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 take note of the report: Developments in the European Communities—First Report.

—(Senator M.J. O'Higgins.)

Professor Quinlan

I do not intend to speak at length on this motion. It is difficult to discuss something as broad as the developments in the European Communities, whether factual or policy-making decisions. We could talk for weeks on this subject and have accomplished very little at the end. The subject is so broad that for effective discussion leading to the crystallation of certain policy recommendations or agreed lines of action we have got to narrow down the issues and debate them singly.

A general purpose debate on this matter is of little value. We have had a lot of discussion on the report itself. The report, as presented, is largely a factual one. We have been aware of most of the items contained in the report from reading the papers. Yet it is necessary that, at stated times, these decisions, even though they are history at that stage, should be brought together and made available so we can have a true record of what has happened in that period. It provides a factual basis from which to start.

In that regard, the production is quite well done. I cannot see how policy can be mingled with the presentation of facts in this way. Policy in the context of the EEC is very different from policy in the national context. Policy in the EEC for our Government, just one member of the Community and a very small one, is almost like an Independent in the Seanad having a policy. In other words, a policy can be made to sound very attractive but that does not bring one any nearer to being able to implement that policy. To implement it many others must agree with it and go along with it.

The pitfall that must be avoided here is the Government presenting policy in such a way that it might become a type of party political issue. In other words, the Government present their policy and say what they intend to do or are seeking in regard to either the social policy or the regional policy. What they are looking for is based on an assessment of the situation with respect to the other countries, what they are likely to agree on and how we can best attain some of our desirable policy aims in that regard.

It is very easy for an Opposition party to say that they do not agree with it, that we are not looking for enough. It is like an Independent on Seanad policy who can be much more progressive and more revolutionary than any Government party putting up the policy. We must begin thinking in a very different way. Our primary concern, with this debate is how to link the Oireachtas, with the development of playing our part in the European Community, the main objective being to try to do the best we can for this country. We should be eager and anxious in both Houses of the Oireachtas, especially in Seanad Éireann, to be involved.

Members of past Senates have felt that the Seanad was not given the opportunity of playing a role. The Seanad has not, in the past, made a significant enough contribution to the Oireachtas. It has not been given enough duties. We have not been putting in enough hours. I do not mean that hours should be put in just simply making speeches in the Seanad. Hours, especially in the European context, will be put to far better use by being members of study groups or small committees investigating certain specific aspects of the EEC policy that is bound to affect us at that time. This is what I mean.

We are prepared to put in those hours. That goes more for the Independent Members here than Members of parties in so far as they have very specific commitments to parties. They have a great deal of work to do on behalf of the party, party organisation and general party matters, whereas, we, on the Independent benches have no such work to do. Consequently, it is only right and proper, if we are to be capable of making some contribution in the EEC committees or advisory groups, that we should be given the opportunity to try to give full value to the Community.

The involvement should be much more clearly thought out. The Minister has given a very good lead here where he has outlined the Joint Committee that the Government propose to set up. I feel the Government have gone as far as they could go in satisfying the legitimate demands in both Houses for a proper involvement of the Oireachtas in European Community matters.

I think we can go much further than this. In the first stage—it is almost like the Committee on Statutory Instruments—we should be largely concerned with the machinery of the EEC. The directives that are about to come up should be subjected to a quick study, but there is not a continuing study involved here because there is not the time and the number of personnel is not adequate for a continuing study. A quick study of some directive that is expected to be issued in a couple of months should be made. The second phase, when that directive comes in, is in regard to the regulations that are likely to be necessary here to implement it. The third phase is one of just looking at the regulations that are made.

This is all very necessary but it is not the basis of providing real advisory committee assistance to the Ministers in their work in Europe nor, indeed, is it the machinery for providing the facilities for continuing study because, for one thing, there are too many topics involved in the EEC. The topics in the EEC are much more than an individual Government have to contend with. Therefore, having a part-time committee to make an adequate study of these is an impossibility.

The task will have to be broken down. The various chapter headings should be taken in this. Many of them correspond to major sections of policy or major sections of the EEC work, like the social policy and everything it entails. We have industrial democracy, mergers and so on; we have the regional policy allied to an agricultural policy, which would absorb a committee on its own. The Committee, as set up, cannot be much more than a type of general purposes committee whose main job is to act as a watchdog on the regulations.

The Government will want to move much more rapidly in setting up advisory committees to the various departments on the major EEC issues. I am not aware that we have an advisory committee on the common agricultural policy. I know the Government have not been in office very long but yet I would have thought that it would be something that should be already well under way. The Department concerned should already have had their plans formulated for those committees when the Government took office and it should be a matter of speeding-up and adjusting those plans. Our Ministers, in the EEC context, need all the back-up that the country can give them. That back-up cannot be confined merely to the Civil Service, who have a particular type of approach, which is conditioned by the bureaucratic approach. I do not say that in any derogatory sense but it has a bureaucratic slant, whereas the main defect in the EEC at present is this ultra-bureaucratic structure that we are all trying to liberalise. Therefore, if our Ministers are to be briefed on this it is essential that the knowledge and expertise, outside of the regular Civil Service Departments, be harnessed into effective advisory committees to provide this balance. They would, of course, all work in harmony in advising the Minister on the issues involved and especially on how the various developments are likely to affect this country, what should be foreseen and guarded against and generally advise on the repercussions here.

I appeal for at least major advisory committees on social policy, regional policy, on a common agricultural policy, on an environment policy and on an economic and monetary policy. These should now become regular features of our Government advisory structure. They should be provided with adequate secretariats and other facilities to enable them to function effectively. In other words, money will have to be spent to make those committees into effective advisory committees.

A question which concerns us here is how to link these committees to the Oireachtas. They will be real policy advisory committees and we want their policy to come back and be received here in the Houses of the Oireachtas, especially in the Seanad. That means we should have, either as a subcommittee of the proposed present Committee or as a special committee, a special general EEC policy committee as distinct from what is required in the present Committee, where we are only dealing with policy that is likely to lead to immediate directives. Ideally, I would envisage a committee of, say, eight or ten people who would receive regular reports and have regular contacts with the various advisory committees as set up by the Minister and that those reports might be debated in the Houses by way of motions. In that way we might succeed in involving Oireachtas Members in this real European study which is so necessary. We have to break completely away from the past. We are living in different circumstances altogether now which call for different measures.

I am not happy with the Committee as proposed. I hope the Minister will be able to modify it very considerably. First of all, the proportions of ten to ten—that is, the Members in Europe and the Members from the Oireachtas in general—are not good. I think it will be found that our European Members will not find it easy to attend regularly the sessions of this Committee. I believe ten Members is too small from both Houses of the Oireachtas for the amount of work involved.

Then the question of apportioning the ten Members—seven from the Dáil and three from the Seanad—is not utilising the special position of the Seanad properly. In the Seanad we should have more time for this type of work. We have less demanding commitments by way of regular meetings. It should not be overlooked that of the ten permanent Members in Europe at present only one comes from the Seanad whereas before the recent general election we had three Seanad Members. That is a ratio of nine to one in favour of the Dáil. By adding three more Seanad Members will only mean that we will have four Members of the Seanad contributing to this committee of 20.

The Minister could use more of the help that would be willingly forthcoming from the Seanad and I would suggest that that figure should be adjusted so as to achieve some better proportion between the Seanad contribution and the Dáil contribution. I would suggest in this case that equal numbers be taken from the Dáil and Seanad which would result in an overall picture of nine Members from the Seanad and 15 or 16 Members from the Dáil. I make this suggestion because I believe the Committee should contain only people who are in a position to put in an amount of time and are willing to make a real contribution on that basis. The allocation of three Members to the Seanad, when that is apportioned one to each party, leaves no opportunity for contributions from the Independent benches. We want to make some contribution because we have time we would be prepared to devote to it. I would advise the Minister to include as great a number of Seanad Members as he possibly can.

There is a great deal of anxiety at present about who is representing us on the various committees in Europe Most of our representation is drawn almost exclusively from the Civil Service. I know many professional groups are very worried about this state of affairs. This situation began with the last Government and I hope the present Government will be more conscious of this anxiety. About two months ago we had a very informative meeting of the Institution of Engineers in Belfield where, in a three-day symposium, they considered the various aspects of the EEC. A speech submitted from the English Institution outlined their worries and difficulties with regard to the fact that the Civil Service in Britain were trying to arrogate to themselves the right to speak for every group in England in relation to Community affairs. Consequently, anxiety was expressed by that group that they were not being properly represented in Europe. This goes back to a fundamental difference in European organisation compared to that of Britain and Ireland. In European organisation, if they have an educational policy, they want some people from the administration and some from the professions; they want some from the universities or from the teacher organisations. University professors will arrive on the committee. Of course they are civil servants, that is the difference. In Europe, especially in France, that is the regular position.

What we want to ensure is that there is a balanced viewpoint: one from the Civil Service and the other from the professionals, such as is given here from those who are organised, independent of Government or of Civil Service organisations. On that occasion we impressed on our visitors from England that we had a new Government and that we felt our new Minister for Foreign Affairs would be more than alive to the necessity to see that this balance was maintained, and I hope that that is being done. I know that the professional organisations are very concerned at present.

I wish to refer to the democratic control of parliament and the building up of the European Parliament, which is a key to the survival of the EEC. The tradition of liberty in Europe is too great to have it try to survive under a Eureaucracy. It will have to be a humanised and liberalised bureaucracy, in which the European Parliament must appear to function in a parliamentary capacity and must be the body in charge.

I promised to be brief and I shall resist the temptation to take the various chapter headings with views on social and regional policies. The only view I am giving on those is the view that it is absolutely necessary for each group to make serious study and to make their views known. The Ministers attending meetings in Europe to discuss it would want to be briefed from all sides. I appeal to them to ensure that their advisers are drawn from all available groups within the country. By that method of approach we can ensure that we will make a positive contribution to European development which will safeguard our position and be in the best interests of our community. We have a mansize job to get our own country moved from its position at the bottom of the European league. That is a mansized job for any Government to do and it should be our number one priority.

Senator Russell rose.

An Cathaoirleach

I would remind Senator Russell and other Senators that it has been agreed the Minister will be called at 4.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell

I will certainly be very brief. We should realise that we are discussing what is the first report of its kind and that it is being produced in what might be called an evolving state of the European Economic Community. It is bound to have stresses and strains in the changeover from a Community of six member countries to one of nine member countries. As previous speakers have pointed out, it is a factual document and is intended to tell us what has happened in the institutions of the Community in the past 14 or 15 months. I do not think we should be too critical or expect too much from such a document. Primarily, it is intended to advise us of what is happening and also to project the policies of the various institutions of the Community, and what they hope to achieve, particularly in the light of the Paris Summit Conference last October.

I agree with Senator Quinlan that it would be quite wrong to expect the Government of the day to write their policies into such a report. I find it very difficult to understand how a Government could put such policies into a document such as this, having regard to the fact that so many of the policies of this country and the other member countries will, in any event, be decided at Brussels. It would be rather inappropriate, to say the least and probably grossly inaccurate and misleading, for any Government to decide in a document such as this what the policy of this country will be.

We must get used to the idea that we are a member of a nine-member Community. While we hope to expect to achieve from that any concessions to assist our social and economic policies—the development of our cultural arm and our industrial arm, the expansion of our social fund and so, a general improvement in our standard of living and the general progress of the country—we should not go overboard by considering only what we are going to get out of the Community. Every Senator who has contributed to the debate so far has overemphasised what we hope to get out of it. Nobody has made any suggestion as to what we might put into the workings of the Community as a member State. It is important that we should look at it also from that point of view.

Of course it is right that we should get all we can in connection with the regional development of this country. It is right that our farmers can look forward to good steady prices in the foreseeable future. It is right that we should have industrial development and get all the possible help we can from the institutions of the Community to help our industrial development. But we should never forget that we, as a small country with a distinctive nationhood of our own, should be prepared to contribute to the institutions of the Community also. If we are not prepared to do that there is a danger that we will become just a take-all nation and give nothing. We would then be absorbed by our larger neighbours and be looked upon as an English-speaking appendage on the west coast of Europe, with nothing to contribute to this Community of nations.

