Senator Murphy was in possession and it is now the turn of a Labour Senator.
Developments in the European Communities — Eighteenth Report: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report: Developments in the European Communities — Eighteenth Report. — (Mrs. G. Hussey).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You anticipate me a little, a Leas-Chathaoirleach.
I would like to begin my contribution on this motion, noting the Eighteenth Report on Developments in the European Communities, by paying a quiet tribute to the person or persons responsible for compiling the information in this report which is submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas every six months. It is a very valuable source which any of us can consult, particularly in order to ascertian whether a regulation or a directive has been passed at the European Community level and, if so, in what way it was implemented here in Ireland. It is necessary to have that kind of information, to have an updated source to draw upon in order to ascertain what steps have been taken. I have fairly frequent recourse to these reports, both in an academic and political context. It is worth noting and indeed commending those who put a lot of work into it for the detail and the useful updating and information contained in it.
I do this in order to encourage them because in one or two instances, they did not quite follow through with the Irish instrument which complied with the directive or whatever. I am thinking, for example, of the Directive on Wild Bird Conservation. There is a reference to the Official Journal, where the directive is contained, but there is no reference at that point to the Irish implementing measure. I would like to encourage the practice of not only referring to the measures at the European Community level but also specifically in the footnotes to the Irish measures. It is very difficult sometimes to get up-to-date information. It is also difficult to get up-to-date information on appointments to institutions, on when people took office, and for how long, on who attended particular council meetings, on the various measures which are still in draft and what is the current text that is being discussed. It may be easier for members of the EEC Legislation Committee to keep up-to-date with this than for other Members of both Houses. But there is always a difficulty. This report, therefore, fulfils a valuable function. Its value has been recognised by people of other nationalities and indeed bureaucrats or Eurocrats who work in the EEC institutions in Brussels. I have frequently come across a German or a Dutch person referring to the report as being a very useful way of ascertaining what is the present state of play. At that level the report is valuable.
It is also very useful to have this regular and recurring opportunity to debate recent developments in the European Community. In doing so it is necessary for each of us to select particular areas of concern. I intend, in my contribution, to pose questions to the Minister and I await his reply on these specific issues.
The first area I would like to seek more information on is the precise form and shape of the proposal for a European Act which is currently being discussed at the level of Foreign Ministers and in the context of European Political Co-operation. I would like to know what precisely the European Act is envisaged as being. Is it to be merely the type of joint declaration of which the Community has had previous experience? I am thinking of the Joint Declaration on the Protection of Human Rights which the Council, Commission and the European Parliament entered into a few years ago. Will it imply some sort of commitment at a political level but without any precise legal basis to it, or will it be more than that? To what extent is it related to the necessity for a further commitment to future funding of the Community?
I think it must become more and more obvious to observers of developments at the European Community level that the Community budget and financial resources are at present quite inadequate to deal with any of the serious political problems at that level. The budget of the European Communities is only a very small fraction of the GDP of the member states. It is not a budget that would enable the Community to have any significant impact on unemployment at the Community level. It is not a budget that would enable the Community to have a genuine industrial policy at the Community level. It is a budget which enables the Community to have a common agricultural policy, but even there the criticism of the common agricultural policy would at times suggest that the sums of money being talked about constituted a significant percentage of the GDP of the ten member states. Again, that is not the case. Agricultural spending is itself a very small fraction. If it is proposed to have further developments at the "high profile" political level by way of adoption of a European Act, then surely this is without real significance — indeed is a con job — unless it is accompanied by a commitment on the part of the member states of the European Community to increase the own-resources of the Community itself beyond the present ceiling of 1 per cent of the VAT revenues of the member states.
This is the overall political problem which is not sufficiently discussed and not sufficiently highlighted in the context of debates on the European Communities. The debates centre on issues which have much less real significance in the medium and longer term development of the Community as a political entity. They centre on the question of the contribution to be made by member states, largely because of the emphasis placed by the United Kingdom on the contribution which it has been making and which it maintains must be revised and changed. That is a good example of a country arguing its own cause, and making a very strong and rather chauvinistic case which emphasises the particular disadvantages of the position which was clear when Britain joined the Community — clear at least in its overall terms — and which Britain has consistently sought since then to renegotiate. It does so with a certain residual political leverage because of the known unpopularity among a fairly broad mass of the British people of membership of the European Community. But that political argument and debate, which have been very substantially covered by the media in this country, in Britain itself and in other member states, take away from the much more fundamental political issue of whether the Community is going to find the political will and commitment to transform its budget from a tiny fraction of the GDP of its member states to a genuine budget which would enable the Community collectively to address itself to the various economic and social problems facing the peoples of the member states of the Community, and so that it had the capacity to make a substantial impact on those problems. Then there would be effective action on those problems both at the community level and the national level where there would still be substantial room for manoeuvre and substantial room for national sovereign measures to be taken as well. That is the central problem facing the Community. It is one which would have to be faced in the context of a proposal to subscribe to any further European Act or other instrument. Even if that Act or instrument was of no legal significance in itself it would, as I say, be a con job to do it unless it was matched with an appropriate level of financial contribution.
