devolved to allow more participation by the citizens around the country?" There are vital questions for our own internal regional policy on which the Community policy will only be a supplement and not a substitute, certainly in the near future.

Regarding the social policy of the Community we need to do much more thinking about our own social policy and labour relations. Efforts have been made to introduce the concept of equal pay in the public service. I hope we have an opportunity to debate the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women and I hope we will be able to push this a great deal further because equal pay in the public service is only a very small first step.

Also, in chapter 16.14 of the report reference is made to the proposed regulation dealing with conflicts in labour law:

A draft regulation under consideration since 1972 would provide that labour relationships generally would be governed by the labour law in force in the State in which the worker is employed even though his employer's headquarters may be located elsewhere in the Community.

If I were a worker in one of the six original member states I would not be happy if I should come here and be governed by the labour law in this country. As far as I know, we are the only country without an unfair dismissal compensation. I think our labour law could be regarded as very primitive. It is part of the social policy of the Community that each of the countries improve their own internal labour relations and protection for workers. I think that we may find that we are a stumbling block in the evolution of a Community social policy unless we put our own house in order very substantially.

On a specific matter which is under the Community social policy—I am not quite sure why—I should like to ask a question in relation to the European University Institute in Florence for which the Convention has been entered into and ratified by Italy and with which plans are going ahead. It is stated there that Ireland is represented on a preparatory committee. Who is representing Ireland? Is it university representation? Have there been consultations with our university? What is our approach to this university in Florence?

I hope it is intended to set up a European school in Ireland. I think that this would be a very useful contribution to creating a European awareness in this country.

That is all I want to say about the report itself. I now want to turn to the other important matter contained in the Minister's opening speech, which is the question of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Like the other Senators who have spoken, I welcome the commitment to set up this Joint Committee and I welcome in particular the fact that the Government are prepared to amend section 4 of the European Communities Act. I think that this is a very welcome and a very flexible step on their part. I am not, however, quite satisfied with what the Minister has said in that opening speech about the Committee. He does not make it clear whether this Committee will be a Select Committee. I think the arguments are very strong that this Committee must have the powers of a Select Committee if it is to be a reality. It must have powers of a Select Committee because it must be able to call for persons and records. It could be worked out that, instead of having consultation between the Parliament and the bureaucracy in the Civil Service, there would be co-operation. It would not be necessary to give powers of subpoena to the Committee. One could try to work for a very real co-operation. If the Committee cannot call for expertise from outside, if they cannot ask the head of the IDA, for example, to come in and say what the implications might be, to ask the official in the particular Department implementing a particular proposal to come and explain to the Committee, then that Committee is reduced to a very minimal level and it is not sufficient to give that Committee a good Secretariat. Without the power to reach out for information that Committee cannot report as it is intended that the Committee would report, on specific proposals in a meaningful way because it would be too confined in what it could do.

I should like to make some points, first of all, about the way in which the Oireachtas, in general, ought to approach membership of the Community. I do not think that it is sufficient to create a Committee and then forget about Europe. The whole dimension of Europe must be something of which all Members of the House are aware and on which all of them have a possibilty of getting sufficient knowledge and information. I would draw the attention of this House to the procedure in the Westminster Parliament. I do not give this as an example we must slavishly follow but to show that we can learn from the way in which other parliaments operate. Members of both Houses are sent weekly lists of the proposed legislation from the European Communities and there is a part in it which can be filled in if a member wants the particular proposals for regulations and directives sent to him. This is very important because, increasingly, the draft regulations and directives of the Community will be of interest to particular sectors and therefore to particular public representatives who have either a local factory which could be affected or a local industry. It is not enough to have a Committee. All Members of the House should have the facilities of knowing what legislation is coming from the Community and have it sent to them if necessary.

I think that we ought to consider the possibility of rearranging the procedures of the House. For example, it should be possible to have a special day for questions on Europe so that the Ministers may reply to questions on the European activities which affect their Departments, so that there can be a comprehensive assessment of Government activity on a day-to-day basis through this Question Time. Again, the twice yearly debate in each House on the report of the developments in the Community is another additional way in which the Parliament can adapt to membership of Europe.

Returning to the question of a Joint Committee, I feel if this Committee is to be really effective it must be a Select Committee, having powers to call for persons and records. I also believe it should have a paid chairman in the same way as the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach. This would mean that the chairman of the Committee would regard his work as full time and the necessity for this arises from the fact that the Dáil rises for a very long period during the summer while the Community does not. The holidays of the European Commission are much shorter than the holidays of the Dáil at various times of the year. If the chairman is actually paid for this position and therefore has the status of and equivalence to the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach, he can be expected to be working and the members of the Committee can be expected to be called during off-periods when the Dáil or Seanad are not in session. I also think that the staff of the Joint Committee should be responsible to the chairman of that Committee and be separate from the general staff in the Oireachtas so that it would not mean that the Joint Committee would be using a part-time official who had about ten other functions to perform and who could be called away to do these other things. We need to define the staff of this Committee who will be responsible to the chairman of the Committee.

I do not think that a membership of ten delegates to the European Parliament and ten others is sufficient. Senator Yeats made the point that the delegates to the European Parliament might be absent for a good deal of the time and even when they are present they may not have the time to devote to committees. They may want to be in the more public arena of the floor of the House. Therefore, it is a burden on them to some extent. They ought to be allowed to participate in the work of the Committee but they are not going to be very real members of it.

I believe that the Committee should be at least one-third as big again. It should be at least a Committee of 30 members, including the delegates of the European Parliament. If one looks at the possibility that the membership from the Seanad will be three and the membership from the Dáil will be seven I believe, speaking as an Independent, it will be sad to see how that will be parcelled out and how very few Members of the Seanad, who wish to participate, will be able to do so.

It would be better to involve a larger number on the actual Committee and also—this is very important—to give access to all Members of both Houses to the sittings of the Committee and the right to participate if they so wish. This is an important way of creating an awareness of the European dimension rather than having an elite who huddle in a corner and have secret discussions on proposals. If there was a right of access to all Members to the deliberations of the Committee it would be a very useful exercise.

A larger Committee of at least 30 members would create the possibility of having some sub-committees. It will be necessary to have some sort of sifting process, probably by the chairman and the officials of the Committee, for the more important recommendations. It is stated in the Minister's opening address that the Committee will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas and I think this is to be welcomed but it is very important that the Committee be allowed to publish their reports so that there will not be a delay while they are being laid before the Oireachtas. Secondly, I think the Committee should have the power to decide in which language the report will be published or whether it should be published in both languages. Anybody dealing with reports of Committees of the Oireachtas knows of the very long delays that can sometimes occur. It is necessary that this Committee be able to report very quickly after they have completed their deliberations either on specific proposals, such as the proposal for regional or social policy, or on a series of individual draft proposals of the Community.