The men who established the Community in the first instance—statesmen such as Schuman and de Gasperi —had far higher ideals. Their ideal was that the communities of Europe would come together and would jointly contribute to the welfare of the individual member countries. We should never forget that we are a country with a long and honourable association with the continent of Europe for many centuries. It should be our desire, perhaps in our own limited way, to make a contribution not only to the industrial and social life of the Community, but also to the cultural and artistic life of the Community. We have much to offer, as a country. Our history is one that we can be proud of and we should never forget that we are an equal in this Community of nine member countries. As such we must be expected to make a worthwhile contribution to its various institutions.

After the overwhelming success of the referendum in connection with our entry into the EEC, there has been some falling-away and a sense of anticlimax. We went in the hope of getting regional funds and of getting better prices for farm products, and because we felt there was no life for this island outside the community of nations in any event. That sort of phase has passed to some extent, the promise has been dimmed and some disillusionment has followed the overwhelming decision of the Irish people to join the Community. Rightly or wrongly I feel this springs from several causes. First of all, there are the pragmatic or mundane facts of life—the huge increase in the price of food and raw materials cannot all be attributed to our membership of EEC; very little of it can; certainly some can. These are some of the reactions that stick in the mind of the man on the street, or the woman in the home who is even more important.

While we can discuss at rather more lofty level the development of the EEC and all it has achieved—and it has achieved a good deal in a very short time—and all it hopes to achieve, we must not forget that Mr. and Mrs. Seán Citizen are concerned with much more basic things than the Commission or the Council of Ministers or even, indeed, the European Parliament. They are concerned with the hard facts of life and they tend to relate our membership of the EEC with what they, as individuals or families, get out of it in the way of better living and more happiness for themselves and their families.

I feel there has been disappointment at the failure to make more positive progress towards an effective regional policy. Steps have been taken and intentions have been promulgated, and in due time these will be put into practice; but as of now perhaps we expected too much too soon. That is a natural reaction in most people. However, if we did, we are now settling down to the cold realities of the situation and are beginning to realise that all the dreams will not be realised overnight. That, too, is a perfectly natural reaction. However, it needs more explaining to the man in the street.

There is also concern among what I would describe as "the smaller fry" in both business and agriculture —the small businessman and the small farmer. He has a growing concern at the economic pressures that he is being subjected to from larger economic units, units that will become large in any event in the context of the EEC. While I appreciate that in the EEC countries—Germany, Italy, France and others—the small businessman has kept his position, there is a lot more that could be done to help him here to realise that he has a secure future in the context of the EEC and that there are many aids there to help him to survive and prosper in his business or farm, as the case may be.

There is the feeling that we are caught up in a huge bureaucratic structure. I do not think anybody would deny that the European Economic Community of necessity has to be a very large bureaucratic machine. There is also the question of the limitation of national powers to do anything about the non-involvement of national parliaments working in the Community institutions, and the almost complete ignorance—this is a vital factor—of the general public about European affairs.

Several Senators have spoken about the setting up of this Joint Committee. I was very glad to hear the Minister in his introductory speech talking about that as something that will happen in the very near future. I should like to agree with those Senators who suggested an enlargement of the number from 20 to, say, 30. Our delegate/members of the European Parliament should sit on the Committee as of right; but I take the point—made, I think, by Senator Ryan—that these representatives, if they are to do their job properly, if they are to attend the meetings of the European Parliament, will be away for at least 100 days out of 300 working days in the year, possibly fewer, and they may not always be available.

It is essential that we should have ample and adequate representation from both Houses of the Oireachtas on this Joint Committee. The number mentioned, 30, is not unreasonable in that regard. I also take Senator Quinlan's point that there should certainly be a far greater representation from this House. This House has a good deal to contribute in matters of this kind. It is not involved so much in the day to day work of Parliament, it has time to consider Bills and other such documents at greater length and to give more time to doing more homework about them. This Joint Committee would be an ideal setting for bigger representation by Members of this Chamber.

The question of direct elections to the European Parliament was mentioned also. Previously I have spoken in favour of direct elections. I realise there are certain dangers involved in this. If European TDs or MPs, or whatever, are to be elected in the same manner as local TDs are elected, is there to be a conflict of interest? Are we to have to evolve some other system?

A point also made, with which I agree, is whether the work in the European Parliament will become so heavy that our delegates or members of that Parliament will become so involved that they will not have time to do the daily chores which keep a TD in office. If he does not look after his constituents, he is out at the next election. He might be a brilliant member of the Parliament in Brussels but unless he continues to look after his constituents he has no future in Irish politics. That is a fact of life. Perhaps a man who stands for the European Parliament should not stand for the Dáil. If that were to happen, how would he be elected? Would he be elected indirectly and, if so, one goes a step away from the democratic system of election by the one-man-one-vote principle.

It is an involved question. It is not easily solved. It is easy to talk about direct elections—I have done it myself—but I appreciate that there are difficulties involved and certainly we will have to tackle them. It was said that the whole country is one constituency. That would make it a different thing. But we have ready-made constituencies in the form of regional development bodies. We have regionalised health and tourism and then we have regional development organisations. We have these ready-made constituencies which could, on the basis of population, elect one or more European parliamentarians. I just put it forward as a suggestion. It may not be practicable, but at least it will ensure that the country as a whole will have adequate and fair representation in the Parliament of Europe. That would ensure that the Oireachtas would at least be involved in the workings of the European Parliament but it would not ensure, which I think is vital, involvement lower down the political structures.

I should like to see more involvement by Mr. and Mrs. Seán Citizen. If the European institutions are to work, and do so democratically, and be seen to work, we must find some system of involving the man in the street in it. How that is to be done I do not know. Perhaps if he knew more about what was going on, if there was more dialogue at local level, local authority level, county council level, city council level, and in other institutions, it might make him less restless about the future of the country in this larger body of nations. It would certainly ensure the support of these people if we could ensure their participation. I do not think one could be hoped for without the other.

It is important that this country gains full value from its membership of the EEC in respect of many aspects which were already mentioned in this House—regional development, particularly in the west and south west. I have seen some rather disturbing statistics and illustrations of our poverty-stricken island. They make very sad reading and it is suggested, I think—the Minister may correct me when he is replying—that the whole island virtually becomes a development area and would qualify for assistance from EEC funds. I do not know if that is correct. Originally the idea was that perhaps only the west and north west and other areas of high unemployment and emigration would qualify for assistance. Now apparently we are talking about the whole country qualifying for financial assistance from the EEC institutions. If that were to happen in a blanket form would it not merely ensure that the present situation continues, that is, the east coast would continue to be the most prosperous and the flight from the west would continue, all things being equal. If we are to have the whole country qualifying as a development area, within that development there should be some differential to ensure that the areas in the west, north-west and south-west would get preferential treatment over Dublin and the east coast in general. I do not know if this is possible.

I should like to see the schools participating to a greater extent in spreading knowledge of Europe and all it entails with more emphasis on continental languages, more interchange of students between this country and the Continent, more European history taught, more travel. We must immerse ourselves in Europe in order to draw from the European funds, and I do not speak only of financial funds because there are other funds in Europe such as history, culture, art, which are immeasurably important. If we are to be enriched by them and in our turn to enrich them it is just as important in the long term as getting handouts from any European institution, however important that may be. I do not wish for one moment to minimise the importance of that. We should endeavour—from schools at local level up to the parliamentary level— to be both Irish and European.

Dr. West

I wish to make a brief speech and to emphasise some of the points which have already been made in regard to our attitudes to the Community. Senator Michael Higgins in an excellent speech hit home some important points. We may not give enough credit nowadays to those people who opposed the EEC vote in the referendum. I feel somewhat guilty that, in taking up a position that was so pro-EEC in order to sell what I thought was an important idea in order to get a "yes" vote, I, along with many other advocates of entry to the Common Market, tended to slur over the difficult points and the disadvantages to this country. Now it is time to have a clear look at these disadvantages and to face up to the critical situations.

We already have had great benefits from our membership of the Community. There is no doubt that, sooner rather than later, we must face up to some of the disadvantages. We ought to be clear in our minds as to what our position will be in dealing with the Community and in changing the attitude to membership of the people in this country. That attitude has been a rather supine and negative one and I should like to see a more positive, vigorous and direct approach to the Community by the majority of Irish people. It is the case of us rocking the Community boat or it will rock us. If we do not take a vigorous, direct and political approach to our membership of the Community, we will suffer.

This means having a detailed knowledge of Community legislation, having a detailed pre-knowledge of directives coming from the Community, of what is taking place within the Community, and the most important point of this debate is the plea which has been made by so many Members of this House to increase the size of the joint parliamentary Committee which the Government intend to set up to oversee European legislation at all stages. In concert with many other speakers I should like to see the number of members increased. There are ten of our European representatives who are automatically on the Committee. They cannot be here a great deal. At the moment the proposal is that the total number of members of the Committee be 20, and I should like to see that increased to at least 25, or perhaps more. One should look at this committee from the point of view of having ten members who will be away a great deal of the time and will contribute very little.

I agree with Senator Michael Higgins when he talked about making this more than just a joint parliamentary Committee but giving it the back-up and the research facilities which will be needed and the secretarial facilities which will be needed to make it into a Committee which can get to the critical points which affect Ireland's membership before these decisions have been finally taken in Brussels or in the European Parliament. It is essential that the membership of the Committee be increased. I should like to make a special plea that not only should there be more than three Members of this House but that it should include those Members who sit as Independents, who are members of no political party and whose leverage is small on that account but whose will to serve is high.

The point has been mentioned that in the selection of representatives to the European Parliament the Independents were not consulted. It is not a case of their having any leverage—if there was a straight vote they probably would not get a representative—but the situation is that we are here to serve the community, we are elected to serve the community by our constituents. We have among our members certain expertise and we are probably freer to do this type of work than any of the Members of the parties.

We could, therefore, do a great deal of the detailed and difficult work which will face this Government in the very near future on European legislation. I would make a special plea, therefore, to have adequate representation from the Independent benches on this Committee and on any other European committees which will be set up. We can and wish to contribute. We are well aware of the difficulties that politicians with large constituencies face. We are in a rather better position, so I hope the Minister will take this into account when he reports to the Government on the feeling in this House on the Committee which is about to be set up.

I should like to touch on some particular points which have been raised in this report and some particular chapters. Firstly, I should like to state that it is important to get our foreign policy straightened out and I welcome a clear statement such as the Minister made in the Foreign Affairs debate in the Dáil. I welcome the clear and concise way in which he set out what he saw and what the Government saw to be our main aims in foreign policy. I also welcome the vigorous way in which he approached the problem of Ireland's membership of the EEC. I should like to quote two of his remarks in Volume 265, column 762. He said, referring to our membership:

This means that we must enlarge our horizons and be prepared to take the lead where in the past we have been content to modestly follow.

This is the sort of approach we need. If we are to obtain full value, in the truest sense of the term, from the European Economic Community, that needs a vigorous, positive approach.

I should like to refer to another remark which the Minister made in the same column in this debate. He said:

In the 1920s this small country made the major contribution to the evolution of the Commonwealth from a group of self-governing units of the British Empire into full sovereign states. This past achievement should inspire us in our work within the Community. This Government will be guided by this inspiration.

We could go a lot further in this direction. I hope that this positive approach will characterise the Government's dealing with the Community and also the manner in which they deal with the problems which membership of the Community raises at home.

There are many points which we will soon be faced with and on which we must take a strong stand. One of them is in connection with the common agricultural policy, which is under great pressure from the United States on the outside and from Britain on the inside. This is one of the very important areas where our representatives must stand firm. The policy may alter but basically it must remain the same. If we are to benefit fully and if our farming community, who have not until now received due reward for their labour, are to receive the benefits to which we know they are entitled, then we must stand firm on the basic principles of the common agricultural policy.