I turn now to the question of the proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. Here again, there has been very considerable debate and discussion but in a fixed and rigid context, about a problem which evolves and changes from season to season and from period to period as the cycle of supply and demand in the agricultural sector shifts and changes. In particular, I think, the level of political assessment and commentary in the British media is very shallow, very superficial and very doctrinaire and rigid on the CAP. It applies a single vision and a single set of criteria to a constantly changing situation. Again if one looks at the very small fraction of the overall GDP of the ten member states which is tied up in funding the common agricultural policy, if one looks at the essential objectives of the common agricultural policy in providing stable prices and funds for development and restructuring of farms in the European Community and a supply of essential foodstuffs to the people of the Community, then it is difficult to see why the common agricultural policy has become the focus of so much doctrinaire criticism unless it is seen in the context of an artificial debate in the first place, an artificial debate about an artificially low budget of the European Communities, as it is.
However, for this country the position is not only clear, but one which can be supported with very strong legal as well as political arguments. The Government are right in maintaining their present position that the structure and support for the common agricultural policy was one of the acquis communitaire on which we decided to join the European Community and which was central to the constitutional referendum which was required in order to enable Ireland to join and participate in the European Community. To that extent, the Government are right to indicate that, if necessary, a veto will be exercised by Ireland on any attempt to change fundamentally the structuring of the common agricultural policy. This is an instance where it is clearly in Ireland's vital interests to preserve the overall shape and functioning of the common agricultural policy.
Having clearly said that, not wishing to be misunderstood on it and having referred, in very general terms, to the current debate, I think it would be helpful if in his reply the Minister might indicate whether there are ways in which there could be developments in relation to support for our farming community which would allow a movement from a total adherence to the price support mechanism in the direction of an income support. I pose that question because I have frequently participated in seminar discussions very often with English, sometimes German, occasionally Dutch or Belgian critics of the common agricultural policy who point out that it could very well be in Ireland's interest to explore the possibility of income support for farmers as opposed to relying primarily on price support in certain areas of development of the common agricultural policy. I would hope to have a general response from the Minister on that aspect.
The present situation in regard to fixing farm prices for this year appears to be that the Commission have not yet proposed their recommendations for farm prices. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether there is a political background to that, whether the Commission are seeking to force the hand of the Council of Ministers in getting some agreement and causing a vacuum which will lead to delay and apprehension on behalf of the farming community both about the level to be recommended by the Commission and the date on which the farm price increases will be fixed for 1982. It would be helpful to know the nature of the debate and discussions which are going on because it is sometimes difficult to understand the situation fully.
On the specific chapters of this report on developments in the communities, I would like to draw attention again, as a number of other commentators in recent months have done, to Ireland's failure to implement the company law directives which have been passed at European Community level, the time for implementation of which has gone by. The failure to implement these directives is indicative of a lack of active concern here for reform of our company code in a more radical and comprehensive way. It is because of that failure that we have not complied with the time limit there and, as I understand it, proceedings against us are either being brought, or threatened, before the Court under Article 169. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that position.
On the social policy of the Community, the Commission have sought from member states an account of the steps taken and the measures adopted to comply with the Treaty itself — Article 119 — and the Council directives in the area of equal pay and equality of opportunity. Although the Commission have published an assessment of the responses from member states from time to time on this issue, what is not available to Members of this House is the response given by Ireland to the questions posed and the information required by the Commission under the directive to be furnished to it about the nature and extent of the implementation here of our obligations under the Council directives dealing with equal pay and equality of opportunity. This information should be available and, indeed, we should also have full access to information on the steps being taken to comply with the third directive, the directive on equality in the area of social welfare, which we are required to implement fully by December 1984.
There has been unnecessary secrecy about the Government responses to the Commission in these areas, perhaps because it is felt that these responses would be somewhat embarrassing or that the material might be used to be critical of the situation here. All this material, the drafts and, indeed, the final documents of responses to the European Commission in this area, should be fully available to us. The information should be either tabled or copies put into the Oireachtas Library. Certainly, it should be made available so that we can examine the kind of responses that have been given.
There is another area which has been much discussed and debated in recent times and on which there was a special debate in this House and, therefore, I do not intend to dwell on it at any length. That is the question of the discussions in the context of the European Political Co-operation, which, it has been alleged, could pose some threat to Ireland's position as a non-member of NATO, as a country which has a tradition — however one wants to define that tradition — of neutrality and where there is a very broad public resistance to and public concern about any involvement, even a peripheral involvement, in a military or defence pact situation.