I would like to make one final point on the question of a Joint Committee. I see a need for a body—I am not sure if it would be appropriate that this would be a subcommittee of this Committee or another ad hoc body— to look at the legal consequences of Ireland's entry into the European Community. There is a necessity for a scrutiny of specifically legal draft instruments. We need to examine the changes in domestic law which would be either desirable or necessary as a result of Community draft instruments. We need to know the effect of directly applicable regulations on domestic law and we need to examine the most appropriate means of passing European legislation into our domestic law. Here again I would disagree with Senator Yeats who seemed to think that it was not a function of such a Committee to decide on choice of means and that the Government should not ask the Committee to do so but should come forward with draft proposals.

I would welcome the fact that the Government would consider asking the Committee about the question of choice of means of implementing Community secondary legislation into domestic law because, very often, there could be quite an important policy consideration involved. Take, for example, the fifth directive on company law which talks about worker participation; surely nobody here would like to see that implemented by a regulation under the European Communities Act rather than by a full Irish statute that went through the Oireachtas and was debated very fully in both Houses. That would be the appropriate method to implement a welcome change in Irish company law of that sort.

Dr. FitzGerald

On a point of clarification, what is proposed is that the Committee would have the power to recommend, not that the Government would ask it nor that the Committee would decide.

Mrs. Robinson

That is what I understand by it although I may have phrased it wrongly. I would welcome that power to recommend because the choice of means of implementing Community legislation is extremely important. If the Committee are to be really effective they will have to be in some sense an innovation in the life of the Oireachtas. They have to be a Select Committee who function as such. They have to have an independent relationship in having a paid chairman, in having a staff responsible to that chairman, in having the power to issue their own reports and these reports could be taken at the same time as the Government reports are taken twice yearly for debate. We could have a very interesting cross-reference from one to the other and it would be a useful way of finding out what the selected representatives in the Parliament think of specific areas.

Even in the near future it ought to be possible for this Joint Committee to have the sort of contact with the European Communities, with the European Parliament and with the European Commission that the committees of other member state parliaments have. The procedural Committees of the Houses of Commons and Lords, which are examining this question, have been to Brussels and have interviewed people there. That is an expensive exercise but there are occasions when it would be very useful for the Joint Committee of Parliament to go to Brussels to find out about the debates in the European Parliament.

In other words, we are not talking about just another Committee. We are talking about a very real development in the parliamentary life of this country if the Oireachtas is to play a relevant role in the development of the European Communities.

Mr. Harte

First of all, I would like to praise the very critical and detailed analysis that has been made of the report both by Senator Yeats and Senator Robinson. I am not academically inclined and I have to live in the university of life; consequently, I should like to talk about the social aspects not so much as regards how we approach them but from the basis that we are in Europe. Europe is now a fact and certain developments have taken place that make it necessary for us to ensure that our people, who are appointed and nominated to go to Europe, act in a way that will bring about the best possible results for us.

At the Paris Summit the heads of state agreed that, although the structures of the institutions have proved themselves, the decision-making procedures and functions should be improved. This is important to me as a trade unionist but I do not say so in a selfish way. The trade union is a mass organisation, representing about 750,000 people from both parts of our island, and if one takes the dependants and relatives of members it constitutes a very sizeable proportion of the population. Their activities can have a great influence on the industrial, political and economic advancement of the country and, indeed, they have had a great influence over the years.

The statement that there should be an improvement is a very welcome one because it is neutral in the sense that it is an admission that the foundation exists and needs to be built on. I would be concerned about the shape that this improvement in the structures would take, whether they would widen at the base or whether they would become pyramid-shaped. If they became pyramid-shaped I do not know if we could bear the weight. Probably that is saying the same thing as Senator Mary Robinson in a different way. I would be rather concerned about the shape of any improvements in the functions and procedure-making positions in the EEC. It is a problem for us.

The purpose my putting my viewpoint is as follows. Firstly, I should like it to be clearly known that, while the trade union people may have had a viewpoint either for or against entry, or some may have had reservations, they are taking it as a factual situation. Our representatives in the EEC will bring home forcibly and influence as much as possible the other parties concerned to the effect that an evolution into an economic community is not the end nor is it the peak of the ambitions of the trade union movement. In addition, it is not the end of the social desires of trade unionists who have been pursuing social initiatives for many, many years. In this respect I have every confidence in the people who have been nominated to the committees of the Commission in Europe. They can play a vital and energetic role and can bring a very wide and broad experience into those institutions.

The collective attitude is that: if the blow went against somebody, that is fair enough; we are not interested in the blow, we are interested in the way the thing bounces. The main consideration is this: we are in there now and the institutions of the Community must be worked and worked to the greatest advantage possible for the Irish people.

Participation in the committees, as they are presently instituted, must also be considered. I believe that, as far back as 1965, many social initiatives were taken by trade union bodies in Europe and social programmes set down and these have not yet been given effect to. This is a cause for very great concern. Procedures and functions are very important to a person like me, who has to deal with industry. Dealing with industry is similar to dealing with institutions of this sort. This is why the question of dealing with the institutions is of tremendous importance.

There is no point in emphasising further that the workers have helped to advance their present decision by conflict. It was like a civil war and many sanctions had to be applied. There was also the attitude that it was quite possible to have this conflict and, at the same time, work in co-operation with the other parties, whether it be the Government or the employer. It was generally the employer, and we always tried to keep the Government out of it.

We tried to play our part to help the advancement of the working classes and the underprivileged people. That attitude will be taken into Europe. We will further not only the interests of the workers, but the welfare and advancement of the Irish people in general. To approach it in any other way would be a dereliction of duty.

The trade union representatives on the various committees, irrespective of the nature of the peculiar institution they have to serve on, will be conscious all the time of the aspirations of the Irish people. They will endeavour as far as possible to see that nobody in the Community—they will need the help of the other social partners and the Government—gets a social advantage over any other section.