There are other issues which are important and on which we must take a firm stand. One is the problem of our energy resources inside the European Economic Community. For example, we will soon face the problem of drafting some legislation which will cover the seabed off the Irish coast. There is a world meeting on this subject arranged for Santiago next year. In this situation, it is much to our benefit to tackle the problem from a world point of view rather than from a narrow EEC point of view, because the EEC countries have relatively little sea coast. We will find that the European sea coast will be sliced up between the big countries which will put the screw on us. Essentially, they will wish to take as much as they can get of our coast, which is one of our most valuable assets. On a world basis, we will have the support of very many countries who are maritime nations, who have large areas of sea coast and who wish to preserve them. They do not intend to give away their seabed resources to the big, developed, inland countries. This is one area in which it is essential to treat this problem on a world basis and not just let the EEC countries dominate our thinking.

On the problem of the external relations of the Community, it is essential that we inject our traditions into the Community policy and emphasise our commitment to the Third World. There is a very slim paragraph—4.(14)—on relations with developing countries. The report before us is quite inadequate in dealing with the relations of the Community with developing countries. It gives the impression that very little has been done by the Community for the Third World. Perhaps this is a wrong impression but it it certainly the one which I get from this report.

I am glad to note that the present Government are worried about this problem and that the Minister has taken some positive steps in outlining our foreign policy and, in particular, our relations with the Third World. I will quote from paragraph 742 of Volume 265 of the Official Report of the Dáil in which he stresses as a basic objective of Irish foreign policy

to contribute to the Third World in a manner and to an extent that will meet our obligations, satisfy the desire of Irish people to play a constructive role in this sphere, and add to our moral authority in seeking to influence constructively the policies of other developed countries towards the Third World.

That is a most important statement of a basic aim in our foreign policy. If that is one of the five basic aims which the Minister spelled out in his Dáil speech, then it is a pity that the relations with developing countries got such small space in this report. This is one of the areas where it is important that Ireland play a very positive role and insist that the developing world be treated as a priority by the EEC. As Senator Quinlan has said on more than one occasion, I feel it is essential that the EEC should become an outward-looking body and not just a self-centred, inward-looking group of highly developed countries. If the latter situation should come about, then it will be on our own head when the final upheaval comes which will overthrow the EEC and all it stands for. The EEC will have that end coming to it and the only way we can overcome it happening is by developing an outward-looking approach.

I have seen very little real evidence of this so far but Ireland's job is to press strongly for this outward-looking approach and to insist that the EEC develop a strong, vigorous and generous policy to the underdeveloped world. It is very easy to develop a policy that on one hand appears to be generous in terms of aid, grants and so on. If you analyse the policy economically it can be as self-centred as one likes. This has happened all over the imperialist world and all through imperial history. We must change that policy and make sure through our experience that the EEC's policy of Third World development is a genuine and absolute one. The commitment must not be reneged.

I welcome the evidence the the present Government and the Minister are concerned with this problem. Senator Yeats, yesterday spoke rather disparagingly about the Minister for Labour's speech to the International Labour Organisation in Geneva. I would commend that speech. I felt the sentiments which the Minister expressed are ones which we could well carry into the EEC.

There is no restriction through our membership of the Community when it comes to giving aid. Although we do not have much money to give we have much in the way of personnel. We have experience in relation to projects like the Shannon industrial complex and the Shannon Duty Free Airport which we can share with the Third World. Because we are not in a position to take them over or are not in a position to squeeze them financially, this can be seen as absolute and genuine aid. I have no doubt that there are many people in this country who still have the true missionary spirit. They do not necessarily belong to any particular organisation but they are keen to see that this country's traditional involvement with the developing world is maintained. In this way we can inject a real spirit of service into the thinking of the Community.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister has announced in the very recent past that he is going to set up a voluntary overseas service agency which will facilitate Irish people in doing this work. I was involved with a group of individuals who undertook some discussion on this problem and sent in a memorandum to the Minister about 18 months ago. The only thing that disappointed me is that it took so long to come to fruition. I am delighted to see this agency is being set up. This is evidence of our commitment and desire to make use of the missionary spirit in the truest sense of the word. I have no doubt such missionary spirit exists in this country. One of the things we have got to do, through our negotiators in Europe and through our representatives in the European Parliament and various other bodies, is to see that this spirit is put forward and incorporated in the Community.

Finally, I should like to refer to some of the other points in the report. I am glad to see that the Community are taking the problem of the environment seriously and indulging in some deep and important research projects to measure the extent of the damage to the environment by our highly-industrialised society. I should like to ride one particular hobbyhorse of my own which is, in fact, mentioned in chapter 17 of the report. It concerns the effect of various modes of transport on the environment. In chapter 17, paragraph 14, which concerns the Community proposals regarding transport on the roads, we read:

The solution to the problem involved in the current proposals must take account of transport economics and road costs.

I feel this should be formalised and I should like to see our representatives urging the Community to do some real deep and professional research on the problem of costs of various modes of transport. They will find when the true costings are done that the private car and road transport turn out to be socially the most costly type of transport. This is leaving out items like the "Concorde" aircraft and these big projects. This is talking about normal modes of travel. One of the things we will have to do, in coming to terms with pollution and solving that problem, is to take a firm grip on the private car and on our road transport system. We will find that the other modes of transport, such as rail, are far more efficient and of far higher social benefit. I should like to see this problem being sorted out by a real and thorough investigation of costings of various modes of transport. The McKinsey report made a start at doing this, but if we really analysed full costings of road transport versus the other types of transport we would at last begin to realise that, sooner or later, if we want to preserve any reasonable way of life we have got to come to grips with the private car.

I hope that our representatives in Europe will find that they can inject some of our spirit and traditions into the thinking of the Community and that we can set up a Committee here which will back them up in their work and which will have enough secretarial and research bases to really put some thrust into our membership of the Community. I feel that the Minister will take this into account when he reports to the Government.

Mr. Moynihan

I just wish to make one or two comments in relation to that section of the report dealing with the social fund. I note, with pleasure, that already application has been made for the round figure of £3½ million to be channelled into the development of re-training and resettlement facilities. In our changing industrial pattern and scene this, of course, is of vital consequence to the interests and welfare of very many hundreds of workers who are already in industries that have, or will, suffer tragically from the impact of the giants of Europe competing against us.

We also have a large pool of agricultural workers who will be endeavouring to move into the industrial scene. There is no place today for the unskilled labourer. Every person seeking employment in any form of industry will require some prerequisite in skill or training. Here lies the importance and essence of the utilisation of this volume of money as readily and as speedily as possible. Because of the age factor and other factors, many of our workers who will be seeking the benefits of this are in the older age group, and difficulties could well arise because, without early training and facilities for resettlement, they would permanently go on social welfare, which would be most undesirable.

The second brief reference I should like to make is that I have some information that from the resources of the social fund our Minister and Commissioner may be able to extract moneys in respect of the development of services for the handicapped. This is of vital concern to our people. We fall very far behind the other EEC countries in the services and training facilities that are available for the handicapped. Because of the lack of such training and facilities many such people are still condemned to remain in institutions or among the unemployed. It would be a tremendous asset if the Minister could assure us that all the resources he has at his command to make the case that can be made in respect of this section of our community will be made. In the absence of training schemes and facilities at the present time the care of such people and their development mainly rests with voluntary organisations whose resources, in money, facilities such as sheltered workshops, skilled personnel and training are entirely inadequate to meet the demands of this human problem.

I am glad to learn that the Government will shortly be bringing in legislation governing the employment of the handicapped. I would envisage that, in keeping with European standards, it will be made mandatory on employers to carry a proportion of handicapped people. Although that is a desirable development, it will not be the end of the problem. It is unreasonable to ask industry to carry handicapped people unless we set ourselves the job of equipping these handicapped people in the best possible manner to fit into industry.

I conclude by asking the Minister, and the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour, who should be in co-operation with him, as I am sure they are, to ensure that Ireland's case in respect of allocations from the social fund will benefit our handicapped by helping the national voluntary organisations who have carried this problem, heretofore, and allow for the setting up of training workshops with facilities and personnel to do justice to our handicapped. I will mention just one section with which I am conversant: the psychiatric field. At the moment we have six people out of every 1,000 in the population in psychiatric institutions. The European comparison would be less than two per thousand. That, in itself, demonstrates the massive proportions of the problem. This money could be used to generate more activity, more enthusiasm, and to help the voluntary organisations that have been doing such an excellent job with too limited facilities in this field of rehabilitation.

Mr. O'Toole

I do not propose to cover all the wide range included in this first report on developments in the European Communities. Some slight criticisms of the documents have been voiced. As the Minister said in his speech, this document covers a period of 16 months. In normal circumstances, subsequent exports will be covering a period of six months.

Senators and many of the people in the country have become a little impatient at the seemingly slow rate of progress made in different spheres in regard to social and economic policies within the Communities. This is something which we must become used to because, by their very nature, we must have here an amalgam of different communities, different nations with different backgrounds. The only progress we can expect with such an amalgam is progress by evolution, rather than to any agreed plan. I am not saying that member states and representatives on committees have no say in coming to a decision or arriving at some conclusions. The organic growth of policy can be influenced by the effectiveness of our representation on these bodies. They can be directed in a particular direction provided the time has been spent in committees and in preparatory work for them. There is one aspect, however, which has been mentioned today, over which we do have control. I refer to regional policy. Senator O'Higgins read the relevant section in chapter 15.5 (a) which says that:

Community regional policy cannot be a substitute for national regional policy.

He pointed out that this was put there on the assumption that the Community countries have national regional policies. The point already made is that we have not a regional policy in this country and for that reason we have to start now to define clearly what we mean when we talk about regional policies.

There are vast disparities, for example, between different areas within the Communities. There are vast disparities within different areas of our own country—in the east and west, for example. I come from the West of Ireland and the grant-aided system through agencies like the IDA for the 12 western counties, where there are special incentives over the past number of years, have failed simply because the Government gave the IDA no teeth to direct development into the areas which needed it most. In my opinion, a regional policy must have some authority to direct development into the areas most in need of development.

The IDA, even though they have done a job with the limitations within which they work, have still failed to come to grips with the actual problems in the West. I think they have failed. The Government have failed, particularly the last Government for the past 16 years, because their proposals have been purely economic. We all know the problems of the West. Viewed only as economic problems, they defy solution. Here we are dealing with what is basically a social problem. We are dealing with people, with their standards of living, with their environment—and God knows it is a harsh environment from the point of view of farming. In my own county, for example,—and this should give us an idea of the failure in the past—since 1966, according to the figures presented in the census, we have lost 5,000 people. This is a damning indictment of the last Government's approach to regional policy, even though it was said at the time that there was an effort being made towards a regional policy.

The position with regard to the different granting agencies like FEOGA, the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund is that the only way we can derive full benefit from them is by presenting a very definitive policy towards regional development and in so doing we will be able to get those grants and apply them in the area in which they are most needed. What is needed at the moment therefore is some agency or Department of regional development. One of the great difficulties we have at the moment is this. We have regions for industrial development covered by the IDA; we have regions under Bord Fáilte; we have regions under the health boards. They are all different regions. They are all following along their own lines. We have no co-ordinating body to see to it that all aspects of life in these areas are being catered for. A Department concerned with the regional policy would be a co-ordinating agency taking care of all the different aspects of life in the different regions.

I see one danger in having the whole country designated as an undeveloped area. The danger is that, human nature being what it is, there might be an upsurge in development but that upsurge would take place mostly in the places most beneficial to the people involved, which would be the East coast, near the Community and the services. This would be to the detriment of the areas in the country in the most need of development.

I notice in chapter 16.2 concerning the European Social Fund the following:

The Fund was established for the purpose of facilitating and promoting the geographical and occupational mobility of workers and thereby contributing to improving their employment opportunities and raising their standards of living.

The area that I come from has had plenty of mobility in the past. We have had workers going to the far ends of the earth seeking employment. The Government should take a hard look at this idea of bringing work to where the workers are rather than bringing workers to where the work is available. It is incumbent on us to find out the difficulties of these areas.