I had the benefit of participating in a very useful seminar on the subject organised by the Irish International Committee under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy. It was very helpful in understanding some of the subtleties and, indeed, some of the sophistication of language involved in distinguishing between security and defence, in distinguishing the extent to which Ireland could participate and where we drew the line. The more it was attempted to draw the line, the more complex and difficult the issues became. Therefore, it would be useful if, in the context of this debate on the report on developments in the Community, the Minister would clarify on the record the precise position which Ireland has adopted and will continue to adopt in this regard.
I would like to conclude my contribution by drawing attention to the fact that the legislation passed at the European Community level since last June — Council Regulations, Council Directives and Decisions, and indeed Decisions taken by the Commission or Commission Regulations or Directives which have affected Ireland — has been totally without any Irish parliamentary scrutiny. This is a very serious indictment of the Houses of the Oireachtas and to some extent of the Government of the day which has a leadership role in this regard. When Ireland took the decision to become a member of the European Community there was very real concern at that time about legislation being enacted at the EEC level without requiring any direct approval by or endorsement of the Oireachtas. We did, after all, make the necessary constitutional change which altered the position from the pre-existing one that the Oireachtas was "the sole law making Body for the State". Now the Oireachtas is not the sole law making body, it shares that legislative power and to some extent has given up that legislative power to EEC institutions.
Shortly after we joined the Community the political decision was taken to establish a watchdog committee and it was given important terms of reference. It is not acceptable that such a long time elapses between the dissolution of the Dáil — and as a consequence the dissolution of any select committees that exist — and their reconstitution. Very much the same delay occurred when the general election was called in May 1977. On that occasion the Joint Committee was not reconstituted until December 1977. Now, by January 1982 the necessary motions have been passed by both Houses but the selection committees have not met to approve the nominations for membership of the committee. The Joint Committee has not yet got together, it has not elected a chairman, it has not begun to address itself to the backlog of regulations and directives which have been passed. I think this is worrying at two levels: it is worrying that there has not been any scrutiny of EEC legislation for seven months — none at all by the Irish Parliament — but it is even more worrying that nobody seems to care anymore. Nobody seems to be drawing attention to this lack of involvement by elected representatives here, lack of concern about the very far-reaching measures which are either proposed at the European Community level or passed at the European level and which do not have any filter of scrutiny by Irish elected representatives.
This shows a lack of focus on real legislative priorities and the essential legislative and parliamentary role to be fulfilled by our elected representatives who are coming under increasing criticism. At least in this regard such criticism is warranted. I think we are deserving of criticism if we are not seen to be anxious and concerned to have an active committee scrutinising European Community legislation. Also, since we have taken a decision in the past to establish such a select committee, and have allocated to that committee full-time staff, then there is waste of manpower as well by not having that committee reconstituted. Perhaps the Minister would consider the possibility of devising some more automatic mechanism for the future whereby select committees could be reconstituted. It appears that we are going to have possibly six select committees of both Houses established during this parliamentary session. If that is the case, I believe a very early decision should have been taken, perhaps before either House resumed after the recess following the nomination and election of the Taoiseach and the appointment of members of the Government. If before the two Houses reconvened it was necessary that a decision be taken to reconstitute select committees, they would be reconstituted. If that had happened on this occasion, the EEC Committee would have come into being during October and would now be well into its working sessions.
I believe that this is not a small or irrelevant point, but is part of our whole approach to the European Community. The Community is not a very democratic entity. Its manner of legislating is not really very democratic. Although it allows participation by a representative of the Government, or a senior civil servant at meetings of the Council of Ministers, these are private sessions and we are not privy to precisely what was discussed. They are complex negotiating sessions, where there are trade offs on one issue in favour of gaining support on another issue, and a balancing of the national interests of member states. The Parliament, although it has an increasing and now quite significant budgetary role, does not have an actual legislative role as such. It has a much weaker position in the context of the European Community than the Oireachtas has in the context of legislation and the framework for control of the Government here. Therefore, when the overall framework of the Community is not one which highlights democratic and representative principles, but is an enclosed and secret one, then it is all the more necessary to have strong and vigilant method of scrutiny here. I believe that this is also necessary because of the nature of the decisions that are being discussed, the kinds of problems that are being confronted and the decisions that are being arrived at, whether it is in the area of support for dairy farming, or discussions of security issues, or whether it is in the area of the overall size and structure of the budget of the Communities.
