Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jul 1973

Vol. 75 No. 8

Private Business. - European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

As the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1973, is complementary to the Expediency Motion establishing the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities I propose, with your permission, a Chathaoirleach, and with the agreement of the House, that the composition, functions and powers of the Joint Committee be discussed in conjunction with the Bill.

I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be present here yesterday when the Expediency Motion establishing the Joint Committee was taken. It was necessary to take the motion without debate early in the week to allow sufficient time for the relevant parliamentary arrangements to be completed before the Dáil and Seanad rose for the Summer recess. The Government thought it desirable that the Committee be established before the Recess so that it would have the opportunity to meet during that period to consider its requirements and working procedures. In discussing the Joint Committee and the Bill together I hope that the House will have the opportunity to make known its views on the Joint Committee which it was precluded from doing earlier in the week because of pressure on parliamentary time and my absence abroad on European Community business.

The necessary parliamentary procedures for the establishment of the Joint Committee are being completed. The procedure involves both Houses passing motions establishing the Select Committees which together form the Joint Committee and the Committee of Selection of each House appointing Members to these Committees. The way would then be open for the Joint Committee to meet. I wish it every success.

Before moving on to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1973, I should like to deal in some detail with the composition, powers and functions of the Committee.

During the debates on the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Bill, 1973, and on the First Report on Developments in the European Communities Senators stressed the need to have greater participation and involvement by Members of the Oireachtas in relation both to the formulation of Government policy on matters arising before the Council of Ministers and to the way in which the secondary legislation of the Communities is implemented here. Senators were also concerned that Community legislation should be subject to some form of permanent parliamentary scrutiny and views were expressed about the necessity of making available information on Community legislation and draft Community legislation to Members of both Houses who are delegates to the European Parliament. It was in response to these concerns that the Government decided on the composition, powers and functions of the Joint Committee as provided for in the Expediency Motion and the Amendment Bill.

The Committee will consist of the ten delegates to the European Parliament and 16 other persons—ten from the Dáil and six from the Seanad. It was thought essential to include ex officio the delegates to the European Parliament because of the very special expertise which they can bring to bear on the tasks before the Committee and because of the opportunity which working on the Committee will offer them to brief themselves thoroughly on proposals for Community action, on the implications of these proposals for Ireland and on Government policy.

Senators will recall that it was originally intended that the Committee should consist of a total of 20 Members. However, in response to the views expressed in this House the Government decided to increase the membership to 26. There are three main reasons for having a large Committee: Firstly, because the delegates to the European Parliament may find it difficult to attend meetings of the Committee regularly, thus reducing the Committee's effective membership—Members of both Houses have expressed this opinion; secondly, because it is desirable that the Committee be sufficiently large to enable it to form sub-committees if it so wishes; and, thirdly, because the work of the Committee will be heavy. The powers which it has are extensive and the volume of legislation and draft legislation emanating from the European Communities and with which it will have to deal is very large.

In regard to the party composition of the Committee the view of the Government was that it should reflect the composition of both Houses and that the representation of the parties and the independents on the Committee should be in the same ratio as their representation in the Oireachtas. On this reckoning the Government would be entitled to one more Member than they in fact have. However, the Government was willing to bring up the Opposition strength on the Committee by one and correspondingly to reduce their own representation by one. The Government also felt that the Independent Members of the Oireachtas, who have a valuable contribution to make and who are often excluded from participating in work of this nature, should be represented.

I should like now to turn to the powers and functions of the Committee. The Committee has authority to examine and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas at three different stages in the process of adoption of legislation by the Communities and of its implementation here.

At the first stage the Committee can examine draft Acts of the Council— that is, regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions—and report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on what in its view the attitude to be adopted by Ireland in their regard should be. These views would necessarily be taken into account by the Government in making up its own mind on what policy it should pursue. The Government however could not be bound to follow the Committee's views; it remains responsible for its own decisions.

At the second stage the Committee can examine the acts of the Council and of the Commission with a view to considering how best the obligations involved for Ireland might be implemented here. This will enable the expertise of the Oireachtas, through the Joint Committee, to be brought to bear on the measures which the Government might take in the implementation of Community legislation.

At the third stage the Committee can examine and report on ministerial regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, and on instruments made under other statutes in order to implement our Community obligations.

This third power is an important one and is reinforced by the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1973. The Bill provides that the Committee should have power to recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that any ministerial regulation made under the European Communities Act, 1972, be annulled and, if a resolution annulling a regulation is passed by both Houses, the regulation ceases to have statutory effect. This annulment procedure replaces the confirmatory provisions contained in section 4 of the European Communities Act, 1972. It is the Government's view that the annulment procedure is a more important method of effective and democratic parliamentary control and more in keeping with the authority of the Oireachtas than the confirmatory procedure contained in the original Act. It will allow the House, through its Committee, an opportunity for the kind of detailed examination of ministerial regulations which was difficult under the Confirmatory Bill and it gives the power to the Oireachtas to annul those ministerial regulations which it finds unsatisfactory.

Provision is also made in the Amendment Bill for recall of the Dáil and/or Seanad during Adjournment on request of at least one third of their Members in each case. A similar recall provision was contained in the European Communities Act, 1972, in relation to the Dáil but it was necessary to extend the provision to the Seanad in this case because of the requirement that both Houses must pass a resolution annulling a regulation. Such a recall would not, of course, apply in relation to regulations in respect of which a resolution for annulment had been tabled and defeated in either House.

Finally it is provided that the new section should not apply either to regulations already confirmed in the European Communities (Confirmation of Regulations) Act, 1973, or to regulations which have already lapsed before the Bill passes. It will, nevertheless, be open to the Committee, should they so wish, to examine and report on those regulations which have already been confirmed. Such a report, however, may not take the form of the annulment procedure.

I should perhaps add here that I realise that the Confirmatory Bill provided a guide and easy reference to the regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972. Because this will no longer be available I will ensure that a list of the regulations will be provided in the Reports on Developments in the European Communities which the Government is required to present to the Houses of the Oireachtas twice yearly in accordance with section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972, which is, of course, not affected by the amending legislation.

The Joint Committee is an important new departure for the Houses of the Oireachtas. It will allow the Houses to involve themselves in the formulation of Community policy and in its implementation here. The secretariat of the Committee will have the fullest co-operation of Government Departments in ensuring that the Committee is fully informed of all relevant developments. Ministers will also be willing to appear before the Committee at mutually convenient times to discuss matters arising directly from secondary legislation.

In offering for the consideration of the House this Amendment Bill and in establishing the Joint Committee I am concerned to see in what we do here that our commitment to parliamentary democracy is a genuine and compelling one, both at the national and community level. It must not be overlooked, in my opinion, that progress in the direction of increasing the powers and influence of the European Parliament should be associated with progress in the direction of increasing the powers and influence of the national parliaments in Community affairs. It is the Government's view that a substantial modification of the present institutional arrangements of the Communities, involving the introduction of effective democratic control by a directly-elected European Parliament, is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of a full economic and monetary union.

I hope, therefore, that the House, in what Senators have to say on this subject, will add a strengthening note to what our delegates to the European Parliament may say in that forum and to what Ministers, including myself, will also have to say in the future in regard to the further democratisation of the European institutions.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister has referred to the Expediency Motion which was passed in relation to the Joint Committee. I understand that to set the thing properly in motion it is also necessary for each House to pass a substantive motion in addition to the Expediency Motion which expressed our view that this should be done. It is now necessary for us to do it. I think I am correct in saying that the Dáil did that today and I would suggest that at the conclusion of the discussion on this measure possibly the Seanad might do it also so as to implement the desire to have the Committee in operation during the recess to be implemented.