One further point I wish to make is that in the past the people of those areas have not been consulted. They are the people who are living with the problem and they are the people who know some of the solutions, but they have not been consulted in the past. I am not seeking autonomous bodies on a regional basis that would run their own business. Obviously, there must be some constraint on budgeting, and so on, from a central authority; but bodies ought to be set up in regions which would have a say in directing policy to the specific needs of their particular regions. In the context of the EEC and of making sure that full benefits accrue to us from it, it is essential that we have such bodies spread over the whole country. They would act in an advisory capacity, and could be given executive powers with, of course, control for budgetary purposes from a central authority.

I would strongly appeal to the Minister to consider the idea of setting up a Department concerned with regional policy, with co-ordinating all the agencies which at present are overlapping in many regions and which are leading to inefficiency in many areas.

Dr. Browne

There are a few issues involved in the presentation of this document and the treatment of it by the Dáil and the Seanad which I would like to think about. There appears to me to be one very important one of the principle of democracy to which two people referred—the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy O'Brien, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald— in terms which, I think, must be questioned. I make no secret of the fact that I am totally opposed to the whole idea of the Common Market. I have opposed it as far back as I can remember, right into the fifties, the sixties, and now I am still opposing the idea of a central European cartel replacing the old imperialist powers and designed in order to exploit the poorer countries within the cartel for their own ends. I have no doubts but that is the basic underlying purpose of the European Community.

Senator Russell referred to the high traditions of Europe and what we should bring to it. The high traditions of Europe: if you look at any of them, France just recently tortured its way out of Algeria; Germany, most of Africa; Belgium, the Congo; Holland, Dutch East Indies; Britain— we know her record. If you were to scour the world for a more scabrous crowd of highway robbers than the Central European countries it would be hard to find them. Anybody who comes here with high ideals looking forward to the great day of uniting with Europe, then collecting what is there for us in it, is bound to be disillusioned. I can pay a tribute to Senator Russell that he did say that, in spite of the overwhelming returns from the EEC referendum, there is now a sense of anti climax, the bright promise is dimmed and there is a sense of disillusionment about the Common Market. I think that is what is beginning to percolate out here to the periphery.

I have been in these places for a fairly long time and one of the things I find most difficult to accept is the massive acceptance by the Dáil and Seanad of this extraordinary rejection by a very distinguished, wonderful and historic nation of its effective independence. Senator Russell again, perfectly honourably, put it in a nutshell when he said so many of the policies would be decided in Brussels. One goes back to many of the people that I have seen in these Houses who in their time made enormous sacrifices on both sides for what they said was the establishment of freedom and independence here. We have been sated and saturated with it in our schools and in our history books over the years. That this generation, which did so much to establish a free and independent society, should now so unquestioningly accept this agreement to deprive itself of its rights of independence and sovereignty and hand them over to Brussels—to these countries in the centre of Europe who know little or nothing about Ireland and Ireland's needs—I find impossible to understand; how arguments put forward could have so poleaxed all the declared aspirations of the successive generations of fine people on both sides in Ireland and make them accept this loss of sovereignty, loss of nationality and loss of power by accepting the Common Market.

The main dynamic for this has been the need for a wealthy minority here to preserve their wealth. They are likely to do so within a community with like-minded attitudes and ideologies in Europe. The democratic principle that I am concerned with arises from the statement by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, when he was acting for the Minister here, that there has been much talk of abandonment of democracy and so on. I think I was the main person to contribute on that line. A democratic decision was taken in this matter by the people in May of last year. It was not the decision that my party hoped to get. We pointed out at the time, at column 50 of the Seanad Official Report of 1st June, that we believed entry would involve a diminution of the powers of our National Parliament and that in certain cases we would be required to rubber stamp various measures passed in Brussels. He then puts it to us that the debate is now over and nothing further need be said and nothing further should be said.

First of all, these three or four throw-away sentences about what we said does very little justice to a speech made by a Deputy which, in my view, in all the listening that I have done in the Dáil and, to a lesser extent in the Seanad—and I have read a lot of the speeches of my predecessors as well as those I heard during my own time —was the finest speech that I have ever listened to. It was a most compelling, well-argued, and cogent speech and, in so far as it has not been answered, was not answered, will stand in time as probably one of the finest that has ever been made, and that was the speech made by Deputy Justin Keating, now Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think the dismissal of Deputy Keating's wonderfully argued case against entry in these three or four sentences is hardly the kind of loyalty that one colleague should give to another. I will not weary the House with a long statement, but the motion in his name deplored the inadequacy of the negotiations described in the White Paper and rejected the terms set out.

Deputy Keating made many statements including this one at column 1967, Volume 259, of the Official Report for 21st March, 1972:

My view is that Fine Gael are participating in something that is foolhardy and reckless.

At column 1968 he said:

... we will not alone be abolishing the chance of ever growing to nationhood, which we have not yet done, but, in regard to community, population and tradition, we will be abolishing a good deal of Ireland. As somebody said recently, it will be the last action we will ever take as something almost a nation if we vote ourselves in. Fine Gael will have to bear a very heavy responsibility for that.

His whole wonderful speech is starred with well-substantiated conclusions of this kind. He said that our farmers were buying a pig-in-a-poke and were being misled. I think Deputy Russell echoed that, as he talked about the farmers. But I could support those statements with statements from Deputy Corish. I could support them with Statements from Deputy O'Brien himself. Probably the most memorable statement to me, because of Deputy O'Brien's special knowledge of it, was the statement that we would become part of a neo-colonialist establishment, exploiting the Third World.

I do not need to go on to establish that point. It is quite easily done. Anybody who chooses to read the record will find it there. The most thoroughgoing, damning indictment of these proposals was made by some members of the present Government. The most interesting point is that the person who presented this speech here today, who is in charge of this document, Deputy FitzGerald, Minister for Foreign Affairs, continually heckled and barracked Deputy Keating throughout that speech. But he did not answer his arguments.

This is the kind of situation in which we face what all Senators recognise as an extremely trying, testing, dangerous time for our community. Deputy FitzGerald, the Minister, took this point, which I consider to be an odd point, that following the favourable decision in this referendum, the Labour Party had accepted the decision, as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Cruise-O'Brien says, and we should now go ahead and go in. He is quoted as saying at column 1850, Volume 265, of the Official Report for 23rd May, 1973 that they acepted the decision of the Irish people and:

They saw that the future for Ireland, once we were within the Community about which we had had some doubts, would be best served by the fullest participation. This is in immense contrast to the British Labour Party whose attitude is reflecting no credit on them and doing no good to Britain.

I think that is a particularly arrogant and insolent reflection on the British Labour movement. It also is a complete misreading, it seems to me at any rate, of the idea of democracy or the principle of democracy—whether we must end the debate now or whether we must go on with the debate or whether the debate may go on. When I talked on the Common Market debate, and I am sure when all the other people talked on it, I was not taking part in an L and H Saturday night discussion, or in the "Hist.", taking whichever side on which there happens to be no spare speakers, to debate for or against. I was convinced of the arguments I put forward and am still convinced of the arguments I put forward. I still believe it to be a very dangerous organisation. Everything that we have seen in the short time since membership continues to establish, in my view, the validity of the points made by Deputy Keating. For instance, on the question of prices, because of this system of Government, there can be no significant price control system, because we are in the EEC and because of their attitude to free competition, free enterprise.

At column 2408, Vol. 259 of the Official Report for 23rd March, 1972, Deputy FitzGerald said:

To my simple-minded calculations, in respect of one-fifth of the goods we buy the removal of protection will reduce prices by 10 per cent and that knocks 2 per cent off the cost of living.

That is the kind of hokum that the unfortunate people accepted as gospel. Of course, within a matter of weeks they know to their cost that the prices of food, particularly the prices of essential goods, were continuing to soar, and that there was no known way for permanently controlling prices in the EEC context. Again at column 2408 he said in respect of the effect on the cost of living:

Three and a half to 4 per cent has been suggested. I think that is too high and I have gone into these figures very carefully.

It is a good thing he took care over them or God knows what he would have said. The annual rate since has been in the region of 11 to 12 per cent, and I do not believe it will be controlled by the manipulation of VAT, the transfer of prices across to clothes and so on. We shall still pay, and the shopkeepers are making certain we will pay by the artificial increases at the moment. Even if temporary price control is introduced, it will be merely a face-saver in order to allow trade union leadership to negotiate another wage agreement. The lid will come off again and the worker will find himself chasing too few goods with too little money.

Getting back to the principal point here, I could give you many precedents for decisions taken by the people which had not been accepted by the Deputy FitzGeralds or the Deputy O'Briens. I could take any general election in which the decision has been made to return Fianna Fáil and all their policy. To their credit it did not silence the Opposition. They fought and fought until they got back again and reversed policies they did not like. Mr. de Valera did not like the result of the constitutional referendum to establish the Free State Constitution. When he got around to it he came in to the Oireachtas and worked himself into a position to reverse the decision of that referendum and brought in his own Constitution.

There was nothing wrong about that, perfectly correct, but it is still wrong for these people to tell us: "Hush, it is all now settled. There is no more." This is a very interesting debate. I saw one very patronising, paternalistic reference by Deputy Fitzgerald: "it was great fun having it." I remember once when it was not great fun having it and Deputy Fitzgerald went for me at the time when I was opposing the Common Market and because I opposed it I was a communist at that time. "We had a great student debate which is all over now." It would be very wrong if the Seanad were to accept that attitude. I was glad that Senators West and Russell both attempted to disabuse them of this fact that they have now got carte blanche and they can carry on regardless. I could remind Deputy O'Brien of his own attitude to another Constitutional provision which was accepted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hesitate to interrupt the Senator, but he is straying a little from the motion which is to discuss the report on the development within the EEC.

Dr. Browne

Thank you. I feel I am doing nothing else but discussing development within the EEC since we are now within the EEC. My proposal is that it is wrong to say that the things they propose will happen are going to happen. I am saying they will not happen. I am also saying I I should not be silenced in saying these things because I can give precedents in respect of the people who made these suggestions showing that they themselves have continued to debate issues of this kind with which they were is disagreement. I was in the process of citing the case of Deputy O'Brien in article 2 or 3 of territorial limitations.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator please refer to the Minister as such?

Dr. Browne

Could I draw attention to another very relevant point which arises? In spite of the Minister for Foreign Affair's, Deputy FitzGerald's insolent reference to the British Labour Party's insistence on continuing to stand by their stated principles— in fairness to Deputy FitzGerald, the Minister, he has been the most ardent advocate of going in, so he is not betraying anything at all; he is being completely consistent and constant in his attitude. I am not charging him with that at all, but I am charging his colleagues, Deputy O'Brien and Deputy Keating with that. But it is the reality that he has to face, that the British Labour Party are not going to let this issue die. What happens then? There is the possibility that they could win an election. the next, and if they win an election they are going to re-negotiate the Common Market.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

From inside.

Dr. Browne

I do not care where they do it from as long as they renegotiate it, but it is not a dead issue.

Mr. Kelly

But they have not said they are going to leave the Common Market.

Dr. Browne

If they cannot get the correct result in the negotiations why would they not leave? Why do you think they are going to renegotiate? Another wise man who knows more than the British Labour Party about what is in the best interest of the British people. Say they do renegotiate and in a significantly fundamental way change it, what do we do then?

Everybody knows that the greatest failure in our society has been the fact that to a considerable extent the generation who negotiated this treaty had little room for manoeuvre, for the simple reason that we are tied like a can to a dog's tail as a result of this silly policy of successive Governments over 50 years. There is very little the British do that we will not have to do. It is precisely the same position now. If the British Labour Party were returned it is quite conceivable that they could negotiate again and we would be faced with a completely different set of propositions.

What happens then? Do we get Deputy O'Brien and Deputy FitzGerald coming back with a new set of proposals, a new referendum to amend, to give them the power to implement these proposals? What are the arguments then? Why did they change their minds or their principles: "These are my principles. If you don't like them I'll change them." It looks rather like that.

Everybody knows that if the British Labour Party goes in again we will have to go into serious negotiations again and if they opt to get out, which they could do in certain circumstances, then we get out too. We are not in for ever and the debate must go on and should go on.

It is quite wrong on the part of Deputy O'Brien to try to get the rest of us to condone his volte face on this particular issue for his own ends whatever they may be—office I would assume.

Mr. Kelly

He is making the best of the situation just like Mr. de Valera did 45 years ago.