At present, unfortunately, that is the way it is going. The rich have got richer and the poor have stood still. That is the history of Ireland. At present in Europe there is no great indication that the social advantages there have kept pace with the economic developments. This is a matter of great concern to us. I should like the House to know that we are not expecting miracles. We entered the Community as recently as 1st January, 1973. Progress is very slow because, no matter what initiative, idea or proposal comes up, it is not 100 per cent, and is never accepted as being 100 per cent correct. That, in itself, poses many problems. There are also the many variables referred to by Senator Robinson. All still have their own advocates at work. Consequently, it will not be easy to get agreement very rapidly. Working within the presently constituted institutions, advancement on the social front should be a priority, whether it is through equal pay, regional policy or benefits for the underprivileged. We probably will get the support of the employer. Despite the conflicts of the past, there is an enlightened attitude among most employers now that the worker must be more than ever involved in the running of industry.

Workers participation has been mentioned. This is related, whether we like it or not, to industrial democracy. What has happened in Ireland regarding industrial democracy? Senator Robinson was disturbed that it had not been debated in either the Seanad or the Dáil. She probably does not realise that in 1957 the Irish Congress of Trade Unions adopted a motion on industrial democracy and a great deal of work has since been done on it. The many pronouncements we had in the meantime, and the use of much intellectual jargon, did not help it to progress; it only confused the situation. We had people designing and drawing up policies and proposals, and it all has led to a bit of confusion. Had they stayed out of it and left it to the Trade Union Congress, a great deal more progress would have been made on this front. To those of us who represent workers and their interests all it means is another step in the process of regulating the relationship between the employer and employee. It is as simple as that, although there are many considerations in it. However, the intellectuals decided to write articles, produce papers and bamboozle the workers with the result that we had people crying out for industrial democracy who did not even know what it meant.

If Senator Robinson wants to debate the question of worker participation, I would most certainly welcome that opportunity. There are many sides to it. Even though this motion has been down since 1957 and work has been done on it, we in Ireland have not even an effective grievance procedure.

If supervisory boards and other machinery are introduced into the Irish trade union movement and into the relationship with employers, et cetera, in order to help us develop in the Community and enjoy the standard of life, which membership of the Community entails, we must understand—and so far it is not quite understood—what the supervisory boards are.

If I were told some workers should serve on the board of an enterprise, I would adopt a cynical approach. It would seem ridiculous to have the right to sit on a board to make policy and then have the right, at ground level, to veto that policy. In the present design and structure of industry the employer makes the policy and the trade union deal with it. So far the workers in general have expressed no great desire that they want to share in that sort of decision-making process.

I am not in a position to say whether supervisory boards would be readily accepted by the trade union movement or whether the workers in general would gain anything from them. Certainly a board of directors' first obligation, whether we like it or not is to the owners of an enterprise. It is not necessary the management we are talking about but the owners of capital. Their first obligation is not the supplying of goods and services but to see that the enterprise is profitable. Consequently, I do not know if we would be much interested in that aspect of the matter.

If workers were put on a board there is no reason why the company could not put somebody on to out-vote them. It does not appear to me to be a very practical proposition. Even though it has not been proposed here it has been suggested in other areas and I think the air ought to be cleared on that point.

The question of full and active participation in the operations at the lower level is something to be desired. As I have said, we have not even got effective grievance machinery. Sometimes consultation, or what passes for consultation, is merely information at a point when an irrevocable decision has been taken.

As to the question of participation, regard would have to be had to the dimension it would assume. If the councils are merely going to be used for company policies, a mutual admiration society, if you like, or for a developer or some individual to advance his own social position, then they have not very much meaning. In effect, this whole question of industrial democracy as a natural development from democracy in general is justified but its shape and nature need very serious consideration.

It should not be clothed in legal jargon. It must be expressed in terms of the man on the ground floor. The real way to tackle a problem is to ensure that when it is done it is done in such a way that the thickest man in the squad is catered for. Possibly this will not look too well in print in the Official Report. However, it is a fact of life. This has to be done. When it is brought about everyone must understand exactly where he is going. Consequently, while we welcome the idea of industrial democracy, there should not be any great interference from outside the trade union movement. Congress has got the people and the ability and I have no doubt it will be introduced at an opportune time.

We work through structures and institutions. I should like to go on record here as saying that I was not opposed to entry into the EEC: in fact, I was an advocate of it. As well as that I had regard to the many problems and difficulties in which we would be involved. I am concerned about the nature of the developments. If the developments were going to allow people to overwhelm us because of their vast experience having been in Europe for a long time before us, we should guard against it.

I do not understand the point Senator Robinson was making about policy-making in Ireland. She referred to a policy committee. If the Senator means that somebody would write policy and then bring it into the institutions in Europe, I do not agree. It was rather difficult to hear everything the Senator said as she spoke at great length. But if I understood her last remark correctly she was talking about the position where if we had this committee we could determine, to a great extent, policy and bring it into the institutions of Europe.

In regard to policy-making unfortunately the Community are not very ready to receive it from any organisation outside. It has to be argued from within on its merits. One cannot have the Houses of the Oireachtas being the only people involved in making policy; other sections of Irish society should be involved also. Policy-making is really a matter of improvisation. Improvisations are necessary because we have clever men who will not subjugate their own needs to the needs of the masses. When directives are decided upon we have to consider and see how they can be used to our advantage. We are not bound hand and foot by any directives made, except in the sense that they are decisions to which we are bound. We are not bound by them to the extent of not being able to use our own initiative to implement them. I was concerned about this point as I do not know what the Senator meant in that respect.

I am concerned as to how the institutions function not particularly on behalf of the trade unions or the employers but rather on behalf of the under-privileged. The employers and trade unions have resources at their disposal for taking care of themselves. The under-privileged have not got these resources. One of the disasters of society is that the working classes were engaged in a kind of civil war which was very costly to both sides in a situation where there is a natural conflict of interests because of the nature of the society in which we live.

There is always an argument not whether you should get a share of the cake but as to the size of the share. The under-privileged suffer most in this sort of conflict. By these I mean persons on fixed incomes and whose who are looking for equal pay for equal work. I should like to ask my representatives what are the possibilities of pushing as hard as possible on the social objectives and in this process would it be possible to ask the Government on the one hand for some further assistance in Europe and the institutions and the employers on the other hand to practise the art of letting go. This applies particularly in cases where it would not be so disastrous for them to let go because the scope is there for this.

The trade unions have got into this civil war and the under-privileged suffered. Another class arose out of that, the middle class, and the gap is beginning to widen between us and the people whom we are striving to help by the nature of society. We are now in a position that unless we take an attitude in Europe of having the social objectives as a priority, and unless we take social initiatives, the gap that has widened between the owners of capital and the under-privileged to whom I have already referred will widen still further. The trade unions will take care of themselves in the trenches. They will have the co-operation of other European bodies and I have no doubt they will play a good role for the country, but there may be some limitations on how far they can go in the social objectives. They would need assistance from the employers and the Government.