Mr. Lenihan

Agreed. I will be very brief because this Bill and the motion, which we passed yesterday on the basis of this Bill being debated in full here, is in accordance with the views expressed by myself and other Senators on the previous debate on the EEC. It is fundamental that we should have a Committee of this kind to supervise the operation of directives and regulations under the Treaty of Rome as administered by the EEC through the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

This, of course, is not the whole answer. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made the point earlier in the Dáil that this merely concerns our own supervision of such regulations and directives and that the more important matter is the overall parliamentary supervision which we hope will develop within the Community as far as the European Parliament itself is concerned.

That must be the prime target in so far as democratisation is concerned. However, in so far as it is possible for us here to supervise such regulations and directives, a Committee of the kind suggested is the answer.

I shall not quarrel with the numbers. There has been discussion between the Minister and the various other groups about the numbers. We are all agreed on what the numbers should be. Basically this is a non-contentious field in which all Members on the Committee, irrespective of whichever group they may represent, will be concerned about Ireland's interest.

Despite all the talk about European co-operation, national interests still have a part to play and will continue to have a part to play. It is in this area that all parties and groups can come together in ensuring that whatever directives or regulations are adopted they are in conformity with the Treaty of Rome, with Community decisions and are, as far as possible, in Ireland's interests. I welcome the annulment procedure. This is an improvement on what was originally suggested. It is an excellent advance in the direction of democracy.

I should like to raise one point before I conclude. It is harping back to a point I mentioned before. It is a point basic to administration. This Committee must be staffed properly. It must have a secretariat. It must have a back-up administration. It cannot just be a mere cypher, a Committee in name only. One of the great weaknesses heretofore in our system of parliamentary supervision, not just in this area but in other areas, has been that we have committees which are not really committees. Today, more than ever before, in the businesslike environment in which people have to move, it is all important to have any committee of this or any other kind, particularly in the parliamentary environment, staffed with a proper secretariat. This is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to argue out with the Minister for Finance within the Government.

I mentioned in the course of the debate on the Devlin Report that there is no point in talking about administrative reforms, however desirable they may be, unless there is this basic parliamentary reform system running parallel with administrative reforms. Parliamentary reform means nothing if it merely means setting up a committee, providing a secretary for that committee and allowing it to meet in a casual, haphazard manner. There is a lot to it than that. There is also the whole research back-up for it, furnishing it with information and all the research material that should be available to the parliamentarians concerned. Parliamentarians, by reason of the very nature of the work in which they have to engage, be they Deputies or Senators, do not have the time for the sort of research involved.

This applies across the board to all committees within Parliament. It will apply more particularly to this one. If we do not have complete back-up information, supported by an official of the Minister and a Secretariat, then the whole thing will be just meaningless. That is the one aspect I should like to press on the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am certain he is fully aware of it himself, will make that point of view known and make sure that is pressed home to the fullest advantage.

My experience is that often within the administration this type of control is not welcome. It is very important that this type of supervision be made welcome and that the Committee be properly staffed and properly equipped.

Mr. Yeats

I also should like to welcome this Bill which is in every respect a very considerable improvement on the previous arrangements for dealing with these matters. I hope that the arrangements now being enacted will work well and I think there is every prospect that they will. The main single difficulty I find in the Bill and the terms of reference of the Committee is one that I raised before and I do not think I impressed the Minister very much with the view I held. I imagine he probably still holds to his opinion. I feel that the method of annulment, while in basic terms is very satisfactory, is a cumbrous way of dealing with legislation of this kind. There is no provision for amendment, and it is very unlikely indeed that any sizeable section of the Committee would wish to annul any of these regulations or other measures. I can imagine a very large number of cases in which there might be considerable support for the idea that one or more paragraphs or sections could usefully be amended. There is no provision at all for doing this.

It seems an extremely cumbrous situation that a Committee might, for example, have to report that one particular section, perhaps dealing with a criminal penalty or something of that kind, ought to be amended and that therefore they proposed that the thing should be annulled and a whole new order brought in and worded in a different way. I am not at all clear why the Minister has apparently felt it undesirable to introduce a principle that these orders could be brought to the Committee once they were drafted but before they were actually issued and that the Committee could then recommend amendments which the Minister could accept or not as he wished and finally issue the order.

As regards the Committee itself, it clearly has a vitally important task. We have not had a Committee of this kind before in this country. It is set up to deal with a unique situation arising out of our membership of the European Economic Communities. It is a Committee of great importance which will find it very difficult indeed to do everything that lies before it. The sovereignty of the Oireachtas is clearly and inevitably being constantly undermined by the constant output of legislation from the EEC. The Committee will have the task of safeguarding as far as possible our democratic rights until such time as the European Parliament itself has full powers. It will be necessary to deal with the situation once we have such matters as economic and monetary unity.

As the Minister is fully aware, the staffing of this Committee is all-important. It is not simply a matter of having a sufficient number of staff, but the quality must clearly be of the very highest. There must be no question of anyone being able to service this Committee. The work will be very difficult and complex. The first couple of months of the Committee's existence will be all-important for the whole future development of its work. On the quality and extent of the staff will depend the entire smooth working of this Committee.

It will be a very difficult venture. Other countries have tried and they failed to come anywhere near keeping up with the huge mass of legislation stemming from the Commission and the Council. I do not know whether we will succeed, but at any rate we must come as near to full success as we can. We are not going to get anywhere near that, or even get started, unless we have a really good and highly-skilled staff which are also adequate in numbers. The Minister, I am sure, will be more than anxious to help us in this respect.

I hope it will be made quite clear that any staff that are needed to help out in the Library must be provided, because obviously it is not sufficient for the Library to acquire the vast amount of documentation which comes from the EEC. It must be properly indexed and there should be staff there who know exactly what they have and what it contains. Very much wider facilities than exist at present will be needed.

There are one or two details of the draft resolution which we passed a couple of days ago about the Committee to which I should like to refer. In particular, there is one omission— at least I think it is an omission—which I did not raise at the time the resolution was going through because, clearly, the time element was very important and we just passed it without discussion. However, I think it is a flaw which ought to be remedied at an early time if possible. This relates to the tasks of the Committee to examine drafts prepared by the Commission, and so on. Regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions of the Council are to be examined. One would think there were enough provisions to cover any contingency, but there is not, because I have this very large and important document here. They are proposals from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council regarding a Council resolution on a Community environmental action programme. That is a resolution, not a decision, directive, regulation, recommendation or even an opinion. It seems to me that on a strict interpretation of the wording of this resolution the Committee would not be empowered to deal with this report.

Dr. FitzGerald

The resolution of which body?

Mr. Yeats

A Council resolution on a Community environmental action programme. The last five pages of this massive document relate to an environmental information procedure which will be set up. It is a decision and comes under the Committee, at the very end, in the last few pages. But the rest of the document, alas, is a resolution. I take it, therefore, that the Committee would be unable to discuss this very important document. I gather, in fact, that the Council, in a sudden and amazing excess of speed, have already adopted this. Perhaps because it is so vague, nobody's corns were stood on. Nonetheless, it does seem to be an omission, though a very understandable omission, because when I first saw the resolution I could not have imagined that anything else was needed which was not covered by its provisions.