Dr. Browne

What a wonderful precedent.

Mr. Kelly

You were the Senator who dragged in Mr. de Valera.

Dr. Browne

I would not quote Mr. de Valera as a wonderful precedent. I am afraid we have different idols.

Mr. Kelly

You did so with evident admiration five minutes ago.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could Senator Browne continue please?

Dr. Browne

I do not think saying that successive Governments over the last 50 years have tied us like a tin can to a dog's tail could be said to be praise. If it is you are easily flattered. The case is there. It is as real now as it was then. Every day is proving it to be so. The tragedy is that certain members of the Government have simply not had the courage of their convictions. I find it difficult to understand how, with this very powerful, deep-seated conflict of beliefs, without a major betrayal on one side or the other, serious conflict will not inevitably eventuate.

Surely one of the most dismal comments of all was again made by Senator Russell that the whole country is now qualifying for outdoor assistance, as it used be called. We are now a development area—what an extraordinary admission. This has been 50 years of Government in which we have adhered so rigidly to the iniquitous private enterprise capitalist system and suffered so much in consequence. I presume, because of the predominance of the Fine Gael Party in the Coalition, that this kind of suffering must go on —unemployment 7 to 8 per cent. emigration, defective social services, education services, et cetera, which we have known since the State was formed.

I wonder would the Minister tell us about a matter which interests me a lot, namely, the ideal they have for the ultimate united Europe. What do they intend doing on the question of defence commitments? This is a question of enormous importance to us all and I am concerned with it because it goes back many years. I have always felt that there might ultimately be an attempt to justify a link with the NATO alliance.

As far back as I can remember there has been this attempt. One of the people involved was the present Attorney General, with whom I was involved in debate nearly 20 years ago, in which he was advocating membership of NATO. Later on, Seán Lemass, the Taoiseach at the time, and Mr. Moran, Minister for Justice at the time, also flew this kite—the need for us to fight for Christ in Europe and so on by joining NATO. Mr. Hillery, the then Minister for External Affairs, went along and offered our services to NATO. Of all the crass idiocies perpetrated by any statesman in any community, this was probably the most outstanding. As Deputy Conor O'Brien told him at the time, "Whatever you might think, certainly that was a foolish thing to do."

I wonder could we find out what it is now proposed to do? There is obviously a very big bloc of support for the idea of a defence commitment. The Minister has only referred to it in very vague terms in passing that it would be reasonable to defend any Community of which we are a member and yet very serious attempts are made by all Ministers to play down the possibility that we might be involved in any kind of defence commitments. I would be glad if the Minister would deal with that matter. The only people I know who are unequivocably opposed to it are the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, and Deputy Keating. I wonder what is the present position on this issue? Is that opposition to be shelved for the cause of bringing about European unity in a military sense?

There is this statement in the document that the best way of achieving progress in the matter of political unity within the context of an enlarged mandate given to the Foreign Minister is to study. What does the Minister believe is the implication of the achievement of ultimate political unity should that happen? On the question of mineral development what are the prospects of the Government uniting the two one-time disparate ideological beliefs within the Cabinet: the good radical socialist attitudes of Deputy Keating and other comrades associated with him, and the extremely conservative free enterprise capitalist attitudes of, say, the Taoiseach, Deputy Donegan and others such as him?

We know well that we are in the extraordinary position of finding ourselves to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world because of the remarkable mineral finds, but up to the present, so far as the public are concerned, the nation has been raped of these riches, something on the lines of the Union Miniére of the Congo, of the British at their worst imperialist phase in Africa, India and elsewhere.

The public are not getting the money which is there. The enormous wealth which is there is estimated at something in the region of £2¼ thousand million I understand and because of agreements arrived at by the preceding Government, the amount available then has virtually left the country. Certainly it did not become diffused in social, educational or other cultural benefits for the people as a whole. There is this enormous residual wealth still. What agreements will be made in relation to royalties to these people who are presently coming in, some of them directly from outside, Canada and elsewhere, acting for enormously powerful wealthy foreign companies or disreputable Irishmen acting in their name in many cases, acquiring shares so that eventually they will be able to pillage this great wealth belonging to our people. What arrangements will be made about the raw materials? How will the two conflicting interests within the Coalition Government solve this problem? Is there any likelihood that a small country like ours could be given the needed assistance from the European Community to enter into, on behalf of the Community, the exploration and development facilities, technological, physical, chemical, needed to exploit these wonderful riches of which I hear.

So long as I can remember I have been told, when proposing anything for education, health, social services or anything else, that we are only a poor country. The poor mouth answer was always given. That is no longer true, as long as these raw materials are developed for the people as a whole. Equally, we are now entering, as another Senator mentioned, oil development. Here again, there is enormous opportunity for great wealth being made available for our people, for the services which we all want for our people. Britain, as we know, has misused her opportunities. Norway, on the other hand, appears to be particularly tough in its bargaining in regard to the development of these resources. For the granting of prospecting licences, they were insisting on the toughest possible deal for those who happen to find oil, going up as high as 95 per cent of royalties, as happened off the west coast of America—95 per cent going to the Government and 5 per cent going to the exploiters.

I believe that we should not accept this as a closed argument. It would well repay the Minister, Deputy FitzGerald, if he would re-read, as I said earlier on, a magnificent speech made by the then Deputy Keating. If he is honest with himself he will, with what is now very special knowledge, begin to see that his remarkable efforts to publicise the virtues and the unlimited el dorado aspects of the EEC for the Irish people were grossly exaggerated and completely misguided.

Mr. Brosnahan

I understand the Minister is coming in at 4.15 p.m. so I will say what I had intended, stringing along over a fairly lengthy speech, in the period left.

Now that we are in the Common Market it is up to every citizen to make the most of the opportunities which are presented. Senator Browne has pointed out many of the disadvantages. There will be the standardisation of personality and education. People in the long-term, over the centuries, can never be the same again.

I am glad that the debate today has risen above narrow political interests. I welcome the Minister's suggestion for the Joint Committee. This is most important. Recently I was a representative on a public service delegation to Brussels. To use a paradox, the most we found out there was that we found out very little. We asked very searching questions of the people representing the information section of the Social and Economic Committee. We found the answers most vague. They gave us very little information.

We pointed out that we were in an awkward situation in Ireland in so far as our membership was only from 1st January last. When we pointed this out and that we had to rubber-stamp 22 regulations, on which we had no debate in the two Houses, the answer was, "Well, when you try to get on a moving train there is always the danger of coming down between the train and the platform." That is the sort of situation in which we find ourselves today. Fortunately, this can be corrected by the Joint Committee.

There is one aspect, and I must conclude with it, of the report to which I should like to refer and it is the one in which I am most interested. It is paragraph 16.28 of chapter 16. It is headed "Co-operation in the Sphere of Education" and reads:

There has been a working party considering the question of general policy and the means of its implementation in relation to a proposal to set up a European Centre for the Development of Education (the so-called Guichard Plan). Ireland has been represented on this working party. Its report has been forwarded to the Council.

No teachers' organisation was consulted in the slightest way with regard to the activities of this committee. We think this is deplorable. All the discussion apparently took place between civil servants in Europe and civil servants from Ireland. Teachers should be represented and certainly the managerial parties who are, in the last analysis, responsible for the fundamental philosophies of education and control the schools. If we are to be moved into a common pattern of education in Europe, we must put on record that there are philosophies of education which are entirely repugnant to the Irish people. These we will not readily accept.

The point I should like to make for the Minister is that further discussions on education will take place because the other day Dr. Dahrendorf, who is the Commissioner for Research, Science and Education for the Commission of the European Communities, submitted a document, one sentence of which states:

The Council of Ministers should meet, therefore, at the latest in Autumn 1973, to decide upon the realisation of co-operation in the field of education within a common frame.

As a spokesman for a teachers' organisation I can say that we will be very disturbed if we are not consulted about this type of frame. There are frames of education into which we will not be moved. We have our own national philosophy of education and we are not prepared to be moved into a situation which would be totally repugnant to us.

Senator Markey rose.

An Cathaoirleach

There has been agreement to let the Minister in at 4.15 p.m. and to conclude at 5 o'clock.

Mr. Markey

I fully accept that, but I have made many efforts since this morning to speak. It has been quite frustrating to see people who were not here this morning, or last night, getting in before me. Furthermore, certain irrelevancies were allowed in the course of the debate today which should not have been allowed. Will you allow me to proceed?

An Cathaoirleach

This is a matter for the House. The House has made a certain agreement in regard to its business. It may well be that the House would wish to vary that. That is the only thing that can be done.

Mr. Markey

I will only be five minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Minister still be able to conclude by 5 o'clock?

Dr. FitzGerald

My understanding is that I will have until 5.15 p.m. to conclude. Perhaps if I got 50 minutes I might do it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister has indicated that 50 minutes would be adequate for his reply, allowing Senator Markey a margin of seven minutes.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps he will share it with Senator Halligan.

Mr. Markey

Indeed, listening to Senator Browne, it would be an understatement to say that he had veered somewhat off the terms of the motion before us. I should like to refer briefly to some of his remarks before I speak on the motion. He spoke of the bright promise held out before the referendum last May being replaced now by a sense of disillusionment. From the tone of the debate here last night and today I would say that far from there being any sense of disillusionment there has rather been a sense of the challenge and opportunity confronting us in Europe. It was most enlightening to hear those two points raised time and time again.

As regards the report put before us by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I should like, first of all, to congratulate him on the speed with which this report was formulated within two months of his taking office. I extend my congratulations also to the officials of his Department. The problem confronting us is largely one of indifference on the part of the public not only in this country but throughout Europe as regards accepting the principle of the EEC.

Here again it is the age-old problem of communication. Communication in business or otherwise is always a two-way method. It must be both upwards and downwards. I would leave it to the European Parliament itself—I am glad to see that they are taking steps in this direction—to give themselves more teeth, to make themselves more attractive and to find and touch public opinion.

Communication upwards is largely left in the hands of the Government of each individual state to take whatever means they can to acquaint the public, first of all, of the implications of membership of the EEC and with the favourable and unfavourable points of such membership. The EEC is not a bonanza for anybody. It is not a form of authoritarian membership. It is largely finding a consensus amongst the member countries. The Government should pay special attention in trying to touch this public opinion and making people interested. There is no point in seeking direct elections to Europe unless pressure for such direct elections comes from the public.

The problem confronting the Government is to turn a negative attitude, which is really one of indifference on the part of the public, into a positive attitude. I was glad to hear the Minister's statement last night that the Joint Committee would be a help in this regard. The more means of communication we have with the public the better. It is largely a question of the difference which has been evidenced in a number of decisions and recommendations of the European Parliament. A certain amount of diffidence with regard to political and economic co-operation, a certain vagueness as regards its final terms of reference and as regards final implementation of political co-operation appears in this report.

On the question of environment, whether by coincidence or not, the chapter dealing with this matter consists of a sole page. It is good to see, from the Minister's report last night, that the EEC countries are giving a certain amount of funds towards research projects. We in Ireland have a lot to gain from the experience and omissions of the member countries in this regard. It is only in recent years that it has been accepted that the earth and the land on which we stand is a finite resource and that pollution operates across land, sea and air and knows no frontiers.

In the broad context, while talking about economic, social, industrial and regional funds and the benefits to be gained therefrom, it is impossible to discuss these matters without talking about the political implications involved. As we cannot deal at any great length with social, regional or industrial matters we are dealing with the political implications of these matters. Here again the certain amount of diffidence which has crept into the EEC and the European Parliament in regard to ultimate political co-operation is something which contains a danger for the EEC itself. Its very inactivity in regard to political co-operation can only lead to inactivity and a certain amount of frustration and lack of confidence in the EEC itself achieving its aims under the headings I have mentioned.

I should like to raise just one other point and that is that yesterday evening the Leader of the Opposition made certain disparaging comments about the Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to his global strategy. The phrase used was that he was tackling shadows rather than substance and making certain posturings. It is fortunate now that we in this country no longer regard ourselves as being of no interest or of not being interested in what goes on outside our confines. We are now a member of the EEC and as such we must also begin to realise what lies outside the Community. It is, therefore, most gratifying to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his speech on the budget making quite commendable recommendations in regard to looking around the wide world that exists outside the EEC.