When we speak of rights we should understand there are obligations as well. If we wish to gain greater benefits a certain amount of rights have to be surrendered. I am not an advocate of the private enterprise society but I am a realist. I must work within the society in which I live and do it without wearing the crown of thorns at a crucifying angle but rather at a jaunty angle. When things go wrong you must bounce back and deal with matters as they come along. We must pay great attention to the question of what our ambitions are in the community inside the structures.

I am forgetting for the time being about the report and what should or should not have been found there and what was wrong with it. I am concerned with the question of advancing our people to a point where the old order must go and I realise that in the process we cannot get benefits without surrendering some rights. I am somewhat puzzled by the contributions from Senator Yeats and Senator Robinson. They were carrying it close to the bone as to whether some of these rights should be surrendered. If I thought the social objectives were to get priority and that we would receive help from the Government and the employers in the sense of leaning back a bit on the shoulder, then I would willingly accept as I am sure most of my trade union colleagues would accept, in the interests of the under-privileged, that the abrogation of some independence is a necessity. We cannot have the rights without the obligations.

Mr. E. Ryan

The importance of the communiqué issued at the end of the Summit Conference in Paris last October was its emphasis on the necessity for co-ordinating the various measures which were necessary to reach European union by the end of the decade. Although the nature of the union is still far from clear and will be the subject of a great deal of debate and disagreement, I have no doubt that some progress will be made and that the structure we will have in the Community by 1980 will be a great deal more integrated than at present.

The aims and objectives of the economic and monetary union and the methods by which these can be achieved have been outlined to a considerable extent and although many problems remain, if the problems can be solved and agreement reached to the satisfaction of the nine States in the Community then one important aspect of European unity will have been achieved. On the other hand, the form and extent of political union is much less clear at this stage and there will undoubtedly be very strong pressures by at least some of the states against any substantial transfer of power from the states to the Community in the political sphere. This pressure has waxed and waned over the years since the beginning of the Community and it often depends on the personality and philosophy of some of the leading statesmen in the Community. It is difficult to say at this stage just how much progress will be made towards political union. Some progress will be made, but on the other hand it is most unlikely that we will find ourselves with anything in the nature of a federal structure by 1980. Progress will be made by way of consultation, starting by way of further consultation and co-ordination. Subsequently a limited transfer of powers will result in certain areas, probably those of foreign policy, defence and possibly such ones as aid to under-developed countries outside the Community.

What strikes on reading the report before us is the connection between the common agricultural policy, the social policy and the regional policy. Certainly all three have many things in common and are of significance. For the same reasons, as far as this country is concerned, there is a considerable amount of overlapping of benefits. One could easily envisage a problem area in an agricultural region of this country being the beneficiary of funds from the three policy departments, agricultural, social and regional.

During the debate on the referendum dealing with membership of the Community, when a great deal of discussion took place as to the benefits or otherwise of membership, most of the discussion was in relation to the common agricultural policy. It was argued by those not in favour of entry that the CAP was the aspect which had any real hope of benefit for this country, that the regional policy had no teeth in it and that the social policy was not really relevant to our problems. The social policy has been given increased status. Substantial funds have been provided and more have been promised for the future.

The Paris Summit communiqué in relation to social policy included a statement in which the heads of State emphasised that they attached as much importance to vigorous action in the social field as to the achievement of economic and monetary union. A reformed fund, financed by the Community budget and in operation from 1st May, 1972, provides assistance to two categories of cases. These are set out in page 77 of the report, chapter 16, paragraph 3. The second paragraph, which is of more importance to this country, deals with the reformed fund:

Where the employment position in certain regions, in certain branches of the economy or in certain groups of undertakings is affected by difficulties which are not the result of any specific Council measure but which derive indirectly from the operation of the Common Market or which impede the harmonious development of the Community: in these cases, assistance may be given towards eliminating long-term structural unemployment and underemployment, towards training manpower as well as towards operations intended to fit disabled persons for employment and to give employment to older workers, women and young persons; and, in general, these projects must form part of an overall plan for the region, the industries or the particular groups of people concerned.

It is quite clear that this country will benefit very much under the type of situation mentioned in the second of these two categories. The first category is not so relevant to this country but it includes help from the social fund to those who are moving from agriculture towards industry and who consequently require retraining. To this extent also we would benefit under the first category outlined as being the beneficiary of social policy.

As regards the regional policy, the heads of state at the October Summit, agreed that a high priority should be given to the aim of correcting the structural and regional imbalances which might affect the realisation of the economic and monetary union. The importance of this priority is that they emphasised that whatever one might think about agriculture or depressed areas—even those who had no altruistic or idealistic interest in such matters —if the economic and monetary union was to succeed it was necessary that a regional policy should be successful and achieve an economic quality, in so far as this was possible, in the under-developed regions.

To those who argue that the European Community are only concerned with making the rich richer and the poor poorer, the big business and the wealthy areas, this is an answer by the Summit Conference. People must realise that if the Community is to progress and achieve economic and monetary union, it will be necessary to have a successful regional and social policy.

The objectives of the regional policy would be to correct imbalances resulting from, inter alia, preponderance of agriculture, industrial change and structural underemployment. In the guidelines given in the report of the Commission on 3rd May, 1973, the importance of national policies was stressed. It was stressed that they were the important ones. National policies would give the initiative. The Commission can only complement these policies. This point has been made already by some of the speakers but it is necessary to reiterate it because many people in this country, in all walks of life, from the Government right down to the man-in-the-street, still feel that the Common Market will take the initiative and give us help, money and ideas as to how the regions can be developed. The states must take the initiative, the Commission can only complement them. This must be stressed again and again.

The document refers among other things to the fact that the Community must reduce concentration of capital, benefits and aids of one kind and another to what the report describes as the congested areas.

It has another association in the minds of people in this country, because what the Community mean by the congested areas are the areas which are congested in the sense that they have a very high incidence of industry and high employment. It is one of the aims of the regional policy referred to at the Summit Meeting in October last that there must be far less aid given to these areas and far more given to the areas which are in need. This will be an important test of the solidarity of the Community as to whether it is to move in the direction mentioned by some of its critics of making the rich areas richer and the poor ones poorer or whether it is to make a really practical move to bring up the backward areas to the economic wealth of the better-off ones.