I wish to make another point but I will not go into it in any great detail because we have had two pretty exhaustive debates on this whole topic in the last month or so. The Minister mentioned in his speech today that he proposed to provide a list twice each year of the regulations which will be formally contained in the Bills. A list of regulations will be added into the report, which comes out twice yearly. I would suggest that along with these he might add any sections of statutes, such as, for example, Part 2 of the Finance Bill relating to stamp duties and so on, which had been put into statutes by our Government on foot of directives of the Council. It would be useful to have those added in also.

Apart from that, I have nothing more to say except to thank the Minister again for his very flexible approach to these matters. What we have ended up with as a result of our various discussions is certainly a great improvement on the material we had at the beginning.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, should like to give a very warm welcome to this Bill amending the European Communities Act. I do so because it might have been a temptation to leave matters as they were and not to come back to both Houses of Parliament with an amendment. When I mentioned this to friends of mine in England recently, they viewed it as an utterly astonishing procedure. They felt that their European Communities Act would never, never be amended. It is a very flexible and welcome approach, particularly because the underlying basis of the amendment is to give a more significant role to the Oireachtas. It is now up to the Oireachtas to avail of this increased role in relation to the whole process of European integration.

Before coming on to the narrower subject, both of the amending Bill and also of the Committee on European Secondary Legislation, I should like to say—and I know this view is shared by the Minister—that this is only a very small part of what must be an increasing attempt to make the European structure more democratic. I am at the moment involved in a working party set up by the European Parliament on this subject of the role which national parliaments play in the process of making Europe more democratic, responsible and responsive to the citizens.

There is no doubt that people are increasingly aware that the national parliaments have a very significant role to play. Their involvement is absolutely necessary because Europe is not away from us. We are very much part of Europe. Yet the more that this is realised, the more it is also evident that this is only a very small part of an increasingly urgent problem—the problem of ensuring that the development of the European Community is along democratic lines, responsive to people living in the area. This matter is no longer a talking problem, no longer an academic problem. It is the most urgent problem facing the citizens of this country and the other eight countries of the European Community; and it is a very depressing outlook for anybody who is concerned about participation and democracy.

The outlook is bleak unless there is a very real change of attitude, particularly in the Council of Ministers. This can only come if there is sufficient pressure from the national parliaments, the peoples of the countries, pushing the Governments to go forward more positively in creating an institutional structure for Europe. This problem is not far away from us. We are in danger of creating for our children a system which is centralised and unresponsive, where they will have decisions taken affecting every aspect of their lives and no way of having their real interests accounted for in a sufficiently democratic way to involve them in the process. I very much welcome this Irish contribution towards making Europe more democratic. It is a real challenge for the Oireachtas, and it is one we will take up.

I support the important point made by Senator Yeats that, although it is an improvement to have an annulment procedure under this amending Act, there is no reason why this should not have been a procedure to provide for recommendations of amendments. Here there is a distinction which can be made between the Seanad Committee on Statutory Instruments and the European Committee. That Committee deals only with technical aspects and has only power to recommend for one of the procedural reasons that the instrument be drawn to the attention of the Seanad, and the Seanad can either pass or annul it.

In that sense this European Committee will be looking into the merits as well as the form of the secondary legislation. It would be much more flexible if the Committee could recommend that an amendment be made. As Senator Yeats stated, it might be quite a small part of the particular regulation which is regarded as in some way not acceptable and it would be cumbersome and time-consuming for the recommendation to be to annul that instrument and for a new regulation to be brought in in due course. It would be much more flexible if we had, as well as the power to annul, also the power to recommend amendments. This may have to be postponed until it is seen how the Committee work in operation and could be the subject of a further amendment in due course of the provisions in the amending Bill.

I also agree with Senator Yeats regarding the wording of the terms of reference of this Committee, which is too restrictive. The terms of reference do not extend to the general programmes of the Community. The point he made that very important documents such as the proposals for regional policy, social and environmental policy, which would be outside the strict terms of reference of this Committee, could be met by the simple insertion in subparagraph (1) of paragraph (1) where it reads:

Such drafts prepared by the Commission of the European Communities and submitted to the Council of those Communities of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, opinions and general programmes.

This would cover programmes such as the environmental policy programme. It would mean that the Committee would not be artificially unable to consider what are the very important social policies. It would also mean that this Committee would not become dated, because it is undoubtedly the increasing tendency in the whole European legislative process to have a more programmed approach. We will see more programmed documents over a span of two to four years coming from the European Communities. Merely to consider the concrete draft resolutions arising out of these would be a very narrow and artificial approach, and we would be constantly confusing the two different points in the Committee. For the Committee to perform their task it will be essential to be able to refer to and consider the general programmes which contain in them the potential draft resolutions, decisions, recommendations, et cetera, which the Council will eventually issue. Therefore, I support the suggestion that we amend this motion and include general programmes in the consideration of the Committee.

In his Second Reading speech, the Minister referred to this function of the Committee to consider in the first stage draft acts of the Council—regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and appeals—and report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on what the attitude to be adopted by Ireland in their regard should be. One of the most important draft documents are these general programmes. It is here we need at the earliest opportunity the expertise of Deputies and Senators who are given better information, who have more time in which to draw the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the country in general to what attitude should be adopted by Ireland in their regard. This would not be trying to usurp the function of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It would be to improve the function of the Houses which would then be better informed and their attention would be drawn at an earlier stage to these general programmes.

Apart from the actual functioning of this Committee on European Affairs, which is a very welcome and striking innovation in our parliamentary system, too little attention is being paid to trying to involve the Oireachtas as a whole in the European process. Some practical suggestions have been made in this area which have not as yet met with response. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has specifically considered them. There are suggestions such as, for example, having a particular day during the week in which the questions asked of the various Ministers would relate to European affairs. The advantage of this would be the possibility of a much more coherent approach to what Ireland's various Ministers were doing in Council of Ministers in Europe. It would give an opportunity to have much more direct accountability to the Oireachtas about what has been decided in the Council of Ministers by following up with supplementary questions. It would also allow for cross-reference, and it would allow people who were referring to the record to look at the answer to questions from particular Ministers and to have together the answers on European questions. This would be valuable and prevent these questions being lost in the general internal domestic matters where it is rather difficult to find the particular answer and where there is not evident an overall approach by the Government in relation to these questions.

Another practical suggestion for involving all Deputies and Senators would be to supply a list of the draft regulations, decisions, et cetera coming from the Communities. This would involve some paper-work. I already referred to it at an earlier stage as being the standard practice now in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It enables Deputies and Senators who have a particular interest, be it in agriculture, in transport, or in companies, to note in the list sent out to them each week that there is a Community draft regulation on this and to fill in the form stating they would like to see the text of that. They might then draw it either to the attention of he European Committee or they might act on it in some other way. This is necessary in order to prevent the danger of a élitist committee who do everything that relates to Europe and does not involve the general Members of the Oireachtas. It is necessary not to make this Committee a substitute for real involvement in the European process. The one way of doing this would be to encourage Deputies and Senators to act on their initiative by calling for specific regulations which interest them. I appreciate this would involve a certain amount of paper-work but it would involve Deputies and Senators much more concretely in the whole process, which is part of making the national Parliament increasingly relevant.

A third practical point on the involvement of the general Deputies and Senators is the question of whether this Committee will be open to any Senators or Deputies who are interested. In other words will they have access to it, whether this will involve access to listening to the discussions, or whether it will go further and allow any Deputy or Senator who is particularly interested in a point to intervene? This may be something the Committee itself must decide, but I think the more open the Committee is the more valuable the role it can play in scrutinising European draft proposals.