Mr. Halligan

I promise the Minister this will be the shortest minute on record. First, I should like to say how nice it is to see him back in this House, which he graced with such distinction, in the capacity of a Government Minister. I should like to join with Senator Markey in protesting against the inequitable distribution of time allowed to speak. I was in the precincts of this House from the beginning to the end of this debate and I now find I am allowed to speak for one minute. Three Senators had to squeeze their contributions into 15 minutes. I think the Whips will have to make arrangements for a more equitable distribution of time.

I have just two very brief points to make. The Government are to be commended on their commitment to direct elections to the European Parliament and the Taoiseach is to be congratulated on his recent statement to that effect. Perhaps the Minister could explore, with the Governments of Holland and Italy, some type of joint action in order to speed up this process which has now been ground down into the dust for almost 14 years. Perhaps the new Labour Government in Holland would be a willing ally to any such move and the socialist party now about to take up Government in Italy would be a willing ally.

The Labour Party would support the pleas made here to enlarge the Committee, which the Minister announced this morning, in order to ensure adequate representation from the Seanad, particularly from the Independent Members. We would hope that the Committee would comprise between 16 to 20 Members and would in the words of Senator Higgins, also have adequate research facilities appended to them.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I shall try to do justice to a very interesting and wide-ranging debate by replying as nearly as possible to all the points made. Time will be a problem for me as it was for the Senators.

The first point I have to make is that I regret very much that for various reasons the debate terminated so quickly. I feel I am personally responsible for that because I did request that it should terminate at 5 p.m. owing to other problems with which I have to deal. One thing is clear and that is the need for more debates on this subject. We have not exhausted the potentiality; we have scraped the surface. Certainly for my part you will find me willing to come to this House to debate these problems when the House wishes, subject to my being in the country at all, which sometimes I am not for various reasons. That is without prejudice to what I may say later about the Committee and general comments on the whole question of the Dáil and how Ministers might report on what is happening.

I will take very quickly the individual points Senators have made and I will go through those first of all, chapter by chapter, and then come to more general issues. I will start with chapter 4 as nothing was said with regard to chapters 1 to 3 other than certain references to the summit which we can take up when we come to deal with the particular chapters.

Senator Yeats felt we should have explained in the report that the relationship with Greece was frozen. That is fair comment in view of the fact that such is the case and it is a very significant fact. That should have appeared in the report and I accept that criticism. He suggested that the EEC should have been more generous to EFTA. I am not clear what he meant by that. The various EFTA countries have been the object of negotiations by the Community. I think they have come to satisfactory conclusions. I have not heard complaints from them and I am not sure we should complain if they are reasonably happy.

He was critical of the Minister for Labour's recent speech at the ILO in Geneva. I believe I dealt with that at the time. There was some misunderstanding as to whether the Minister for Labour was referring to trade or aid. Clearly he was referring to aid.

The particular language he used might not be that which Senator Yeats would use himself. It seemed rather ironical that the slightly poetic language of the Minister for Labour should be criticised by Senator Yeats. I would stand behind what the Minister for Labour said and it is our concern to ensure that the whole system of relationship between the Community and developing countries will be one which will eliminate remaining elements of neo-colonialism or attitudes deriving from the colonial period. The Minister for Labour was quite right to stress that.

Senator West was critical of the size of the report. I may have an inadequate note here, on the subject. Senator Robinson commented that it should not be any bigger and then proceeded to add to it so much that everything in it would need to be removed to make room for what she wanted to add. There is a problem as to how big the report should be. That problem will be resolved as the six-monthly reports will be much smaller. There will be more room then to fit in more material.

Senator Robinson suggested that the whole section in chapter 4 should have started with the reference to the relationship between the US and the Community, which is the dominant feature in the minds of the people in the Community at the present time. That would have been fair comment if the report had been written at a much later time than the date in question, but this matter had only been raised and had not come before the Community. The first reference to it was on the 15th May, which was the date on which the report was prepared, the date up to which it runs. It is only since then that this matter has been discussed in the Council of Ministers in any detail. It is anomalous that it should not loom larger in the report but it is partly an accident of timing I think.

Senator Ryan raised the question whether the common commercial policy applied only to eastern Europe. No, it applies widely. The reason why there is a reference to eastern Europe in chapter 4 is because the extension of the common commercial policy to eastern Europe occurred within the period of the report. It applied to other countries before that in 1969 and the reference here relates to the particular decisions which extended to eastern Europe. Incidentally, agreements for co-coperation with eastern European countries are still outside the framework of the common commercial policy. It is trade agreements that are within it, but that, of course, may change.

On chapter 5, Senator Yeats pressed for the need for customs simplification and I am in agreement with him although I was warned against being too optimistic about the disappearance of the customs. That would entail absolute ironing out of differences in expenditure and taxes. There are many strong arguments for that being a difficult thing to achieve and not necessarily desirable. I think that social and cultural differences between countries in the Community which, please God, will remain, and I know they will, are such as to make an absolute harmonisation of taxation inappropriate. One only has to think of the question of the level of taxation on alcohol to see the relevance of that. As long as members' taxes are at different levels customs will remain. By the nature of things customs are always complicated no matter how much one tries to simplify the matter.

Senator Robinson raised questions about the degree of consultation that has taken place under paragraphs 6.7 and 6.14 and wanted to know who had represented us. In regard to 6.14 the consultations are taking place in a committee established by the Minister for Education. They sat on 20th May and 20th June. Those represented on them are the presidents of UCC, UCD, UCG, the registrar of TCD, the Professor of Education in Maynooth, Dr. Petty of the Limerick Institute, the chairman of the ATA. the assistant director of the National Council of Education Awards and the Irish Vocational Education Association.

In regard to 6.7, I was represented on the working party by the assistant secretary in the Department of Education and a principal officer from the Department of Health. I shall come back again to the question of consultation; I am giving the factual position now. I am not suggesting that it is entirely satisfactory. Without wishing to be unduly political I think the previous Government did have a somewhat more restricted concept of consultation than we would have and it will take time to adjust to that. The pressure is on staff who, in many technical areas are extremely short, make it difficult to undertake additional consultation with interests outside the public service. That is the general problem we have but we are very conscious of the need to have much more realistic consultation and we are working on that.

On chapter 7 there was a remarkable conflict between Senators Lenihan and Yeats leading for the Opposition. Senator Lenihan called on us to develop an alternative policy to the common agricultural policy. He said we should not allow our stance on the common agricultural policy to impede a study of alternatives. Senator Yeats said that we should stand fast to the whole concept and must not budge an inch. I leave them to sort it out between them as to which is the Opposition policy but as far as we are concerned we regard the common agricultural policy as of vital importance. We regard it of vital importance and not purely for selfish reasons, although we very properly have regard to our national interests here. I read an article in the last few days criticising and ostracising me in particular for protecting this country's national interest. I make no apology for that. The Community will be built by each country protecting its vital national interest and seeking within the limits that it imposes to develop a genuine Community which can eventually become a political union. The two are not incompatible and, indeed, if any country fails to seek to protect their national interest an imbalance would arise which could be destructive of the Community.

In any event, the common agricultural policy is much more important than simply a question of protecting our national interest. The common agricultural policy is the one really working common policy of the Community. It is the one thing that binds it together. It binds it together in a way which stimulates a further development of the Community because in order to protect the common price policy it is logically necessary to move towards a monetary union. And the monetary union logically requires a political union.

Therefore, the common agricultural policy is the starting point of an inevitable process moving towards a political union. Because we believe that it is in that direction that we should move, even if we have not got a vital interest in the common agricultural policy, we will be concerned that it should remain as a lever and moving many forces in that direction.

I will not go into that for the present but I want to stress that it is not simply a question of self interest. Of course, there are negotiations that are about to take place. Provision will have to be made in some way for agricultural products but that must be done not only within the framework of the principles of the common agricultural policy but the mechanisms of that policy must be preserved. We have had the experience —not alone during many centuries of British rule but, more disturbingly, during 50 years of political independence—of being, in effect, though not, no doubt, with intention, exploited by Britain by means of the British cheap food policy. We, above all the countries of Europe, are sensitive to any suggestion that we should depart from the concept of the same price being paid for farmers throughout the Community. That is basic to the whole concept of the Community and is vital to our national interest and after the experience we have had we do not propose to go back to the situation at any time where different prices will be paid to our farmers and to farmers elsewhere.

On structural policy, Senator Yeats raised the point about hill farms. There is some confusion here but to be fair, on reflection, the relevant paragraph in the report, 7.5 is inadequate It is drafted in a way that does not disclose fully all the complex elements involved here and it is understandable that Senator Yeats should, therefore, have been misled by it.

There are three different ways in which the policies in relation to poor farming areas operate. This is not clear from paragraph 7.5. There is the category of land where the ground is sloping. There is another category of generally poor farming areas additional to the sloping ground areas and then, in addition to that—this is where the 2½ per cent comes in—outside these areas of poor land a further 2½ per cent of land can be specially designated where, although it is in an area of good land, the particular subsection of land is in a different situation on the coastline, perhaps, in a tourist area where it is necessary to take special action.

There are three elements here. It is only as an additional element that you have this 2½ per cent thrown in on top of two other categories which are not, in fact, limited in quantity. Frankly, nobody reading chapter 7.5 could have known that and we should have displayed the position more fully there. I apologies to the House for the inadequacies of that particular paragraph.

Senator Lenihan referred to weaknesses in presenting our case for certain grants. Although he spoke in the context of regional policy, he may have had in mind or have been led to this comment by remarks in the press some time ago relating to applications for grants from FEOGA under the agricultural policy. The position here is that they advertised the possibility of grants in several Press releases. They have received several applications and the cases are being prepared, analysed and set out in detailed form in consultation with the people applying. Some have already been submitted to FEOGA and the deadline for application is the end of this month. I am glad Senators have given me an opportunity to advertise that fact once again.

Senator Lenihan criticised us for not having presented them in time. The deadline has not yet been reached and anything that has been submitted to the Department and is at all appropriate to this purpose will, of course, be submitted. We are dependent here on people's willingness to take up an opportunity to which their attention has been drawn. So far as I am aware, the presentation of the claims is adequate. However, in view of the point the Senator raised I will look into the question of whether there is any defect in this regard.

On chapter 8, state Aid, the question was raised about the examination of state aid. This has been completed at official level but we shall not know the final result before the end of the year. Nothing was raised on chapter 9. On chapter 10, Senator Yeats asked if there was a Government decision on the fifth directive, the one relating to participation by workers in all companies with more than 500 employees. This matter is one that has not yet reached a point of decision. Divergent views were expressed on this point. Senator Harte remarked that the ICTU had been studying this since 1957 and that much work had been done and he suggested that it should be left to Congress. He referred to intellectuals bamboozling workers. I am not quite sure what he had in mind. I hope nothing that I have ever done would fall into that category. I am sure the noun "intellectual" was not meant to apply to me anyway.

I recognise that trade unions have a vital role to play here but I think we have to face the fact that in this respect the trade unions who are representing such a large part of our population, although they are the most representative group in the country, nonetheless have in this respect an interest like others. There could be divergent views on this question of industrial democracy, and while the trade union views must be given very great weight they could not be the determining factor in our policy or the Community policy should other considerations make it seem desirable to move ahead with industrial democracy in some form.

Generally, this Government favour the principle of industrial democracy but would hope to work out with the trade unions an agreed way in which it could be introduced. We are glad that the EEC itself has taken up this matter and is proposing a measure of industrial democracy in this particular form, such as participation on supervisory boards in companies with more than 500 employees. This is something which we welcome but the way in which this would be worked out would have to be done in consultation with the trade unions.

On chapter 11, Senator Robinson made reference to the enforcement of maintenance payments and felt more should be said about that. She raised the question of what consultation there had been on this point. There has been certain informal contact with members of the judiciary. There have been no formal consultations with the Incorporated Law Society or the Bar Council. The proposals on the convention and on the explanatory report are public documents and are available to those bodies and they could take the matter up if they wished to do so. This is one of the many areas of consultation where there may still be some reflections at this stage but these we are seeking to resolve.