Therefore I would hope that the Minister can give some assurances in this area in his reply. It would be helpful to have more information available to members of the Oireachtas on the discussions which take place at meetings of the Council. It is notable that when Ministers return to this country from meetings of the Council of Ministers they speak to the media. Sometimes they speak to the media in Brussels and then speak to the media at Dublin Airport, or when they return to their offices, or on a television programme that evening in the RTE Studios. They do not report automatically on the record to either House of the Oireachtas. In other countries they do this. The Danish Minister would be obliged to report to the Danish Parliament, and there would be greater accountability because whatever was said would be said on the record and could be questioned and could even lead to a challenge to the Government itself if the Minister in his reply did not satisfy his parliamentary colleagues that he had secured the vital interests of Denmark in a particular negotiation.
I am not trying to suggest that the Community can only go down the road of member states protecting at all costs their national self-interest. However, the present debates at Community level show quite clearly that this is the primary concern of the representatives of larger countries, so in the short term it must be our concern to ensure that Ireland's vital interests are also preserved. It must also be our concern to ensure that the Ministers who attend meetings of the Council of Ministers and who represent the country there and enter into these very difficult and very sophisticated negotiations, are accountable back to the Oireachtas. That is something which has never been fully established, but is imperative now, in particular because of the significance for our whole economic and social development of the current issues that are discussed at Community level.
It is vital that this direct accountability to the Oireachtas be reinforced and secured. It would be a welcome move if the Minister introduced the practice of reporting regularly on the record following a meeting of the Council of Ministers, and not just communicating with the media or by a statement from the Government Information Service following such a meeting.
I again welcome the opportunity for debate which this report gives, even though it covers a very wide area. Also it was published in July 1981 and therefore had to be completed and finalised before that date, so it is to some extent out of date. It gives us the opportunity to step back a little and have an overview of developments in the Community. I hope we will have regular debates of this kind on future reports.
I shall not delay the House with my contribution on this report. It is not very heartening to read in the Eighteenth Report the same thing which was said in the Seventeenth Report. It would appear as if the report is taken up with a number of pious platitudes, wishes for the future and concern within the Community for the problems which exist in member states. Unfortunately the report does not spell out many answers to the problems. It goes through the problems that are discussed here daily — the problems of unemployment, inflation, the Third World and so on. On a day when it was stated that Irish farmers are now worse off than they were before going into the Community, it is right that we should discuss this document.
One of the main planks on which our entry into the Community was based was that there would be excellent returns for our basic economic entity, namely the farming entity. Now, ten years later, farmers within the Community in general and Ireland in particular are worse off than they were before we entered. That is something which we must have a very hard look at.
Senator Robinson mentioned discussions taking place regarding our neutrality or our place in the international community. Over the past number of months certain things have occurred which would suggest that the Community in general is not of the one opinion regarding the power structure or where power will lie in the future.
The European position on Poland over the past few weeks has been deplorable. It would appear to the person in the street that the EEC as a whole has not taken up a stand with the people of Poland in their plight. The only country which did come out strongly on the issue was Germany and the reason for this is because of the commitment of the Poles to the German banks. It would appear as if the Germans have taken a line independent of the EEC because of the economic implications to the German banking system. There is a situation where four countries in the EEC have agreed to join a peace-keeping force when there is a return of the Sinai from Israel to Egypt. There should be a general line taken on this peace-keeping force because we, as members of the EEC, might appear to be connected with it and I do not think we should have anything to do with it.
Even though this is not directly concerned with the EEC, the Council of Europe have suggested that they hold their next Council meeting in Jerusalem. The holding of a Council of Europe meeting in Jerusalem, in the heart of an area which is not the most peaceful in the world, might give the impression that the EEC are giving to the Israeli State the rights over the city of Jerusalem. That would have serious implications for our position vis-a-vis the Middle East.
The benefits which we are getting from Europe at present cannot be quantified. We are told that we are net beneficiaries. The public impression of our situation in Europe would be contrary to that. There is a general impression that we are not gaining from being members of the European Economic Community. If there was a referendum at present on the same basis as it was held for our entry there would not be a consensus for joining; the people would reject entry because of what has happened over the last ten years. The items which should have been of most benefit to us have not come up to scratch. We got benefits from the social fund and CAP but not enough to persuade the people that we are getting a fair crack of the whip. It would seem that since there was a downturn in the economies of the bigger countries, less care is being taken of the smaller and weaker sections of the Community. The wealthier nations are trying to protect themselves. They have withdrawn their support from the social fund and, in doing so, as has been pointed out not so very long ago, the Irish standard of living vis-à-vis that of the European Economic Community partners has deteriorated to an enormous degree. It would appear to the generality of our people that as long as we have a bad economic situation in the Community it is every man for himself and the weaker ones are ignored.
We are being swamped by bureaucracy. There has been a tremendous amount of talk about the cost of the public service over the past number of months but nobody has stood up and queried the cost of the bureaucracy that runs the EEC, a three-capital bureaucracy which in no way could be regarded as efficient.
