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.