Under chapter 12, Senator West said he was glad the EEC was taking the environment seriously, but Senator Markey pointed out, very relevantly, that it was the shortest chapter in the report, which reflected the possibility that the EEC may be taking the matter seriously but has taken it so seriously recently that so little has been done there is not much to say about it. Of course, that is true of governments generally throughout the world. This problem is one to which we have only become alert in recent years. The Community is no better than the rest of us in this respect and a lot remains to be done. It is a matter with which the Community is concerned, with which we are concerned and which, of course, is a matter that goes beyond the Community itself. Pollution can go from Germany to Sweden, from the Community to another country, and no doubt vice versa if the winds are right. It is something to be looked at in a wider context and is something which the Council of Europe are looking at also. We have to be sure we avoid duplication of effort in this area.

On chapter 14, Senator Yeats raised the question of why the public sector only seemed to be involved in schemes for the European Investment Bank. The position is that there were three applications so far. Two of these have not yet been announced—I think they are infrastructural in character within the public sector—and the other one is backed by Comhluch Siúicre Éireann for £2.8 million to finance a factory modernisation programme. I understand this is the first loan given by the European Investment Bank in a new member country. It is not the business of the Department of Finance to process claims to the European Investment Bank for the private sector. This is a matter for the applicants themselves. However, the Department are aware that some firms are negotiating with the European Investment Bank and, of course, the Department will give information on this subject to firms concerned, through the CII or directly, and do everything they can to help.

Reference was made to the possibility of getting money from this source to improve our telephone service. It sounds a very good suggestion, if I may make a proper comment on the administration of another Minister, and one which I shall pass on to him. What is good for Sardinia in this respect could, of course, be good for Ireland.

Reference was made by Senator Lenihan to the previous Government having applied for money for the Dublin-Galway road and there was a suggestion that an 80 per cent grant would be available for this purpose. I think there is some confusion here. There was no such application by the previous Government. While I take it as a good suggestion for this Government to look at—the question of an 80 per cent grant—I think there may be some confusion as to the size of the grant. No such figure is known of. In any event, the European Investment Bank lends money; it does not grant it. The only near figure to that is the 75 per cent figure for grants from FEOGA for certain agricultural purposes. I am afraid I cannot place the 80 per cent figure. If Senator Lenihan —or perhaps it was Senator Yeats who raised that point—has any further information on that I shall be glad to have it.

Senator Yeats, in raising the question of VAT, suggested that the harmonisation of rates is perhaps nearer than we think and was obviously desirable. For the reasons I have mentioned earlier I am not convinced that harmonisation of expenditure tax rates, whether VAT or any other, is necessarily desirable. Because of the many difficulties involved I am not sure that is nearer than we think. It may be further away than we think but that is a matter of opinion.

Senator Yeats also asked if there were four rates of VAT anywhere else. There are in Belgium and France and there are five in Italy. There is no question of our being unique in this respect. Other countries also see the wisdom of a number of different rates for goods of varying degrees of necessity to the consumer. Our policy here is in line with that of a number of other members of the Community. The Opposition could also find examples of other EEC countries which go for less rates and have, perhaps, less regard for the social interests. There are both categories in the Community.

Senator Yeats also raised the question of cheaper letters to the EEC countries. I saw recently a suggestion that this proposal had fallen by the wayside as far as the three applicant countries are concerned and I cannot promise on that at this stage. As a private individual it seemed to me to be a good idea but there may be some technical reasons of which I am not aware. I will take the matter up with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

A lot was said on chapter 15 and rightly so. Senator Lenihan stressed the importance of having projects ready. He named a date, 1st October, as the date on which the proposals are to come forward to be adopted by the Council. Of course, projects should be ready as soon as possible, but the date for submitting them could perhaps be later.

Senator Lenihan referred to the importance of maintaining our existing inducements—the tax-free base. We are very conscious of that and it will of course be the policy of this Government. He also placed emphasis on the north and north-west of the country—the centre of regional policy. Here we are in agreement. There is the whole question of something to be done about geography there: the region of northern Ireland is something which is actively engaging the Government's attention.

Senator Yeats pointed out that the peripheral areas have not yet been announced and he wondered if they had been agreed. Consultation on this matter has not yet taken place; it has been a bit delayed. He suggested that it had been unfortunate for us that a large part of Britain was so classified. This could have some implications with regard to the proportion of the total sum available to us, and the Government of course are aware of that. He stressed that we should not agree on an aggregate sum. It is vital that the sum provided for the purpose of regional policy should be such that, from our point of view, our share of it would be big enough to make some impact. We must remember that we have a public capital programme of £300 million, so the fund must be such that our share of it should be something that should add substantially to that, if it is going to make any impact here. I entirely agree with Senator Yeats on that point.

Questions were raised by Senators Robinson and Higgins about the lack of any definition of regions. Another Senator raised questions on this as well. Senator Robinson raised the question of different kinds of regions and the question of cultural regions being perhaps not fully taken account of by the Community. There could be some truth in this. It may not be a problem for us but it may well be. Because of the role of national governments in defining regions, and because some national governments are less concerned about particular cultural minorities than others, there could be some difficulties there. However, I do not think it creates a great problem for us.

Several Senators made the point that we have not got a regional policy and that, therefore, we could be in some difficulties in seeking the benefit of pursuing a regional policy. The Government are well aware that although this matter has been under discussion since 1962, when it was raised by the Commission on Regional Organisation, no regional policy was ever fully worked out or implemented by the previous Government. It is a matter of concern and a matter for priority but it will take a little time, starting from scratch—or somewhere not very far from scratch—to do the work which was not done previously. It is something that will have to be tackled if we are to get full benefit from the Community's regional policy.

The other point that was made by Senator O'Toole—and I think also by Senators Higgins and Robinson—is the lack of representative structures in our system. Even if you designate regions, it does not follow that the people in those regions have any sense of involvement in the development of their regions or would be able to get themselves involved in the Community regional policy. The Government are also conscious of this and the whole question of adequate devolution of responsibility is something which is exercising us in this as in many other fields.

On chapter 16, Senator Brosnahan suggested that in relation to the matter dealt with in paragraph 16.28 teachers have not been consulted. I shall look into that matter. Senator Brosnahan spoke at the end of the debate and I had no time to check on this and I cannot comment beyond saying that I shall look into it.

The question was raised as to who represented us on the European University Institute—paragraph 16.29. On the preparatory committee for the European University Institute we were represented by the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and by Professor Masterson, representing the Higher Education Authority. The Institute has been discussed in a committee established by the Minister for Education on the equivalence of degrees and diplomas. Posts in the Institute have been advertised in the Press and brought specially to the attention of educational interests.

Incidentally, the post of President of the Institute has not yet been filled. I do no want to go into any details about persons. I should only say that the Government approach to this matter is that we shall support the candidate who seems best academically qualified, most likely to earn the success of the Institute and will not be influenced by political considerations or horse trading with other countries in that matter. It is something which I took up at an early stage, when I became Minister, but it has not been settled yet.

Many matters come under the heading of chapter 16. In this connection Senator Harte stressed—I think it was in relation to this chapter—that under our social system the underprivileged are liable to lose out. He made the point that the unions can and do look after their own, but there are many people not represented by unions—the weaker groups in the community—and that there is a problem here which we have to look at. I am very conscious indeed of this. It is the primary purpose of this Government to look after these groups. We are aware of the many problems involved.

At the OECD meeting a fortnight ago I raised the important technical problem that arises because of the difficulty in transferring income. When the tax system is arranged as it is at present, any increase in taxation is resisted not merely by the rich —who are less numerous and therefore politically less important—but also by the workers who resist an increase in income tax. The workers also, in relation to an increase in expenditure tax, are naturally tempted to seek an increase in incomes to compensate for the price increase and thereby take the money back from the underprivileged, to whom it has been given in the budget.

This poses a very serious problem for all the countries of Western Europe. I raised this at the OECD and suggested that this matter should be examined. I was glad to find that the OECD officials are already conscious of this and are examining it to see what might be done. We shall be grateful for their advice on how we can tackle this problem in this country. I am therefore entirely with Senator Harte on that point.

Senator Moynihan raised a point here in regard to paragraph 16.2. He said he was glad that £3½ million worth of projects had been put in for grants and raised the question of money for services for the handicapped. He will be glad to know that the scheme is in course of preparation, through the Department of Labour, seeking assistance from the social fund in respect of the Rehabilitation Institute, which undertakes the rehabilitation of handicapped persons. I am glad to say that we are seeking assistance from the fund for that purpose.

On chapter 17, Senator West raised the question of the environment and stressed the need for studies of the effect on the environment of the private car, which he described as inefficient and socially objectionable. This is a point on which everybody is agreed; but we all either own or aspire to own, cars. There is a conflict in each of us here. The ideal environmental situation is one in which each individual owns a car but nobody else does. There is a problem here which every country faces, we as well as others. The only thing to be said for this country is that our density of population is only one-seventh that of Britain. Even if we reach enormous prosperity and everyone owns two cars, the traffic on the roads will still be a lot less bad than it is in neighbouring EEC countries— unless they all come over here to drive their cars.

On chapter 18, Senator West raised the question of energy policy and suggested it should be tackled from the world rather than the EEC point of view. He was speaking of the possibility of resources under the sea. There are other maritime nations that might support us in seeking to protect our interests here. I note that point. We are already preparing ourselves for this conference next year and the Government will be examining what line they should take there and how their relationship with the EEC should interact on their policy in regard to that conference.

I have dealt with most individual points. I hope I have not skimped too much but time does not permit me to go into detail. I tried to deal with each individual point that was raised.

I now want to deal with more general criticisms. On the report itself, there were some congratulations for it, notably from Senator Markey, who spoke of the speed with which it was produced. Those congratulations are certainly due to the officials concerned. I was astonished at the brief interval that elapsed from the moment I approved of the report, I went over it and suggested many changes in it, and when it appeared a few days later in print. I did not believe it was possible to deal with all the points I had raised and to get it printed in the time available.

Senator Yeats pointed out that some directives were not listed by number and some not by date. These are oversights which we shall certainly try to correct.

Mrs. Robinson

There was an oversight on the European Regulations Act. The numbers were not on that either. It was a pity.

Dr. FitzGerald

All right. We are all oversighting so we shall have to do something about that. It was raised in the other House also. A number of Senators raised the point—indeed it was quite a theme in the debate—that the report does not deal with policy. This raises a very major issue and I am not going to give a conclusive reply on this today.

I see great difficulties about introducing policy into the report, and some disadvantages, even from the point of view of Senators, not because I do not think Senators are not entitled to know what the Government's policies are, but because it may not be the best way of informing them. To have a factual report where everything is hard fact and can be relied on and things are not opinion is a useful kind of document. Once one gets into the policy area one gets into areas of argument and debate. It may be better to keep that separate.

Secondly, the report is a six-monthly one, and really Senators should not be willing to wait six months to know what the Government's policy is. They should be pestering the Government to know what their policies on current issues are. I am sure they will be and I hope the Government will respond. It may well be that it may be better to deal with this very natural concern about Government policy through the Committee, or alternatively, through Ministers making statements in the Dáil on aspects of policy where the Government, through the Council of Ministers, are taking up a particular position.

I have an open mind on this and would be glad to discuss informally, as well as here in the House with Senators, as with Deputies indeed, what may be the best way to tackle this. I would need more persuasion than I have had that the best way is the inclusion of policy reference throughout the report. This would very much slow down its production, because you would have to get the agreement of all relevant Government Departments to every reference. I am not convinced that this is the best way to tackle it.

Several Senators suggested that we should be more willing to seek outside expertise on various matters. I think this is something that certainly can be looked at. It is not always in the Government, nor even in the Public Service, which has an extraordinary amount of wisdom and knowledge. We must be willing to take assistance from outside. I am very open on this. I shall be early endeavouring to ensure that I get assistance and advice from as wide a range of sources as possible. That is something which we can consider.