The report analysed the under-developed regions at page 75, chapter 15, paragraph 15.5 (j), where it described a common feature of all these areas as a relatively low income per head of the population and a high dependence on agricultural employment. It stated:

As regards the areas suffering from industrial change these have usually been those where there has been a high dependence for employment on ageing industries. Their problems of economic transformation are often underlined by a constantly slow rate of growth and by high levels of unemployment stretching over many years. Thus, for identifying these industrial problem areas GDP per head is a valid criterion as is a persistent high rate of unemployment.

It is hardly necessary in considering the three departments from which we can hope to obtain financial benefit from the Community to go into detail in regard to the common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy has in the past year, particularly in the past few months, suffered some criticism and lack of support. There have been attacks on it by various countries. In particular, the UK is obviously not an enthusiastic supporter of this policy. Nevertheless there is sufficient support of a fundamental kind for it in the Community to ensure that it will remain a fundamental part of the Community and that any attempt seriously to undermine it will mean the collapse of the Community as such.

Consequently, we can look forward to the prospect that it will remain. Possibly it will be modified in certain respects. We can, however, be confident that it will remain as a fundamental part of the Community and that it will maintain its objective to ensure that the agricultural community will obtain a fair rate of remuneration for their products and that their position in the Community will be kept on a par with those in the industrial and commercial areas. At present, even though disappointment has been expressed at some of the prices fixed in the last few months, the prices which are available to the farmer add up to a position of great potential for every farmer, but particularly for the farmer who combines initiative with industry. This goes for farmers in all parts of the country not only for big farmers and those with good land. If they have the initiative the prices and benefits available under the common agricultural policy have great potential for them. I stress the word "potential" because it is merely a potential. They have to produce the right goods. They have to use their farms to the maximum potential irrespective of whether they are big or small or good or bad. If they do so there is a great deal for them in the common agricultural policy.

With regard to the economic and monetary union, the Council of the Community adopted a resolution in 1971 recording the political will of the states to establish an economic and monetary union by 1980. A further resolution in similar terms was passed in March, 1972. The measures provided for were varied, some of them were purely financial and others very technical, but the report has summarised the measures which were to be taken with a view to achieving an economic and monetary union. The measures are summarised under seven headings in the report.

It is of significance that two of the seven headings deal with regional policy. They deal with (a) the preparation by the Commission of a draft directive aimed at promoting stability, growth and full employment and (b) initiation of action on regional policy. We have, again, the position where the achievement of an economic monetary union which is something the Community has worked hard for and which the Community wishes more than anything else to achieve can only be achieved where we have a satisfactory regional policy. The Summit Meeting last year confirmed the determination of the Community to achieve an economic and monetary union and reaffirmed the principle of parallel progress in different fields. None of the measures which have been summarised in this report under seven headings was to be achieved in advance of the others. None of them was to get maximum concentration. In so far as possible there was to be parallel progress towards all the objectives mentioned.

Having read this report and having regard to the developments which have taken place during the past year it seems to me that these developments have, if anything, added to the potential for Ireland in the Community. There have, perhaps, been some disappointments. Certain aspects have not been as good as we had hoped for a year or two ago. Nevertheless, the benefits for this country have, on balance, been added to during the time covered by this report. The Government, however, have a primary responsibility to ensure that such benefits as are available are in fact obtained for this country. I say the Government have a primary responsibility but I do not suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government only. Every organisation—agricultural, industrial and vocational organisations, the trade unions and every section of the community—must play their part in ensuring that such benefits as are available are obtained for this country. Indeed, everybody can play some part towards ensuring that the benefits are obtained.

Even with the best will in the world certain organisations and certain sections of the community will find it very difficult to avail of the benefits unless suitable structures exist or evolve to enable them to be effective and to enable them to obtain the information as to the very benefits which are available and, also, to enable them to be kept informed of the developments in regard to benefits. In addition to this, it is obviously necessary that they should not merely play a passive role and sit around inquiring what the benefits are and then applying for them. They must be in a position to put forward proposals which would be for the benefit of Ireland, and which would ensure that policies in the future would be designed in such a way as to be appropriate to the needs of this country.

Again, it is not merely necessary to put forward proposals. There would have to be suitable structures to ensure that these proposals are pressed, that they are bargained for and that there is lobbying done to ensure that the Irish proposals and points of view are heard and heeded in the various institutions in the Community. These are things which would have to be done over and above the responsibility of the Government to play their part. The Government should do their utmost to encourage and assist suitable structures and suitable co-ordinating committees to ensure that what I have mentioned is done to enable various organisations to get the information at once and to make their case for the further policies that are necessary.

The Government should encourage and assist structures where they already exist or where they are in the process of evolving and should, in certain cases, take the initiative in setting up structures or helping them to evolve where no suitable structure exists or where no suitable structure seems to be likely to evolve without help from outside. The Irish Council of the European Movement have already indicated that they would be willing to play a part in this respect if it were considered that they could be of any assistance in doing so.

In relation to the question of structures and committees, I would like to welcome the Minister's statement that it is intended, in the near future, to set up an Oireachtas Committee to deal with regulations and generally to deal with the information and directives, and so on, which come from the Community and to have them processed by the Oireachtas and enable the Oireachtas to take such action as they consider necessary. This Committee has been discussed for some time and I am glad that action will now be taken to set it up. It should be the subject for a certain amount of discussion before it is set up. I would not like to see too much discussion and too much delay in setting it up. I hope it will be a flexible arrangement which can be changed if it is not entirely successful in its first form.

I agree with Senator Robinson in regard to the size of the Committee, which is rather small. The Committee consists of those members of Parliament who are members of the European Parliament and ten other Members of the Oireachtas. It must be realised that the members of the European Parliament will be very elusive people in the years ahead. It will be very hard to assemble them here for a meeting of this Committee It is not merely a matter of whether the European Parliament are sitting or not. The European Parliament sits fairly frequently. Even when they are not in session there are frequent meetings of the various committees and it would be no exaggeration to say that there will never be a time here, apart from August, and, perhaps, around Christmas, when all of the Irish members of the European Parliament will be available for a meeting. Some of them will always be at some committee meeting or other. This means that this Oireachtas Committee will have to do one of two things—they will have to wait until most of the European Parliamentarians are available to have a meeting, in which case, the Oireachtas Committee would meet very rarely indeed or, alternatively, they will get tired of waiting for the European parliamentarians and meet without them or with very few of them present. This will mean that they will be a very small Committee making allowances for the fact that the members of the Committee, even those who are not European parliamentarians, will have their own problems in attending it. In that situation there will be a very small Committee. A Committee which will not be big enough to do the job successfully.