On a more practical level I agree with both Senators Lenihan and Yeats that the staffing of this Committee is going to determine how effective it will be. I should like to see more precise terms used even on the floor of the House as to what staffing there will be. It seems there should be a commitment to a specific staff of at least three full-time officials. It should be clear that these officials will be responsible to the chairman of the Committee and that they could not be drawn on for other functions in the House, but that they will be available to this Committee full-time and that they will have all the necessary back-up service that the Senators and Deputies on the Committee require.

My final point on this general question is in relation to the Library of the Oireachtas. I do not think we are making sufficient use of the Library and that it has sufficiently been directed towards the literature coming in from the European Communities. I had intended to check whether the Library has become a European documentation centre or whether it has applied to become a European documentation centre. If not, this will be a very essential part of building up an expert source of European materials from the very beginning of the Communities, so that both the Members of this Committee, who I am sure will make a very substantial call on the Library facilities, and also Senators and Deputies in general could know what the progress has been in a particular area, right through from the beginning of the Communities and could avail of the documentation which is there.

The European materials should in so far as possible be kept together and accessible to Senators and Deputies to encourage them to become accustomed to seeking out, finding and using these materials more easily. This would help to provide the information and the familiarity with the particular proposals, and with the particular form which the legislative process takes at the European level, to allow the Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas to play a significant role in scrutinising what is happening.

I conclude with a warm welcome again for this Bill. It is an indication of a very real attempt to involve the Oireachtas here in the European process. It is a Bill that was by no means one that we could take for granted and, therefore, it is a positive contribution to this process of integration.

Mr. McCartin

I, too, should like to welcome the provisions of the Bill. It is further evidence of the capacity of our Minister for Foreign Affairs to find new solutions for new problems. It is evidence not only of his own ability to go to Europe and use the European Economic Community for the good of all the people of Ireland but also of his ability to take the interests of the Irish Parliament and Irish people with him. There is also evidence here that Deputy FitzGerald is prepared to take advice from his colleagues in Parliament.

The most ardent supporters of the European movement in this country —those of us who fought very hard to convince our people that it would be right for Ireland to join the European Community—had a niggling fear that this Community could become something far removed from the democratic institutions we were so accustomed to in our country. As time went on, those fears were not allayed in any way. The majority of us here still get the impression that the average people of Ireland, and the average parliamentarian, are not as familiar with European affairs as they ought to be. It is difficult for all of us to keep abreast of European affairs at all times but the setting up of this Committee will make a worthy contribution towards ensuring that both Houses of the Oireachtas are kept in touch with what is taking place in Europe.

Some Members mentioned, and it is very true, that it will be nice to have Independents and people from both sides of the House participating in the work of this Committee. Some Members mentioned that national affairs were most important, and the well-being of individual nations in Europe is very important. Therefore, I expect this Committee to keep an eye on how matters taking place in Europe are likely to affect our own country. Furthermore, this Committee will have an obligation to remember that we are part of the European Community and that we cannot think only of what effects matters will have on Ireland alone. The average Irish citizen looks first to Ireland and our own Parliament, but beyond our own country he sees the European Economic Community which imposes some restrictions on us and from which we can derive certain benefits if we play the game as we ought to. The average Irishman does not see Europe as a new community, as something which is evolving and developing and to which we belong. This Committee can help the Irish Parliament to enter into the spirit of the new Europe we all hope is starting to develop. This Parliament should then be able to encourage the Irish people to enter wholeheartedly into the spirit of that Community.

Dr. Martin

I should like to welcome this measure very warmly. I should also like to endorse what Senator McCartin has said about it. I speak as somebody who did not approve in the first place of going into the EEC. I thought it was a disastrous course, and I am not convinced yet that it was not a disastrous course. I was worried particularly about such matters as sovereignty and about the threat to democracy that was involved in it, and also about the immense power which certain structures of capitalism within Europe might ultimately gain.

On the first day of the meeting of the Seanad I was really shocked and consternated by being presented with about 16 measures to vote on and which were ill-documented. Indeed, there was a very brilliant critique mounted on these set of measures by Senator Robinson and Senator Noel Browne. I listened to the debate and eventually voted on them. There was no option. It seemed to me on that day that the deathknell of democracy and sovereignty in Ireland had been sounded. I was not sufficiently sophisticated or au fait with the procedures of Parliament myself to say much about it then, but this measure which we are discussing today, and which I have welcomed, goes some distance towards allaying the fears of those of us who feel most pessimistic about the whole question of our sovereignty, the importance and the relevance of our Parliament. These phrases have come up in the speeches of the previous speakers.

This Committee, if it can be seen as a first step rather than as some kind of terminal measure, could give us a considerable amount of hope. It has to be agreed that there has been an unusually prompt response to the feelings of the Seanad, if not of the Dáil, to bring this Committee forward, to constitute it so democratically, and I should certainly like to align myself with Senator Lenihan and with nearly everybody else who has spoken. This Committee has to be given a good deal of scope and a good deal of teeth. Senator Robinson's suggestion that its scope should be widened with regard to programmes and policies is a very serious and important suggestion and I should like to give my total support to that.

It seems, too, that the annulment procedure is far better than the confirmatory procedure and it seems that a Committee such as this could do something to bring the enormously costly and ponderous machinery of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament to bear on that apparently very remote entity, the Council of Ministers.

Another encouraging thing has been the insistence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and a very strenuous insistence lately, on the importance of direct election to the European Parliament and his reservations about the powers of the Council of Ministers which he has very strenuously prosecuted in Brussels and elsewhere. This is why I think that what Senator McCartin said is very important, if we can see the Community as being a fluid situation one which we can, if we flex our muscles sufficiently, continue to influence and perhaps even to change, even a pessimist like myself might have some hope for the future of our own particular national integrity within this enormous new complex.

Consequently, I should like to say that this Committee seems to be a good idea but that their force should be endlessly and increasingly augmented by new measures of this kind. The importance of our own democracy should be brought constantly to bear on the whole European situation so that it may ultimately become a community. I do not think that it is a community now, or anything like a community. It is going wrong in many directions. Its emphases are extremely materialistic, I think. It is encouraging to see the impact that already our Minister for Foreign Affairs has made on it and consequently I should like to welcome this and hope that it will be the beginning of a whole series of dynamic measures to make the EEC into a really human community, one in which the identity of our own country, which has been so hard won, will not be totally submerged. Finally, I should like to welcome the Bill and hope that it will be the beginning of a long road in the same direction.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Let me say at the outset—I say it with some diffidence from this particular position— I seem to be the only one speaking, though I am from this spot in the House, who has reservations with regard to a particular procedure suggested in this Bill. I join with the Senators who have commended and applauded the Minister for his general approach to the establishment of the Committee and for the speed with which he has come back to us here. I think all of us will share his concern, and I know it is a genuine concern, that Parliament should be actively involved in the matters which come before us in relation to our membership of the European Community. The Minister's suggestion that the Committee should be a committee of 26 which would include the Irish Members of the European Parliament is an excellent one. The composition of the Committee as suggested by the Minister is certainly satisfactory and would have the approval of all Senators.

Furthermore, I think the objects for which the Committee have been established are all objects which are vitally necessary if the Irish Parliament is to be actively involved in these matters. There is validity in the point which was raised in the first instance by Senator Yeats and then by Senator Robinson with regard to the scope of the Committee in relation to expressing an opinion and examining general programmes. I approve of all of these things. The Minister has done an extremely good day's work in coming in with the Bill and I was glad to get the information from Senator Lenihan that he feels he should co-operate in getting this Committee established and under way. I agree with the views which he and other Senators have expressed in relation to the staffing of the Committee.