We have to abide by decisions made in Europe and many of these decisions are costing Irish industry an enormous amount of money. We, being on the periphery of the EEC and of Europe, have to bear the transportation costs of our exports which are huge in comparison with transport costs of our European partners. Still the legislation on transport that comes from Europe is the very same for Ireland as it is for Germany. We had a tachograph system introduced recently which is adding enormously to the cost of transporting finished exportable goods. Our insurance rates are double those within the EEC. There is a 37½ per cent difference between Ireland and Britain in the price of a spare part for a motor vehicle because there is a 37½ per cent duty. Also we have a higher rate of VAT which means that Irish exporters are working at a tremendous disadvantage.
The tachograph legislation was obviously laid down by people who were looking at the transport system on the Continent where they can travel on motorways through the seven member countries on mainland Europe. Between Dublin and Cork, Waterford, Limerick or Kilkenny there are no more than 22 miles of dual-carriageway and still the Irish haulier transporting manufactured goods has to work within the same hours as his European counterpart who can travel three times the distance.
Senator Robinson mentioned the fact that we have not yet agreed to the new EEC company law legislation. The cost to small companies in Ireland of enforcing the legislation on company law will be enormous and it will drive them out of business. It will do much for the business of accountants and solicitors but it will do nothing to make business more efficient. It will not result in private companies having to produce audited accounts, no matter how small they are. It may be that the size of companies in Europe is much bigger and more financially sound than the generality of companies in Ireland but I do not think so. It would appear that the restraint that will be placed on small Irish companies is being brought about by a collusion between the accountants and the legal profession in Europe. If we look at what has happened to farmers over the past few years since they came into the tax net we see that even at present it costs the farmer £300 to prove that he should not be paying tax. He has to pay his accountant to prove that he should not be paying tax. This is a restraint on farming and if the secondary legislation is put into force in Ireland the very same thing will apply.
It is unfortunate that the EEC Ministers have not been able to agree on farm prices. The longer these negotiations go on the worse the situation will be for Irish farmers. I sincerely hope there will be no backing down by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture on the grave needs of Irish agriculture at present and that they will do their utmost to ensure that the farm package will come out within the next week or two rather than in May, June or July which now appears to be the situation.
It was stated today by the ESB that they have saved already £147 million by being able to use natural gas. Is there any way we would have more money from the EEC to speed up the work to find out whether it is feasible to produce oil in a profitable manner from the Continental Shelf or whether, if there is natural gas, we get it sooner rather than later?
The question of North-South relationships and the support that should be given from the wealthy countries to the poorer countries is not being handled at all well within the EEC. At the North-South Conference in Mexico everybody agreed that the Third World countries were not getting enough help from the more developed countries. A junket was held in Mexico City which everybody enjoyed, according to reports in international magazines, but no conclusions were forthcoming that would be of any help to the countries of the Third World. In the report it states that investments should be increased and the competitiveness of Community businesses improved, which anybody in this House or anybody in this country would agree with.
There is absolutely nothing in the document to show how investment can be increased or competitiveness be improved. It states quite categorically that there is a need to increase public expenditure in job creation with particular reference to sectoral restructuring. That is something that many people have given much thought to over the past number of months.
It would appear there is a divergence of opinion as to what public expenditure needs to be made. The investment programme for the 1980s which was produced last May laid down pretty well the needs of this country with regard to public expenditure on capital projects but it appears now that the money will not be forthcoming for these projects. Whether we can get more from the regional policy will depend on the fighting spirit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the other Ministers in their discussions in Europe. I sincerely hope that what has been stated categorically in this report will happen, that the money will be made available to increase public expenditure in job creating rather than stating it and restating it in each report that comes out.
It also states in the document that the Community provides that as far as priority regions are concerned, of which Ireland is one, the fund may contribute to the financing of any category of infrastructure with a more limited approach in the case of intermediate regions. It would seem from that statement that money is available for Ireland for infrastructural investment in economic, educational, medical and cultural sectors, protection of the environment and public sector housing and ancillary installations. Could the Minister let the House know how much money has come from the Community for public sector housing over the past 10 years or is it one of these pious platitudes that run right through the report? I am trying to find the reference.
I know how hard it is going backwards and forwards.
I cannot find it. Of the moneys allocated for 1980-81 it would appear that only £5.94 million was paid by the Community on commitments which were far in excess of that. Why were the allocations not paid over? Were the EEC to blame or has it something to do with our own situation? If money is allocated to Ireland from the EEC budget is there any reason why that money is not paid over? It states on page 63, approved to 30 June 1981, £31.08 million, and only £5.94 million was paid.
On which page is that?