The necessity of having the European parliamentarians at these meetings should be qualified. Obviously, they will be very useful members of the Committee, and they will be of great help when they do attend meetings of the Committee. Their advice will be very helpful and they will be able to give background information to the Oireachtas committee which would be of great benefit. I do not think it necessary that they should attend all meetings or that all of them should attend all meetings; obviously this would not be possible even if it were essential.

A great deal of the work of this Committee will be `homework'. It will be a detailed examination of regulations and directives. It will involve discussions as to how they are going to affect this country and discussions as to how directives should be implemented. There will be a good deal of detailed work, for which it will not be necessary to have European parliamentarians present, and for which a great deal of time will be necessary. Time is one thing which the European parliamentarians will not have in great quantity. I would urge that the size of this Committee should be reconsidered on the basis that the number of non-parliamentarians should be increased.

Senator Robinson suggested that the size of the Committee should be increased from 20 to 30 members. Perhaps that is a little bit unwieldly but, in any event, it should be increased to such a size as to ensure that a reasonable number, having regard to all the vicissitudes of political life, would be able to attend regularly to undertake the vast amount of detailed work which will be necessary if the Committee is to be successful.

The problem of the European Parliament and its place in the European Community has been dealt with in this report. The twin problems of the European Parliament remain. On the one hand, it has not sufficient power and, on the other hand, it is not democratically elected. The Parliament has, of course, been promised some increase in power. Certain developments have taken place during the last year or so which would give the Parliament some increase in power which would, in relation to certain measures of a general nature—where the Commission or the Council had departed from a parliamentary opinion—enable those measures to go back for something akin to a Second Reading. Certain other proposals are being made, and some of them have been authorised, in relation to the power of the European Parliament over budgetary matters. Some small improvements with regard to increases in the power of the Parliament have been made but they are still quite inadequate to give the European Parliament the status and the power which most parliaments already have.

The reservations which some people have about membership of the Community and the transfer of power from the various States to the Community would be considerably modified if the European Parliament had substantial power, on the one hand, and if it was elected by the people, on the other hand. This is a type of chicken-and-egg dilemma: which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first, power or the democratic elections? Is it worthwhile giving power to a parliament which is not representative of the people of the Community? On the other hand, is it worth while having elections if the parliament has not got sufficient power?

The dilemma will only be solved if power comes first. Until such time as the Parliament has power there is not much use talking about democratic elections. If it had sufficient power there would be more demand for direct elections to the Parliament and more incentive to have direct elections. Consequently, if this dilemma is to be solved it must be solved by ensuring in the first place that the Parliament has a substantial amount of power and the question of direct elections will then follow in due course.

There is a very good prospect that if one country takes the initiative and puts forward concrete proposals and takes certain measures to have direct elections in its own country, the other countries would rapidly follow suit. I see no reason why Ireland should not take the initiative in this respect. It is not only necessary for the political health of the Community to have direct elections to the European Parliament but, more than anywhere else, it is necessary for this country to have direct elections because our present system, the system of sending members of the Dáil and Seanad to the Community, will become more and more burdensome as the time goes on.

Parliamentarians who have to look after their Dáil affairs and, at the same time, constantly go back and forward to the European Parliament, will find it impossible to do so satisfactorily in the future. It is estimated that approximately 100 days of the year will have to be spent by a member of the European Parliament in the Parliament if he is to attend to his duties there assiduously. This means that almost two weeks out of every month will have to be spent abroad. I doubt whether the present system will prove to be practicable as time goes on.

Our present parliamentarians who have been appointed will, in a comparatively short time, report that it is almost impossible to carry out this duty effectively. There is a very serious risk that those who attempt to carry out their European Parliament duties properly will find that they are neglecting their constituents at home and this will result in an impediment to re-election when a general election comes along. From this country's point of view there is a lot to be said for taking the initiative, laying the plans, discussing them at this stage and putting forward concrete measures as soon as possible for direct elections to the European Parliament

There have been a number of different opinions expressed as to the form and nature of the report which is before us. It has been argued for and against whether there should be more Government policy, Government views, and Government thinking in the report. I am firmly of the opinion that the report, although excellent in its way, does not contain enough policy or views of the Government as to what they intend to do without committing themselves completely.

The Government should have given in this report far more pointers to policies, views and general Government thinking. It is important that, when a policy is given, it should be described as such; it should be attributed to the Government. It should be made clear that, when a view is given in the report, it is not merely the view of the person drawing up the report nor the view of the European Community, but that it is the Government view on a particular matter. I say this because I am in favour of more policy, more of the Government point of view, being included in the report. It would be pointless for the report to elaborate on development during the previous six months, or to end by pointing out that there was a serious problem for this country, as a result of developments during the six months. It would be pointless to leave the Members of the Oireachtas who read this report with a kind of cliff-hanger at the end—posing this problem and not saying what the Government were likely to do about it. I accept that the Government cannot be too committed in advance about a matter like this. They may not have made up their minds exactly what they propose to do. In such a situation, the report should set out the various ways in which the Government feel this problem might be met without necessarily committing them to take any particular action.

If we do not have a good deal of Government policy in these reports, then they will merely be a factual report. It will merely be something upon which to hang a debate twice a year. On the other hand, it might be argued that these reports should be purely factual and that, when these are being debated, the Minister could give his views on Government policy. I have no doubt that on this report the Minister will give his views and Government policy and will mention Government proposals. As the report will always have been written a month or two before it actually appears, in many cases it will be quite legitimate for the Minister to give views on matters contained in the report when it is being debated, because views might not have been formulated at the time the report was written. In so far as possible the Government view should be given in the report, so that Members of the Oireachtas can consider these views, and have the opportunity of discussing them and be enabled to make an informed contribution in regard to them. I agree that in some cases the Minister will not be in a position to give Government policy until the report is actually debated. However, as far as possible, Government policy should be set out and referred to in the report.

Senator O'Higgins suggested that the terms of reference prevented anything but facts being included in the report. I query if this is so. Even if it is, the terms of reference should be changed. After all, this is the first report produced under the terms of the Act and we should not for one moment take the view that the report will always be exactly the same. I would certainly be hopeful that the form of the report would evolve as time went on and would change in the direction of including more policy.

In the report at present there is a great deal of what might be described as historical facts. But, once these historical background facts have been dealt with, if future reports did not deal with policy they would be very short indeed and would have very little value. It is, therefore, necessary that the form of the reports should evolve and should contain a good deal of comment and policy from the Government point of view.