Now I can come to the point of disagreement. It is not so much disagreement as reservation, because it is merely a question of a point of view. It is this: which is the better procedure to involve Parliament fully in these activities, whether it should be the annulment procedure which is now proposed to us in this Bill or the confirmatory procedure which was initially included in our legislation? Purely from the point of view of the parliamentarian, speaking as a Member of Parliament, trying to look at it objectively, it would seem to me that the confimatory procedure is the better procedure for involving the ordinary Member of Parliament.

That procedure requires regulations which were made to come before Parliament and every Member of Parliament, whether he was a Member of this Committee or not, would be thereby given an opportunity to express his views with regard to it. I have not got section 4 of the Act before me at the moment and I do not recall precisely what was in it but at least that requirement was there and it was a requirement which would enable all Members of the Parliament, Government, Opposition or Independent, to express their views if they wanted to with regard to these matters. That is being altered on the basis that the annulment procedure is a more effective method of involving parliament.

The Minister said in his opening remarks that it is the Government's view the annulment procedure is a more important method of effective democratic parliamentary control and more in keeping with the authority of the Oireachtas than the confirmatory procedure contained in the original Act. That is certainly a valid point of view and I appear to be in the minority, because the Minister for Foreign Affairs has clearly the support not merely of the Government but also of Senator Lenihan and others on the far side for that point of view. Maybe it is the correct point of view. This is something that will prove itself or the reverse when in practice.

It would seem to me on the face of it that the confirmatory procedure is one which would give a greater opportunity for involvement to individual Members. Certainly if I were speaking on the opposite benches I would feel that from the point of view of an Opposition Senator or Deputy the confirmatiory procedure would be more attractive. From a Government point of view it would seem to me that the annulment procedure is the attractive one.

Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point for me—as I said, I have not got section 4 of the original Act before me—am I correct in assuming that the position now is to be that these orders can only be annulled provided the initiative is taken by the Committee? If that is so it seems to me to be a pity because it seems to me that this procedure is then depriving five-tenths of the Members of this House and a greater proportion of the other House of the Oireachtas of the opportunity of taking annulment action, no matter how strongly they may feel on it. If the position is that the initiative for annulment must come through the channel of the Committee, then Members of the Oireachtas who are not members of this Committee would not have the same powers and authority to move in the matter as members of the Committee.

I know there is an answer to that and it may be an adequate answer. It probably is an adequate answer so far as the political parties are concerned in that the composition of this Committee is to be based on the representation of parties and groups. Obviously if my party or Senator Lenihan's party feel so strongly with regard to a particular order that annulment efforts should be made in regard to it, they will have their representatives on the Committee who would be able to fight that case and advance it as far as they can. But there are in this House in particular Members who are not aligned to any of the political parties and unless they should be members of this Committee, if my interpretation of the position is correct—the Minister will keep me right on it—they are to be deprived of the opportunity of operating this particular procedure.

I appear to be a complete minority with regard to my views on this and it may be that my views on it will be proved to be wrong. It may be that in practice the efficiency of this Committee will be assisted by having their procedure one of annulment rather than one of confirmation and that the efficiency of the Committee will be furthered in that way. It seems to me that it is only by experience that we will know. Purely as a parliamentarian, I have preference for the other procedure. As a parliamentarian who is also a democrat, needless to say I submit to the views of the majority.

Mr. E. Ryan

I should like to welcome this Bill, which is very much in accordance with the recommendations and views which were expressed in this House when we discussed the EEC some time ago. I should like in particular to welcome the fact that the Committee have been increased to 26. This was very necessary. By being increased to 26 the Committee will not merely be 30 per cent better but will be 100 per cent better because the original number would not allow for the amount of work that has to be done and the fact that we will always be short of a certain number on the Committee at any given time. I am very glad that the Minister decided to accept the recommendations which were made to that effect.

With regard to the question raised by Senator O'Higgins as to whether regulations should be subject to confirmation or to annulment, I think there are arguments on both sides but on balance I am inclined to agree with the provision in the Bill because the annulment procedure for one thing is capable of being used very much quicker. If we had the position as in the original Act it would only be possible to refuse to confirm a regulation once every six months whereas if the Committee as now established comes across a regulation which they disapprove of, they can initiate annulment proceedings straight away. From that point of view it provides for more speedy action in regard to a regulation which the Committee find unacceptable for one reason or another. For that reason, on balance— there are arguments for both sides—the annulment procedure is the more desirable.

There is also the question raised by a few Senators in relation to whether the Committee should be able to amend regulations. There is a lot to be said for giving some kind of power to amend regulations. This is something which in due course the Committee will find the lack of and in due course they will probably make recommendations that this should be changed. But in this regard it is almost inevitable that in the course of time the Committee will, as they evolve and do their work, find that they need new powers or different kinds of powers and it is almost inevitable that within a matter of 12 months or so the Committee will be putting forward proposals to amend the Act to give it new powers and this is something which will in due course be done.

This is a new kind of Committee dealing with a new situation and it is almost inevitable that as time goes on and as the Committee evolves they will find it necessary to ask for new powers and different kinds of powers and that the original Act will have to be amended again. It is a very good indication of the flexibility of the Minister and the flexibility of the Government that they have already amended the Act once and I have no doubt that if the necessity arises they will amend it again.

The only other thing I should like to say is to express the hope that there has not been some disenchantment with this Bill, with this Committee, on the part of the Government in the course of the last week because I noticed that when the Minister was speaking in the Dáil last week he said that Ministers would be happy to appear before this Committee at any time but when he was introducing the Bill here this evening he said that Ministers would merely be willing to appear before the Committee. I hope there is no significance in the fact that the attitude of the Minister has changed in that respect in the course of the last month.

Mr. Boland

I have been a shorter time on the political scene than Senator M.J. O'Higgins. However, even in that short time I have had a sufficiency of being in a minority situation, so I do not intend to join with him in that position in the House at the present time. As I listened to Senator McCartin speaking about those of us who went out and fought so hard to bring this country into the European Economic Community I could not help thinking what a watershed it was in Irish life for us to go into Europe.

Not so very long ago in this and the other House one would have expected to hear the phrase "those of us who went out and fought to make this an independent, free State." Instead, we are now listening to young men talking about those who fought to bring us into Europe. It is perhaps a sign of the changing times and the difference that our being a member of the Community means not just to this country but to the activities of our Parliament generally. That is what we are witnessing being set up here today. I welcome it as bringing in an exciting new dimension into parliamentary activities.

I am quite sure that the creation of a Committee such as this will in a very short space of time bring about the setting up of similar Committees which may examine and report on other spheres of legislation and activity generally. For too long we have been inclined to criticise the Committee procedure in this and the other House and to suggest reforms of the parliamentary process. This seems to me to be the first real worthwhile attempt to introduce a Committee system on modern businesslike lines into the parliamentary process here. For that reason if for no other it is to be welcomed.

I agree with virtually everything Senator Robinson has to say about the setting up of the Committee. I am a little surprised at her suggestion that the Bill is perhaps not involving enough Members of Parliament in the activities of the Committee. Anyone who has ever served on a committee knows that the larger the size of the committee the less effective they are likely to be. I imagine she has come across this. When we realise that there are to be 26 Members out of a total Oireachtas membership of 200 that is more than one-tenth of the Members of the Oireachtas being involved in a definite way in the Committee apart from the office holders at Cabinet and Parliamentary Secretary rank. It is quite a high proportion of the Members of each of the Houses.