Page 63. "Total approved to 30 June 1981: Type of Project: Industrial Investments — £1.60 million: Infrastructural investment — £29.48 million". This gives a total of £31.08 million and in the payments during the period under review Ireland received Fund payments of £5.94 million. Where did the rest of the money go? Can it carry forward from one budgetary period to another? If money, which is allocated during a budgetary period is not used within that period can it be carried forward into the next budgetary period or is it lost?
I welcome the fact that we get these reports but I would like to see more answers in the report. It makes very little difference to the Irish people that we lost the right to hallmark goods which had been imported from third countries and then re-exported. I do not think that will make that much difference to whether we stay in the EEC. Like Senator Robinson, I would like to see more contact between the members of the EEC and this House. The protocol should allow members of the European Parliament to come in here when a debate is going on on anything that happens within Europe. The members of the European Parliament should be allowed in and be questioned on the aspects which are relevant to Ireland and possibly make contributions in the House towards a debate such as this one. Again, I welcome the report with those few comments.
Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity which this report gives us to discuss some of the developments in the European Community over the past number of months. I find myself in general but very strong agreement with Senator Robinson on a number of points, particularly the fact that the Houses have not had the opportunity to scrutinise European legislation for a very long period of time, seven or eight months, and it may be another month or two before the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation is established. It is little short of a scandal that the Houses of the Oireachtas should for so long have been deprived of this opportunity. It is not my intention this evening to place the blame, which could be distributed in a number of directions, but in the interests of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the role we have with regard to Community legislation, it is imperative that the Joint Committee be set up as quickly as possible.
I also support the view put forward by Senator Robinson that it would be desirable that Ministers would report on a more regular basis to the Houses of Parliament on developments in the Communities. I know it is customary at the end of each Summit for the Taoiseach of the day to give a full account of what has happened. I understand that Ministers coming back, especially if they are coming back with some good news, will want to hold a Press conference. It is wise that they do so. They will be questioned by the media on what has happened. I know that is true and I understand the reason for it. Nevertheless, not just as a courtesy to Parliament but also to enable Members to go into more detail on what is happening and what has happened, it would be a very good idea if some sort of regular European forum within both Houses of Parliament could be established where Ministers and Members could avail of this opportunity.
I intend to confine myself to two of three specific areas in the report and especially to the reference in the speech of the Minister of State on the role of the European Parliament which he touched on under the heading of institutional growth within the Communities. He mentioned that he hoped that soon there would be growing links between the European Parliament and the various national parliaments. Anybody looking at the role of the European Parliament over the past two-and-a-half years since direct elections must conclude that this has been one of the most disappointing areas in the entire institutional development of the Communities because developments have been so slow as to be almost non-existent. That is true in the case of the relationships between the European Parliament and the national parliaments and between members of the European Parliament and the national parliaments in the countries which they represent.
With regard to the role of the European Parliament since direct elections, it was very clear during the election campaign and in the period before that campaign that expectations about the future of the Parliament were raised beyond any level which could be sustained in reality. I have certain sympathy for the position in which the Parliament found itself. It was a catch-22 situation. In order to increase interest the Parliament had to make claims about its significance, influence and its future role, which even at the time were somewhat dubious. It was not always easy for those who were trying to educate the public of Europe about the Parliament. It was not easy to get across sophisticated notions about the Parliament having influence rather than power or about the detailed workings of the very elaborate committees of the Parliament. It was not easy to get across ideas about the Parliament being involved in a very elaborate timely consultative process which is at the basis of European legislation. All that is true and the Parliament had to try to engage in a process of education. It was not always easy to simplify these notions, especially when talking about a Parliament which was based much more on the unfamiliar continental model of Parliament than on the more familiar Westminister or Kildare Street model. The result was that there was a considerable degree of over-sell, especially in the period prior to the elections and in the advertisements paid for by the Parliament. The impression was given that the Parliament would have more influence on the day-to-day life of the European Community than could possibly be the case.
The position of the Parliament and of the candidates — I was one and I am as guilty as anybody else in this regard — was understandable. The candidates wanted to get the voters out. We wanted to excite them about the possibly of a European Parliament. We wanted to engage their interest. We wanted to show to them that it was worthwhile coming out to vote. So perhaps we did over-sell. The Parliament obviously wanted the mandate of a very high poll. In the event, the Parliament got that mandate; but unfortunately the very thing many of us feared at the time — and I said so then — has come to pass. The Parliament has faded from public view. It appears to very many people to be irrelevant to the politics of the individual countries. The achievements of the Parliament are not easily conveyed to the vast majority of the population. The publicity which the Parliament now gets is invariably unfavourable and frivolous, centring on such things as salaries — salaries are too high and provide a focal point for criticism, detracting from some of the substantial achievements of the Parliament — expenses and allowances paid to members and on the extravagant idiocies of some of the activities of the Parliament and of the officials of the Parliament, and there have been far too many of these.