In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister to comment on what is described in the report as the common commercial policy. It is referred to in chapter 4.3 as though it was on a par with the common agricultural policy or social policy, but there are no references made to it elsewhere in the report. I should like to ask the Minister if the common commercial policy merely deals with the restriction on trade agreements with Eastern European countries or does it contain other provisions of importance.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I should like to begin by making a rather general point directly relating to this report. As has been pointed out by other speakers, the report comes before us as a result of section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972, which states that the Government shall make a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Community. I concur with the opinion that this report should be a discussion of policy and of principle in general concerning the Community rather than a mere statement of fact. There was a small minority of people in this country who voted against Irish entry into the Community. I was a member of that small minority. There was a still smaller minority who went around the country pointing out the great dangers attendant upon Irish membership of the Communities. On that occasion I had the pleasure of engaging in disputation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I welcome his presence in this House and I know that he will respond to the points that have been raised in very critical fashion by Senator Robinson. However, I ask him to bear with me if I try to change contacts.

This country has made a decision. I am a democrat and accept that decision. However, I must reformulate my arguments and my position in relation to the Community. For example, one now has to see how can the dangers that were spoken of be mitigated. One has to try to see how the Community will affect the various areas of Irish life. One has to make the best of the situation to some extent.

When I agree with the point that we should not have a mere statement of facts, I believe we should have a discussion of policy. I say that for a number of reasons. Opinions as to what the European Communities are differ among ordinary people, differ among scholars. There are those who view it as a major development towards a happy development in the history of Europe. There are others who see it as the emergence of a new super power in Europe with certain possible dangers. These fears can only be allayed when we have a broad discussion on policy. For example, on one occasion one of the Swedish economists commenting on Sweden's position in relation to the Common Market pointed out that one of the reasons why Sweden was worried about its relationship was that membership of such a Community, rather than facilitating a greater redistribution of income among the community, would endanger it. Certainly, this House of the Oireachtas would benefit from the Minister's opinion as to what has been happening within the member countries of the Community. Has inequality been eroded? Has it been lessened or has it been significantly increased? The Minister's opinion will be valuable.

There are other points concerned which are general. There have been conflicting opinions voiced within the Community itself. On some occasions we have had a commitment to growth economics; on other occasions we have had statements from distinguished members of different institutions of the Communities saying that the attainment of economic growth itself was insufficient, that it was the quality of life, the welfare in general which was important. I would welcome the informed opinion of the Minister as to which of these essentially competing economic philosophies are prevailing at the present time and what direction economic philosophy is taking in the Community.

Being within the Community, whether we like it or not we have to answer these questions. There is much in what Senator Robinson said which we can put rather simply. Is the general tendency in the Community towards an expansion of those aspects of it which might be democratic at the cost of bureaucracy, or has there been an increase in bureaucratisation at the cost of expansion in the direction of democracy itself?

I share, I am sure, with a number of members of the Irish community a certain degree of confusion concerning the Community. Reading, I can find, with some difficulty I must say, detailed orders concerning the dimensions of tomatoes, carrots, vegetables, cauliflowers. I know now from which side a tomato is to be measured, that is must not have spots, green leaves, things like that. It is less easy to find out what at this point of time the Community envisages itself to be.

I would welcome far more in this report a discussion of the Community's relationship to the Third World. This is something which we may have in future reports. This brings me to a general point again which directly emanates from the debate we have had so far. There has been enthusiasm expressed from all sides for the idea of an Oireachtas Committee. Senator Robinson has made the case for it being a Select Committee. I would go further than this and I think that it would help both Houses of the Oireachtas immensely if, rather than having a Committee—even a Select Committee—on matters relating to the European Communities, we had a legislative research bureau of which this might be a part, that this would be just the first step towards establishing a legislative research bureau to which Members of the Opposition and Independents would have access. This would be staffed by temporary and permanent staff of research capabilities which would provide Members with information so that they could discuss matters adequately and fully and more adequately participate in the deliberations of this House. That would be a generous gesture towards all Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and would be a welcome development.

I preface my comments on regional policy by again agreeing with what Senator Robinson has said concerning the definition of regional policy. Far too often it has been conceived merely in an economic sense, and regions are not merely economic regions. One can make a plea for regional policy so as to preserve cultural diversity. That is a very reasonable argument.

There is one point about this whole discussion on regionalism that bothers me. The Minister knows that the history of writing on regional economics has yet to give us a widely agreed upon definition of a region. Far worse than that it is when we look at the history of modern economic writing; where the word "region" has been used we can see that it differs depending on the context in which it is used. Regional planning, for example, has quite a different meaning in the French economic sense than it has in the states of Eastern Europe; and even in the states of Eastern Europe there is a wide variation in the usage of the term.

That is a rather minor point, but what is important is that there is a great deal of talk of regional policy. I am getting a little weary about the manner in which the terms are abused and in which the plea is being made. Everybody, I understand, is now in favour of regional policy. Everybody bemoans the lack of regional policy. One thing that comes across to me from this report and from a number of documents emanating from the Communities is that we are presumed to have a regional policy ourselves. Maybe I am a rather naive person, but I noticed on the four or five pages here on regional policy the usage of the term "harmonisation". The message coming across loud and clear is that, where member countries have regional policies, one of the concerns of the Community is that these be harmonised.

We should be a little honest about this. We have no regional policy. We have had no regional policy under the previous Government and this report deals with 16 months, three months of the present Government and 13 months of the previous Government; but we have not had a regional policy. We have had a system of aids administered through clearly established institutions such as the Industrial Development Authority and others.

There is a further danger in the impression we might give people in that, having imagined we have had a regional policy, we might then go on to another level of imagination and imagine that the Community has a regional policy and the shape of this second figment of the imagination could be largely derived from the first one. That is in so far as the Community might appear to be offering a system of aids towards peripheral regions. Once again an aids policy at the level of the Communities could be masquerading as a regional policy. Here I come to the nub of the matter. Unfortunately in recent months I have had to reacquaint myself with the documents appearing on regional policy during the course of the campaign against entry. They were more familiar to my mind. All I can say is that documents continue to appear. The recent history of documentation includes a Council resolution I read from the report of the 21st March, 1972, which suggests the use of the European Agriculture Guarantee and Guidance Fund for regional purposes and the creation of a Regional Development Fund. This is followed by a suggestion from the Commission on 16th June of mechanisms, followed by considerations before the Summit Conference in October, 1972, at the level of the Council. We have the Report itself, the Commission on the problems, and a speech by the Commissioner to the European Parliament on the 8th May. Then we had the preliminary consideration of further problems on the 14th May. There was a statement made that the Commission's proposals are expected by the end of June, and we can hope for a Regional Development Fund by the end of 1973. These documents, taken together with all the other documents on the necessity of helping certain regions, do not constitute a meaningful move towards regional policy.