Senator Eoin Ryan made an important point. The manner in which this Committee is being set up this evening is surely not the be-all and end-all of how they are to exist and operate. We are very much feeling our way in our approach to the field of European legislation. He quite rightly pointed out that this Committee will be coming back very quickly looking for amendments to their powers, seeking extensions of their field of activities in certain directions and perhaps saying that in other spheres the Committee should be re-modelled. To do that effectively the calls which have been made for the setting up of an efficient secretariat are vitally important, not only to serve the Committee but because there is an urgent need to provide a competent and efficient secretariat for our Members of the European Parliament itself in their activities and their duties at parliamentary level.

I had reason to speak elsewhere this week about the fact that public men have for too long in this country sold themselves short and not provided themselves either with the facilities or the remuneration to carry on their activities properly as public representatives. Might I venture to suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the public men phrase could even in this instance extend to public women? Senator Robinson suggested the setting up of a staff of at least three people to act as a team of expert advisers, a secretariat, a research group and all the other attendant specialist services that a Committee such as this would need. A team of three to serve the activities of a Committee such as this is too small.

If we start from that base, as any of us who have been involved in any sort of public activities know, it will be very difficult to get the Committee geared up to the level at which you would like to see them operate. All of us know the great difficulties which Members of this and the other House have in finding adequate information on any topic on which we wish to speak. There are no research facilities available to the Members of this or the other House. The lack of those facilities is badly felt. It is essential to have a modern service on these lines. If the creation of this Committee and the setting up of a secretariat can bring about a proper research group which will advise on European matters, so too will that bring about the creation of a reference area and study facilities in other fields of legislation which is important if we wish to operate as a modern, effective Parliament. I believe three people to serve the committee on the vast field about which we have been speaking this evening are far too few.

One of the first things which a Committee such as this may come back seeking is the establishment of a chairman as an office holder who would not just be an unpaid chairman but a chairman doing a job and heading a team who were advising the Committee who were in turn advising Parliament on the vast complexities of European legislation.

I agree with those Senators who have suggested that the actual operation of the Committee should be on informal lines rather than having attached to it the constraining trappings and Standing Orders of Parliament itself. If the Committee are to get off the ground and get any real work done there will have to be from the start a fair amount of informality and a fair amount of work and time put into their operation by the Members appointed to it.

I agree also that not only should those members who are actually part of the Committee be involved in their activities but so too should any Member of Parliament who has a particular interest in any sphere in relation to which the activities of the Council or of the European Parliament seem to be coming to bear. They should be able as of right to go in and speak at the meetings of the Committee, make their views known and add their contribution in whatever specialist way to the formulating of a decision on the part of the Committee.

Not only is it vital that the Committee should have been set up but it is important from the point of view of this Parliament because the idea could very easily grow within the next few years either that the Oireachtas was completely irrelevant in the European context, or that the European image was a remote one far removed from this country and that the small Irish voice could not be heard in this impersonal administrative machine operating from a far distance. Both of these concepts would be tragic if they gained credence.

There is an onus on us as Members of this or the other House and not just on our representatives in Europe or on our Minister for Foreign Affairs, whoever he happens to be at the time—may I say to the present Minister that he has done a great deal to try to prevent both of these images from gaining credence?—to endeavour to bring the activities of the Council, the European Parliament and our own Parliament closer together, to explain these activities and relate them better to Irish life. In that way the people will realise, on a personal rather than on an impersonal level, the great important new challenge in which they are involved.

I welcome the setting up of this Committee and I hope it will have a real part to play both in the activities of this Parliament and the European Parliament.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I should like, first of all, to thank the House for the warmth of its reception and the words of appreciation expressed on both sides of the House. I deeply appreciate the fact that the Opposition side of the House have given this measure support. What we are doing is amending legislation which was brought in by the previous Government. The Opposition could have decided to take the line that what had been done by them in Government was necessarily right and should not be changed. They have not taken this attitude. They are willing, as we are, to look again at a matter of this kind. That is why we have had a very non-political and constructive debate, with, of course, the dissenting voice of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Boland

A minority situation.

Mr. Lenihan

A responsible Opposition.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will come back to his remarks, which merit consideration.

On the Bill itself there were a couple of points made before we come to the Committee. There is a suggestion that there should be a power to amend rather than a power simply to annul. I am sorry if this point was made previously because if it was made, and somebody suggested it had been made, I missed it. I am not, therefore, thoroughly briefed on it. My own feeling is that it must surely be unusual, and possibly dangerous, for any Parliament to have power to amend regulations which are made by a Government because the regulations are made in a particular way for particular purposes. An amendment to a regulation by a Parliament which could not take into account all the technical considerations involved in the drafting of a regulation in that way, and perhaps all the consequential effects of changes, could give rise to considerable difficulties. It seems to me that the two areas of legislation, parliamentary legislation and secondary legislation, need to be kept separately. I say that simply as a first instinctive reaction. I hope it is not too much of an Establishment reaction.

It seems to me, however, that the annulment procedure is only a way of telling the Government that we want something to be amended. If the Government feel that a regulation is necessary—these are all regulations which will be necessitated by membership— they must, if it is annulled, introduce it in amended form. The Government then have the expertise and special knowledge at their disposal to ensure that the form of the amendment is one which achieves the result desired by the House and that it does not create problems through inconsistency and incompatibility between the amended regulation and other regulations. Indeed, the Government have this special responsibility to ensure that the regulation is one which is in conformity with the directive of the Community which they are supposed to implement. There the Government have an absolute responsibility, I am not sure that the Government would be constitutionally entitled in their relationship with the Community to hand over a particular prerogative to Parliament—I would have some doubts about that—in view of the obligation that the Government, as such, have taken vis-á-vis the Community. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I may be wrong in that matter. I see signs of dissent from Senator Robinson, which always worry me in matters of this kind, so I will not pursue that line any further.

I suppose it would be possible also for the Committee to recommend an amendment to the Government. I do not think one needs to lay this down as a legal procedure but if the Committee rather than annulling something thought that something should be amended, it could, I presume, pass a resolution recommending that. The mention of a resolution brings me to a reference to what Senator Yeats said. I must say I was taken aback when he read out a reference to a resolution of the Council of Ministers. As a member of the Council of Ministers for some months past, I was unaware of the fact that we could pass resolutions. I am glad to know that. I shall consider what resolutions I may propose at future meetings but I have to tell Senator Yeats on this question of a resolution that it has been held in 90 and 91/63, Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium, Rec X 1217, [1965] CMLR 335 that a resolution of the Council was held to have no binding force, since it was a statement of intent and no more.

Mr. Yeats

That is why they agreed so quickly.

Dr. FitzGerald

No doubt, but that being the case, while there is more to the point than simply the Senator's reference to a resolution, a resolution as such, not having any binding force is not something which you could seek to annul anyway nor can it bind this country to adopt any Act, order or regulation which the Committee could have power to annul. Although, at first sight the use of the word resolution in the context of the Council of Ministers would seem to import a new element into the situation I do not think that it actually does. That is not to say that there is not a point to be made. I am not suggesting that the wording of what we have passed already, the Expediency Motion, is necessarily perfect or indeed even adequate. I take the points made in the House. It had been my understanding that despite the fact that, technically, the wording confines itself to specific things like drafts of acts, regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council, this would leave open to the Committee—this is still my understanding—to consider other provisions such as a programme, for example, of medium-term planning or something like that, that this too could be considered by the Committee.