To most people I suspect the Parliament is seen as an expensive insensitive and largely irrelevant institution. I have great sympathy for the present members of the European Parliament who will be seeking re-election in 1984 — I am talking in terms of Ireland, I cannot speak for other countries — because they have worked in the interests of their constituents over the past two-and-a-half years. Most of our Members have been hardworking. In the case of the three Members from Northern Ireland, the European Parliament has been an invaluable forum at this period of political vacuum in the history of Northern Ireland. I feel sympathetic because it is going to be very difficult for the present Members of the European Parliament to justify to the electorate reasons for their re-election. This will be based on their preceived performance over the last two-and-a-half years to date. I suspect that the future elections to the European Parliament will become an occasion for the electorate to vent their spleen against the Government of the day or against politicians as a class by electing the frivolous, extremist or gimmicky type candidates. Members of both Houses realise that there is a groundswell of disillusionment against politicians as a group. There is a feeling that we do not tell things as they are, that we have engaged in auctioneering type of politics for too long and that it is about time politicians faced up to the realities and told the story as it is. It is certain that this exists, but I have reservations about whether it is justified. Many of our politicians try to tell the truth, but when they do so they are accused of being merchants of gloom. When they try to list the hard options facing the population they are dismissed as being Cassandras, as being prophets of doom and gloom. In many ways the electorate are as responsible for our present woes as are our politicians as a class. Nevertheless, I can see the future European elections being seen as sufficiently irrelevant to what really happens in politics to be used in the way I am referring to. In a sense the European Parliament may serve as a lightning conductor, or as a safety valve where people can let off steam against politicians as a group, but that is not what the European Parliament was meant to be or the purpose for which the elections were first intended. For that reason I feel a great disappointment that things have turned out as they did. I feel this disappointment because the idea of a strong European Parliament was and is a highly attractive one. It provides one of the best possibilities of real integration at the political level, the possibility of greater understanding between the politicians of the ten countries and, most of all, for us as parliamentarians it provides one of the places where we can begin to fight back to re-establish Parliament's place within the whole process of Government and legislation, the fight back against the encroaching power of the Executive over the past 30 or 40 years, the fight back against the growing influence of interest groups in the countries of the Community.
The European Parliament still offers the possibility for Parliament to fight back to reassert its rightful place within the whole process of government. For those reasons, and many others, I am sorry that the promise held out a few years ago has not been fulfilled. The blame for this lies in many areas. First of all, it lies with the Parliament. Once the principle of direct elections had been established, once the first elections were over the Parliament seemed to relax. It is not so conscious of its public relations, of its need to talk to the people of the ten countries — I speak specifically for this country because I cannot speak for the others. Perhaps this is a question of money or perhaps it is a question of complacency but for whatever reason the impact of the Parliament is not nearly so great as it should be at this stage.
Blame here must lie with the parliamentarians from other countries — our people have been fairly sensitive — and officials who have shown themselves insensitive especially on issues which give very easy headlines to journalists who are often less than scrupulous in this regard. The responsibility lies with the politicians and the officials. Parliament must show greater sensitivity, greater commonsense. It must prevent the abuses and the idiocies which have characterised some of its activities over the past number of years. Is all the globe-trotting — maybe there is not much of it — necessary? Are the high expenses necessary? Are the high costs necessary? These are questions Parliament must ask itself and where it must show itself more vigilant in ensuring that there are no abuses or that those which exist are stamped out. Parliament as a new institution must be conscious of giving example of grafting on from each of the ten countries the best in the parliamentary traditions of those countries, not, as happened in some cases, the very worst traditions. Some of the fault must also lie with the Council of Ministers which has to some large extent once elections were over regarded the Parliament as being irrelevant. The Council has not taken it seriously, has treated it to some extent as a cosmetic. I urge our Minister, who is deeply rooted in the traditions of Parliament and has a respect which one does not often find in Ministers for Parliament in the Council of Ministers to try to focus attention on strengthening the position of the Europeam Parliament within the Community.
I do not want to talk at inordinate length about the European Parliament but I feel that the enthusiasm and the hopes which preceded the direct elections have not been fulfilled. The work of Parliament is not getting across and the Parliament is in danger of being dismissed by the public as derisory and unnecessary. A new effort is needed.