The assumptions upon which our own regional policy will be established might emerge in the reply to this discussion. Are we helping regions because they need aid, because we feel we should give more from the economy? Is it an attempt to be charitable, where we have accepted the concept of sectoral growth and its cost? If we mean real regional development I would favour Senator Robinson's suggestions about decision-making bodies within the regions. Preliminary to regional planning, it is necessary to have a philosophical commitment to give people as much power over their own lives and as much decision making as possible. There is a related political concept that the structures which would exist would enable such power to be expressed across as many areas of life as possible.

After these philosophical and political commitments one comes to the pragmatic manner of regional planning in the economic sense. To be adequate this must include powers of research, planning and execution. Literature on regional planning at its best has merely made a plea that strong development bodies have these three economic planning functions—research, establishment of plans and execution—brought together. This is insufficient and we must go back to the higher level of power, and this is why I agree with Senator Robinson.

When people no longer know what is happening in their lives a number of practices start which erode democracy. The development of bureaucracy in this State has given rise to the phenomenon of political middlemen or brokers or gombeenmen, call them what you like. When bureaucracy develops at the expense of democracy, patronage thrives. In this case people go into a state of despair concerning their ability to control their lives.

To give an example of this, I read last week on the Order Paper for the Dáil that a Deputy from Galway West constituency, Deputy Molloy, had a request for information as to when the community of Inisturk and Inisturbet would receive electricity and later, on the same Order Paper, a request as to when they would be evacuated from the two islands. This example is further complicated by the local reporter who announced that the islanders had heard what was happening to them on the 1.30 news on Radio Éireann. Obviously, the movement from an island to a mainland is a traumatic event in the lives of people. This is admittedly an extreme example, but in our community at present a great number of people have no knowledge about the decision-making process and how it affects their lives.

I am worried that if the bureaucracy of the Common Market continues to develop at the expense of a democratic development, we will have a new system of patronage at a higher level. The Minister's report to this House will become a new form of national sophisticated broker. He should be willing to discuss in the first half of his speech the philosophical and policy developments within the Community; where he thinks the Community is going and where it is failing. He has the commitment to be generous and honest in these comments and not to confine himself to pragmatic detail.

I should like to mention a few points on regional policy. Guidelines in chapter 15, paragraph 5, of the report are proposed as a basis for proposals to be made subsequently by the Commission in order to fulfil the invitation of the Summit Conference. Under (a) it states "Community regional policy cannot be a substitute for the national regional policy which member States have been conducting for many years". The Minister would perhaps clear up my confusion about this and indicate from which departure point our regional policy will be established.

On the identification of areas with problems, it states: "The Commission considers that the fundamental cause of regional imbalances stems from the absence of modern economic activity or the over-dependence of a region on backward agricultural or declining industrial activities". I would suggest that the criteria for identifying backward regions here are at least subject to some question. The backwardness or the development of the region cannot be identified by mere economic criteria alone. In some of the professional discussions on the criteria of our regional backwardness there is a considerable difference of opinion. In some of the member countries of the community there are 40 indicators of regional underdevelopment; in others there are none. I would welcome more information on the manner in which our regional backwardness is to be established. Will the criteria of establishing the entire country as a backward region due to its hopeless economic management in recent times be the same as those for discerning particular regions?

I appeal to Senator Lenihan and those on the other side of the House who expressed enthusiasm for the Select Committee, those on this side of the House who favour an Oireachtas Committee and Senator Robinson who wishes to have a Select Committee, to consider seriously the possibility of introducing as soon as possible a full and adequate research bureau of which this would be but one part and which would involve both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Committee which will consider EEC documents would need to establish some procedures for disseminating information concerning the activities within the Community.

The second important point about which I was worried is that we would realise that true regionalism means essentially either autonomy, the ability to make decisions, or it means nothing. If we mean economic paternalism, the establishment of central aid funds, and the giving of funds to the particular regions in the centre, let us call them that; but let us not create confusion.

I should like to footnote what I have stated on the eighth policy with one other consideration. In the history of the Community, as one looks back on the decisions which have been taken, particularly in relation to agricultural products, the point of view has been expressed by a number of people that what France got away with in agriculture, certainly the member countries and the new member countries are not going to get away with it under the heading of regional policy. We could find ourselves in the very dangerous position of having a commitment at the level of the Communities to an aids policy towards the peripheral regions without an adequate budget to implement it. Therefore, I would be grateful for an opinion from the Minister, as to what extent he feels realistically the wealthier members of Community will allow such a budget to be developed which would implement aids policies. These two points concerning the Legislative Advice Bureau and the regional policy are the important ones I wished to make.

I began my speech by saying that I was a member of the minority within the minority who warned this country about the dangers of entry into the European Economic Community. This was the policy of the Labour Party of which I am a member. Most of my criticisms at that time could be put in very simple language, that is, that where economic events take place without regard to human considerations, then the result is the subjugation of human and labour conditions to the demands of capital. I was not happy then at the development which was taking place within the Community. The Labour Party felt that the Community was not moving sufficiently towards democracy to control the unmitigated effects of economic decisions on the lives of people. People are powerless when economic decisions take precedence over human considerations. It is not to our credit that in the history of Government in this country we have not spelled out the social priorities of economic planning. Under pressure, in the second economic plan, a few measly paragraphs were thrown in on social development to dress it up. There has been no clear establishment of the criteria on which economic planning should be based. The lack of a regional policy in this country is a particular example of this. The Community is in a dangerous position. I do not see the development of democratic checks on an emerging and growing bureaucracy.

Reports are to be welcomed, but I join with those in saying that future reports, when we have our procedures for disseminating information, need concern themselves less with facts and more with philosophy and policy. When we were debating whether or not we should enter the Community, the Minister was one of those who travelled the country probably more energetically than anyone else. He attempted to reply to practically anyone who asked him questions. I look forward to information on these, I admit, simple points.

I hope in the future report to take up in more detail a point at which I have only glanced today, that is the relationship of the Communities to the Third World. Our relationship to the Third World is historically a disgraceful one. We have not assumed our responsibilities in terms of foreign policy or in foreign aid to the Third World. It would be even worse if we had joined communities who, in a similar manner, rejected their responsibilities. These are probably matters we can take up when we have the report before us dealing more with policy and philosophy.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.