I am still of the opinion, though I am open to correction that although not explicitly referred to here, the Committee can take cognisance of any such documents and make recommendations about them. What it cannot do is seek to annul them, because if they are not law in Ireland there is nothing to annul. If the Committee, when it meets and begins work, finds that it is under any constitutional disability and that it is advised that it has not got the capacity to consider any document emanating from the Community which it wants to consider and make recommendations on, then the Government will be happy to move the necessary amendments to the motion in both Houses.

I am not saying that I will do it now, today, because, first of all, I am not certain that there is a need and, secondly, I am not entirely sure how I might be received in the other House if I descended on them in the midst of their cares, seeking to wind up the end of the Session, and asked them to amend a motion they passed just yesterday. This might be temerarious on my part. It could even lead to dissention between the two Houses. As I do not think this is actually necessary I am not proposing to make the change but I suggest that the Committee test its powers very early on.

The document Senator Yeats mentioned is one which could be brought before the Committee. If there is any suggestion or if the Committee is technically advised that it has not got the necessary power to consider and make recommendations on that, then at the earliest possible opportunity during the next session the motion can be amended to meet the point. It would be contrary to the wishes of the Government that the Committee should in any way have its hands tied here. There are draft proposals of various kinds which come forward and programmes on which the views of the House would be extremely useful and it would be absurd if the Committee could not consider them. That problem can be overcome and we will see if any change is necessary as we go along.

Regarding the point raised by Senator O'Higgins, one has to weigh up the relative advantages of the two systems. It is true that under this system Deputies not on the Committee will not have an actual direct voice in initiating the annulment process. Once it is initiated they would have an opportunity to speak in either House, as appropriate, on the matter. This is a better procedure than the other one, as the six month review process was one which was cumbersome and did not enable attention to be directed adequately and in good time to particular proposals.

What has been lost here in the change we are making is more than outweighed by the gain. I recognise, however, there could be two opinions on this and it is useful that this dissenting view should have been put to the House so that we should not be too complacent about the steps we are now taking. I should like to point out to Senator O'Higgins that the two Houses will have other opportunities of considering the EEC developments, including the regulations, et cetera, as there will be six-monthly reports to be debated in both Houses. Although the six-monthly confirmatory legislation has been done away with by this Bill the six-monthly reports are not and there will be debates every six months at which any Deputy could raise any matter arising out of any regulation if he wishes to do so.

It is the intention of the Government that on other occasions Ministers would, as appropriate, report to the two Houses on developments in the Community. The extent and frequency of ministerial appearances will depend a good deal upon the demand for them. Ministers, like prima donnas, are sensitive in these matters. If nobody seems to want them they are unlikely to press their attentions on the Houses; but if in either House there is a demand for Ministers to appear and discuss these matters, I am sure Ministers will be willing to respond. If nobody looks for us we may not get around to appearing frequently on these matters. It is a matter for the two Houses to indicate the extent to which they would wish Ministers to report on major issues that may come up in the course of the parliamentary session other than at the times when there are regular debates on the six-monthly reports.

On the question of the staff of the Committee Senator Robinson stated there should be at least three. She was chided by Senator Boland for setting her sights too low. I was asked to press on this matter for adequate staff for the Committee. The House will appreciate that this is not my function directly. The division of functions is such that the Committee should decide what staff it wants and press through the Committee of Procedure and Privileges the Minister for Finance to make adequate provision. I have given my views to the Minister for Finance and the Government on the subject and have found great sympathy. It is not primarily a matter for me at this stage once the Committee is set up. I hope the Committee will ensure that it is adequately staffed and that it will review its staff position not too long after the establishment of the Committee to make sure it is remedying defects and that they will be overcome. I believe the Minister for Finance will be sympathetic and I will give, informally or otherwise, any help I can. It has been suggested that the staff should be responsible to the Committee chairman and not capable of being allocated elsewhere but should be available full time to the Committee. I presume this is the intention, but again it is a matter between the Committee of Procedure and Privileges and the Minister for Finance.

I have not any direct responsibility for the Library. My understanding is that it is a European documentation centre but it is not a deposit Library for Community documents, the only one of which in Ireland would be the National Library. At least it is geographically convenient in its present location and long may it remain there. Whatever documents are not in the European documentation centre and in the deposit library would be at least geographically accessible to Members. It is important that the library facilities, both in terms of material available and staff, should be adequate and the idea of setting the material aside in the particular areas seems to be a good one. I am very conscious, as an ordinary Deputy, of the inadequacy of space in the Library and the fact that much important material has to be stored a long distance away and is not as readily accessible as it should be. We should all press for better accommodation. I do not know from the limited space available within the precincts of the House how the problem can be resolved. I should think that any pressure we can put on for better library facilities will be in the general interest and I would join, as an ordinary Deputy, in any pressure of that kind. The Library has been neglected for far too long.

Mr. Lenihan

Over to you.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was a member of the Library Committee at one time and I was very conscious of that. The point was made by Senator Robinson and Senator Boland about the Committee being accessible to other Deputies and Senators. This is important, but it is a matter for the Committee and the House cannot dictate to the Committee on this matter. I trust the Committee will be open and will afford opportunities to other Members to attend its sessions. Whether it will be appropriate or not for the Members to be able to speak is something on which I am not competent to speak. It is a matter for the Committee to consider its wishes and what may be proper in that respect.

I have been asked that a list of draft Acts, et cetera, should be available to Deputies and Senators, that is, draft proposals of the kind the Committee should take cognisance of, including draft programmes, resolutions as well as draft Acts. That seems a worthwhile suggestion. My Department will examine it and try to make this service available to any Deputy or Senator who asks for it. We might write to every Deputy and Senator and ask him or her if they wish to be included in the list. There may be some who do not want to be and we do not want to proliferate documentation endlessly. Anybody who seeks it when invited to do so will get the service. That is a reasonable basis to put it on.

I have been asked that in the six-monthly report not only the regulations passed in pursuance of obligations under the EEC Act would be listed but also parts of statutes which are implemented and which have been passed with a view to implementing obligations. That seems a reasonable suggestion and a necessary one and we will try to ensure that is done.

There has been a suggestion for a special Question Time in the Dáil dealing with EEC matters. That is a matter for the other House in its own jurisdiction. I, as a Member of that House, have some doubts about it because this would raise an issue as to whether any given question related to the EEC or not should belong in the special Question Time. We have enough trouble at present trying to allocate questions to Ministers where there are doubts as to jurisdiction without getting involved in any other aspect. The suggestion will be noted and considered in the other House.

The question has been raised as to whether there is a distinction between happy Ministers and willing Ministers. No such distinction was intended and I did not feel they were becoming less happy as we got nearer the point of having to actually deal with these matters so Senators can take it the two words were intended to mean the same thing though I accept they are capable of different interpretations.

Senator McCartin made the point about the duty of the Committee not merely to be looking narrowly at things in the national interest but to be more broadly European and to bring people with us in what we are trying to do. I take this point, which is extremely important. It is something which applies to all of us, including the Government. If in the European institutions, or indeed in these Houses —whose deliberations, obviously, are reflected back to Europe and are taken account of there—we seem only to be interested in what we can get out of it and what benefits there are for this country, economic, social and otherwise, it is clear to me, and was my belief before I became a Minister, and is even more so now after four or five months as a Minister, that in that event we would not succeed in securing the benefits we would look for.