A number of small points were made that the names of Irish appointees should be included in the report. I will look at that. The Government have a function only in respect of the very highest grade of appointees; below that they really have not got a significant role in appointment. Whether it is appropriate in the report to deal with matters which are not a part of the Government's responsibilities, I am not sure. I am willing to look at that and see that we can give the maximum information possible.

They are the main points which struck me on the general comments on the report, but there are obviously matters there which I will have to look into further and on which I will have to come back to the House.

Moving for a moment to foreign policy before coming to the question of the Committee itself, some points are raised on general foreign policy but related to the EEC. The question was raised of the role of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine meeting separately, and not as Council of Ministers of the EEC. This is something which the House is naturally concerned about. One has to be careful here—one is bound to be—that when the Foreign Ministers of the Nine meet together, they meet together with a view to seeing if they can agree on a common foreign policy. This is an executive act, just as the Government of this State might meet together and decide what line to take on foreign policy. The Government's deliberations on the matter would not properly be subject to publication. The decision that is taken is probably the subject for publication in the debate. In regard to the deliberations of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine in relation to foreign policy, although a certain amount gets out—and it is thought reasonable a certain amount should get out at the time the meeting takes place—there are limits on the disclosure of the position and certainly limits on the disclosure of what line other countries have taken. There are some problems here and we can only go a certain distance in meeting the wishes of the House in this respect.

There was a criticism from Senator Lenihan about shadow and substance and the suggestion that we were posturing and moving into areas far beyond our means. Senator Lenihan has simply failed—and his very short term in the Ministry did not give him very much opportunity—to find out about this. I am not sure if he even had the opportunity of attending any meeting, and certainly not more than one in the short period. The fact is that at the meetings of the Foreign Ministers particularly, but also in the Council of Ministers, we are required to state our position on problems anywhere in the world, because this Community is the greatest trading force in the world and has interests everywhere, and we are part of it.

We have with 1 per cent of the population between 5 and 8 per cent of the decision-making power of this Community. We simply cannot opt out when we are asked what should we do about Bangladesh or should we recognise North Korea. We cannot say we do not know or that we have no interest, because there would be no surer way to damn us as a country not playing its part and not to be taken seriously—a country which could, therefore, be ignored when its own interests come up to be considered.

If we are concerned to protect our interests we must abandon the provincialism which this country has had for a very long time past and which has been happy to be represented, apparently, by Britain anywhere outside Western Europe. This country has felt no need to concern itself with any other area of the world, except perhaps Britain and the United States. This will not wash any longer, and Senator Lenihan's speech in this respect showed echoes of an attitude of mind which I had hoped was dead and I hope I now have, perhaps, finally killed it. A foreign policy in this country is not too expensive a luxury. It is something we cannot do without, if our vital interests are to be protected.

Senator Robinson and Senator Browne, whose speech unhappily I I could not hear as I had to answer questions in the Dáil, raised the question of our attitude to NATO. I thought I had set this out clearly in my foreign policy speech. That is the position which I adhere to and will continue to adhere to in the relevant international bodies. Our position is that our fellow-members of the Community are allied to certain countries outside the Community—some outside Europe; others in Southern Europe; some of them not very democratic countries—for defence purposes. They find this necessary, and indeed in the present stage of development of world affairs they are probably right in that. We do not feel that it would be desirable or helpful for us to involve ourselves in that exercise and we do not intend to do so. Obviously, we accept their freedom to do so.

If at some stage countries of the Nine, moving towards a European union, and beyond that perhaps to some kind of confederation or federation decide as part of that process to adopt a common defence policy of the Nine separate from other countries and not involving external alliances—and this is not likely, as I can see, for a very long time to come with the present balance of power in the world —if that happened we would be prepared to play our part at that stage. To say otherwise would be to proclaim our dishonesty in respect of the Community; to go beyond that would be to engage ourselves in activities and alliances which the Irish people do not wish us to engage in. I hope I have made that position clear. It is extraordinary how much misunderstanding can centre on it, especially sometimes when people want to find things wrong with our policy attitudes.

Other questions were raised about the Helsinki Conference, Middle East and Bangladesh. Time does not permit me to deal with them now because I must deal with two other matters— the European Parliament, and the Committee that we are establishing.

Senator Browne raised a number of points. He raised the question that, if Britain re-negotiated, where would we stand. Would we all stand on our heads? I am not sure what is meant by Britain re-negotiating. First of all. I do not think it is possible for Britain to re-negotiate. If Britain does renegotiate membership and modifies the terms, she will still be a member. We will still be a member. I do not think that is in any way likely. Perhaps what he meant to ask was: if Britain left the Community what would we do? That is a matter the Government would then consider. But I would certainly not assume, as he seemed to be assuming, that we must always do what Britain does, and if Britain left it would be in our interest to leave also. I do not assume that that is necessarily the case at all. However, I do not have time to pursue some of Deputy Browne's hares at the moment, as I must before concluding deal with these two other important matters.

On the European Parliament, people raise the question of direct elections, and the question of more power for the Parliament. Which comes first? I am quite clear in my own mind as to the sequence of events. We must first get more power for the European Parliament. It has now so little power that nobody would be bothered voting in a direct election. Having got more power to the point where people begin to see it as a reality, we must then secure direct elections so that the Parliament will then draw its authority directly from the people of Europe and then demand more power again to the point where it becomes fully democratic. It is only by that sequence, stage by stage, that we shall secure democratic control over the institutions of the Community. Let me assure this House that it is the settled policy of this Government to pursue that aim. It is one of our principal diplomatic objectives. Already in the short time I have been in this post I have made contact with other Foreign Ministers with a view to seeing where there are like-minded people pursuing the same aim with, I hope, the same dedication we will show. Tomorrow I go to Luxembourg to discuss this and other matters with the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, a country whose attitudes in this issue are very similar to our own. We will, therefore, pursue this to a conclusion.

We would hope that substantial increases in power would come to the European Parliament by 1975. We would hope that that would provide the basis for an argument in favour of direct elections a couple of years after that, and that would, in turn, lead to further power for the European Parliament by 1980 by which time it will have to have democratic control of the institutions of the Community if there is going to be monetary union. We certainly will not accept a monetary union under which there will be complete interdependence between the countries of the Community, unless there is adequate democratic control and an adequate governmental system under democratic control.

I should like to speak at greater length on that but time does not permit me. Perhaps one needs more time to examine the Commission's proposals and to discuss them in the Council of Ministers and to discuss with other Foreign Ministers their position in this matter. I hope in a short while to be able to speak more fully on the attitude of the Government, and in a more detailed way on their attitude to particular proposals.

In conclusion, I come to the question of the Committee. I listened with interest to the points made and although we have reached such an advanced stage that decisions have been taken on the form and shape of the Committee and its members—and I had hoped to get agreement between the Whips to establish it immediately, possibly today or tomorrow—in deference to the views expressed by the House I am prepared to re-examine the question of the size of the Committee and its membership. Such an overwhelming view was expressed by so many Senators—Senator Robinson, Senator Russell, Senator West, Senator Ryan, Senator Quinlan and Senator Halligan—on the size of the Committee it would be wrong not to re-consider it in the light of these views. There is force in this argument. I speak for myself as, clearly, I will have to take the matter to the Government again and, not being present in the House, they may be less easy to persuade than I have been by the excellent arguments put forward. There is force in the argument that the members of the European Parliament will find it very difficult to attend regularly and, therefore, in effect the Committee's effective membership could be not much more than ten and, therefore, they should be enlarged to cover this point.

The impression I have from the debate is that while some Senators would go as far as a Committee of 30, others felt that might be a little too large and that something like, say, 26—the ten European Parliament members and 16 others—might be appropriate. I shall look at that again and take the matter back to the Government. It will mean a delay of a few days in establishing the Committee but it is worthwhile doing it well. Let us get it right.

There was general approval for the changes we have agreed to make in amending the European Communities Act. We, in Opposition, argued that that Act did not give adequate democratic control to the Oireachtas. It is logical then that we should, in Government, maintain our position and amend that Act as we have now decided to do with a view to introducing this new procedure. There was some criticism of this, some of which was a little misplaced. A system under which the Committee has three bites of the cherry, and can have three different stages to examine the evolution of secondary legislation, is a good one.

A number of points were raised about the powers of the Committee. Senator Robinson, not with very much support, pressed for the power to send for persons and papers. I am not prepared to concede that at this stage. I do not exclude it for the future. The right way to operate in the first instance is for the Committee to have an adequate secretariat. This it should seek through the Committee of Procedure and Privileges and seek the authority from the Minister for Finance to obtain the necessary money. I have done all I can in raising and pressing the matter. It will now be a matter for the Committee.

That secretariat will have access to Government Departments and it can be sure of the fullest co-operation in getting any information it wants. The Committee should try out that system first before it seeks to change it. The Committee will be better with an independent secretariat seeking this information, evaluating it itself and putting it to the Committee critically, rather than finding itself dependent upon the very officials in various Departments whose actions it was seeking to scrutinise and examine critically. An "arm's length" operation has something to be said for it.

Secondly, there is a practical reason for not conceding this request at this time. The fact that the foreign service was not expanded in the sixties due to the neglect of the previous Government, and that despite the strenuous efforts of my immediate predecessors to remedy this, the burden of work has increased so rapidly—with the Northern problem and the EEC—that the resources of staff are quite inadequate for the present work, especially in the EEC area. This would make it impossible to concede this without a total disruption of work. The pressure under which people are working, and the long and continuous hours, and the lack of any break in this work, means that one could not impose any further strain on those concerned at this stage.

The House must indulge the Government to the extent of permitting us to try to resolve the heritage we have been left with in this respect before we can do anything about it. The Committee should try this other system of working first. If in, say, a year's time the Committee having seen how the system works, remains unhappy with it, it can be raised again. We do not suggest that this is the only possible solution, but it is a way to start working.

Questions were raised about how and when Ministers might report. I come back again to the complaints about the lack of policy content in this report. The Oireachtas is entitled to know how Government policy is evolving and what line the Government are taking at various meetings. Within the limits imposed by the parliamentary timetable, this wish should be met. I am authorised to say that Ministers would be happy to appear before the Committee and to discuss matters with the Committee arising directly from secondary legislation. On the question of Ministers reporting on policy more generally I have an open mind as to how best this could be done. There may be something to be said for its being done in the House rather than in the Committee, because of the more general interest in policy and that this Committee's primary concern will be as a watch-dog on secondary legislation.

This will be examined by the Government further, but I can assure the House of the goodwill of the Government towards making available to both Houses of the Oireachtas an adequate account of Government policy, and the line the Government are taking, subject always to the need to safeguard our negotiating position. The House will appreciate there will be times when, in seeking to secure some end in the Council of Ministers it may be unwise to disclose our whole hand in public at a point in time. The Executive have a particular function here which they must safeguard. But subject to that, we would wish to take both Houses as full as possible into our confidence, and will devise the appropriate means of doing so.

Several other points were raised, such as the right to publish without getting authority from the Dáil. I am just not sure what the powers of committees are in this respect. I have not even a clear recollection of what the position was at the Committee of Public Accounts, but I will look into it. There is the possibility of the chairman being paid. The Committee should start off in the ordinary way, and if it finds the burden on the chairman is so great that this seems appropriate, they will have to take that matter up through the usual channels with the Department of Finance. The same applies to the right to visit Brussels. There may be occasions when members should do so and they will have to make a case for themselves.

The House will appreciate that when the Committee is established it will be a committee of these Houses. My function in regard to it will be no different from any other Minister, except to ensure that the information is channelled from other Government Departments to it through the secretariat, because we have a general supervisory role here, although the Committee will deal directly with each Government Department. Apart from that, I will attend before it as required, but it will not in any sense be my committee; it will be a committee of these Houses. All I am concerned with is to get it established in a form that is most likely to work and to prove satisfactory. I hope we will achieve that.

These were the main points raised in the Debate and I have managed to terminate my remarks to within one minute of the time allotted to me, at some cost to those who have to transcribe the proceedings. I hope I have answered all the points raised, and look forward to coming back frequently to this House to discuss the kind of matters we have been talking about yesterday and today.

Question put and agreed to.