The House will appreciate that we as a relatively poor country, as the least advanced country in the Community, will under many headings be in receipt of benefits. We are the great beneficiaries from agricultural policy. In proportion to our size no country benefits to anything like the same degree. The first effect of this benefit has already been shown dramatically. There will be by the end of this year a two-thirds increase in farm incomes in two years. Not all of it is attributable directly to Community membership— some of the special features of beef prices—but much of it derives from that source. That means many, many tens of millions of pounds in quite a short period.

We would also hope to benefit significantly from the regional policy. That is at issue at the moment and it is something which I am concerned about. We will benefit, too, from the social policy. Under any of these headings the payments we make in will tend to be very much less than the payments made out to us. There is a clear recognition of this in Europe. People are very well aware—especially the countries that are doing the paying—that under all these headings we are receiving something.

Our job is to make sure that we get the benefits that are necessary from the Community point of view in order to make the Community work by bringing this country's living standards up so that we are not a drag on the Community and so that the regional imbalances are removed. If we are seeking that, seeking our rights and seeking the implementation by the Community of the things it is their duty to implement for our benefit and if we do nothing else but that, we will become very much a sore thumb very quickly. Indeed, because of the fact there are so many benefits for us and the transfers are so large and so numerous in proportion to our size, it is particularly important that we should be contributing actively and positively to the development of the European Community and its institutions.

It is going to take a very big input of contribution for us to get away with, in the eyes of the Governments and the ordinary people of the various countries who pay out the money, our entitlement and to be able to press, without causing great irritations, for the things we are entitled to. If we face in the near future a battle on regional policy—I do not exclude this—our ability to command the sympathy and support necessary to get our entitlement there will depend on whether we have been able to get across within the Community and its institutions that we are contributing something and that we are worthwhile members to have, otherwise, irritations could grow and this could come against us very much in the final outcome.

Senator McCartin, therefore, even from the narrow point of view of national self-interest, is right. There is indeed a broader concept than that because we are trying to build something worthwhile in Western Europe to which we have, in any event, a moral duty to make a contribution quite apart from the more materialistic consideration I have just adduced. Senator McCartin made a very important point indeed.

I hope this Committee will not construe their obligations narrowly. I hope they will press the Government to make further progress with other like-minded Governments in the democratisation of European institutions. I hope they will not delude themselves into thinking that the existence of this Committee and the functions which we have given to them, which are all that can be given, in any way satisfies the necessary criteria of a democratic system within the Community as a whole. I hope the Committee will see it as part of their duty to examine the inadequacies of, for example, the Commission's proposals—they are inadequate in the view of the Government—for improving the working of the Community institutions and making them more democratic. I hope they will be critical of these and will be putting forward proposals of a constructive character which will strengthen the hands of the Government in their work to democratise institutions.

On the point of the power of the European Parliament, I do not think it is impossible to attach too much importance to it. Even for the functions now being carried out by the Community institutions at this stage of development, and we are only part of the way along the road, the European Parliament's powers are grossly inadequate to secure adequate democratic controls. There have been obvious cases of this. The whole question of the inadequacy of the audit procedure and the public accounting procedure in the Community is something which I tried to do something about shortly after having been appointed Minister. There are many other examples of it, too.

The Community have, moreover, the ambition to go much further and to create an economic and monetary union. I often doubt whether the significance of a monetary union is understood not just in this country but in Europe as a whole. Frankly, sometimes in listening to some of my colleagues in the Council of Ministers talking about it I am not too sure that there is evident in their approach a full understanding of the full implications of it.

A monetary union, as defined in the proposals, seems to involve fixed parities between currencies, a total interdependence between the Community countries. That is something which would involve such a degree of decision making in key economic matters at the centre that it could not be tolerated if the institutions of the Community were not democratically controlled. Our position has to be that we support this movement towards economic and monetary union. It is in the material interests of this country that we should do so because of the close links with agricultural policy.

We should support it also because we believe that this is the road along which we have to go but only on condition that it is accompanied by and closely paralleled by an adequate development of the democratic institutions. Here we have a contribution to make and here we will find like-minded people in other countries. I can assure the House that it is my preoccupation to work with other Governments who share our views, to try to convert those Governments that do not and to make it clear that we simply could not tolerate, and would not be permitted by our Parliament or people to tolerate, a development to the full monetary union unless there was full democratic control.

In the work which we as a Government have to do on this we need the support and pressure of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Our hand will be strengthened in so far as the Oireachtas try to put pressure on us in the matter and tell us that the Oireachtas are not happy, that we should go further if we have not achieved these changes. Here there can be a very fruitful interaction between the Committee, the Oireachtas and the Government working towards a similar end, each fulfilling their own function. At times there will be tension, and so there should be. At times the Committee and the House may feel that we are not making enough progress, that we are conceding too much in one area and not achieving enough in another area. The criticisms of that kind which will be made will be helpful to us, and although we may not always welcome them at the time they will be in the national interest and will help to ensure that our common objectives will be achieved.

I noted, as Senator Boland did, the significance of Senator McCartin's remarks of having, as he said, fought for Europe in the referendum in this country and the fact that that is a claim of great significance, not to be underestimated. In that respect, I know there are Senators here who will interpret this story in a different way or may take a different view of it to the view I took of it. I remember 11 years ago, when there was a delegation to this country of journalists from Europe, just before we thought we were joining the Community and I as chairman of the Irish Council of the European Movement, had the job of briefing them. I briefed them on how European we were in Ireland. I suppose in some ways I was chancing my arm to some degree as we had not had a referendum and I did not know that the result would be as good as it was ten years later. When I finished a journalist came over to me—it was the late Mr. A.P. Ryan of The Times—and said: “You know the first time I came to Ireland your father briefed me in the Shelbourne Hotel”—it had to be done very secretly, for obvious reasons; it was the Black-and-Tan period—“about why Ireland had to be independent and now I come back and you are telling me how Ireland has to now merge part of its independence in a wider institution”. He felt that was an interesting turn of events in the course of his period as a journalist. I know there are Senators here who will take that in a different sense and who regard it as Senator Browne does——

Dr. Browne

Which of you was right?

Dr. FitzGerald

He was not criticising; he was merely making a comment.

Dr. Browne

I am not criticising; I am just asking which of you do you think was right, your father or yourself?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They were two different periods.

Dr. FitzGerald

Both. I am glad Senator Browne asked that question because I think it is the point of the whole thing. We now are taking our part—it is not just verbiage, it is not just oratory—among the nations of Europe and the nations of the world. This could not have happened but for the events of 50 years ago. I know different people have different interpretations of history and some of them may feel—right may be on their side, God alone knows, we certainly do not—that a different path, a Redmondite path, might have yielded the same results at less cost. I do not want to get into that argument, but the fact is that this country became independent at that time after eight centuries when it was not independent just in time to play its part——

An Cathaoirleach

Could I ask the Minister to come a little closer than eight centuries ago to the Bill that is before the House.

Dr. FitzGerald

I apologise.

I think that the significance of this is something that many of us are beginning to grasp and as the representative of this country in the Council of Ministers I certainly have a feeling for it. It is a source of great pride to me to represent this independent country in this context necessarily sharing part of our sovereignty there so that we can enhance our own future. This must be done democratically at this level and at European level. We have made a step forward today at this level. I hope we will continue to press ahead at the European level and that the whole Government will agree to the kind of merging of decision-making which is contemplated unless there is a parallel achievement of democratic control within the institution of the Community.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.