Before leaving the topic of the Parliament I should like to speak on two further issues. The first is the question of the dual mandate. I feel unequivocally that the dual mandate has not worked. It creates serious strains and makes impossible demands on those who are saddled with this mandate. It is not fair to the members of the European Parliament who carry the burden of the dual mandate. Nor do I feel it is fair to the national parliaments or to the European Assembly that neither is getting the best out of those who carry the dual mandate. It is a problem which must be resolved quickly and it is in the interests of all parties that it be done quickly. I freely admit that Fianna Fáil have been more successful in facing up to this problem than have the parties on this side of the House. However, at this time when the strength of Parliament and its relevance are under daily attack from some sections of the media it is a question which straddles party divisions. As Members of this House we have a common interest in seeing that the strength, dignity and effectiveness of Parliament are strengthened. I would like to see an all-party approach to the question of resolving the dual mandate and I suspect that those who are carrying this dual burden will welcome such an approach.
I should now like to take up the question raised by Senator Lanigan, the question of the relationship between members of the European Parliament and their national parliaments. Obviously, it is a question for each national parliament to resolve but there must be some organic link between the members of the European Parliament and their national parliaments. It is important that there should be uncluttered communication and constant feedback between national parliaments and the European Parliament. It is important that we should not be cut off from ideas and developments taking place in the European Parliament where there is a cross-fertilisation from the political processes of ten democratic countries with very different traditions. This should not happen. Members of the European Parliament any more than Ministers, should not grow away from their political roots. They too should be kept in constant touch with the people who sent them there, the people who share the political process in their own countries. In our case there is a very easy way out of the problem. Very simply, there is a way in which members of the European Parliament could, through agreement, consultation and discussion, be incorporated into our national parliament without any greater upheaval. If at the same time as we outlawed or banned the dual mandate we gave our 15 members of the European Parliament the right to attend and the right to speak in this House, then we would be resolving the problem. The members of the European Parliament could attend debates in the Seanad, speak in the debates and have all the normal privileges of Members of this House without the right to vote. That would be the only way in which they would differ from Members of the Seanad. Obviously, I take it for granted that they would not be paid the salary which members of the Seanad are paid. They are well enough looked after as things are.
They would hardly notice it even if they were.
This would ensure the most direct of links between the national and the European parliaments. It would enrich the quality of debate in the House and would prevent members of the European Parliament from feeling cut off and isolated in an unreal political world. It is an idea which is not new but it is one which would enhance the standing of this House, enrich the quality of debate here and would also solve the problem of ensuring that members of the European Parliament are not cut off from the political process here. It is an idea I recommend for discussion to members of all parties.
I should like to turn briefly to one other aspect of the report. The Minister of State spoke warmly of the accession of Greece as the tenth member of the European Community. I, in common with every Member of this House, welcome the membership of a democratic Greece in the European Community, welcome all that Greece brings in terms of culture and tradition and welcome the strengthening of Greek democracy which disappeared during that dramatic period of the colonels in the seventies. I welcome everything membership of the EEC brings to Greece. I do not want to trespass on domestic Greek politics but there is the fact that shortly after Greek accession a general election took place there. From a European point of view, the new Prime Minister announced he was totally and utterly committed — certainly in the election campaign he was but he may have changed since then — to withdrawing Greece from the Community. That is a matter for the Greeks. If the Greek people decide, as we might decide at some stage in our future history, to withdraw from the European Community that is the right and the privilege of the individual nation. It may well be that the Greek Prime Minister has softened his approach, that he has slackened down somewhat, but my information is that he has not. He is not rushing but the fundamental aim of the Government — that policy which got the strong mandate in the election — is to withdraw Greece from the European Community. We must be mindful of the disruption which was caused to the European Community by the British renegotiation of 1974. I would fear very strongly the consequences of the Greeks entering into a long process of renegotiation which would result in delays, uncertainties and irritations being caused to the other members.
The Community may have a very strong desire to persuade the Greeks to stay in. They can see the benefit which comes to Europe as a whole from having a strong democratic Greece integrated into a greater European Community. They can see this especially in terms of strategy and in terms of the Greek experience of the seventies. Therefore, I hope this question will be treated with sensitivity and with firmness. The work of the Community cannot be allowed to be held up or disrupted during the long period of renegotiation. On the other hand, I do not think anybody here would like to see Greece leaving the Community in a precipitate way. I do not know the answer and I am sure the Minister may have some comments to make on the current situation with regard to Greece and the Greek situation if it is not an intrusion into Greek domestic politics to do so.
There are many other aspects of the report which I should like to deal with, but I shall not delay the House further except to mention what has been one of the successes of the Community in the past number of years, that is the question of European political co-operation. The process so far has respected the individual traditions and interests of the individual countries. The pace has not been too fast. Skill has been shown in reaching agreed positions on sensitive issues so that the appearance of a unified Europe to the outside world, though not always successful in this context, has been more coherent and more consistent in the past year or two because of the comparatively successful operations of the process of European political co-operation. From our point of view I believe that this is a process in which our Ministers — not only the present Minister but previous Ministers — have played a constructive role. The officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs have had a stage big enough to accommodate the very great degree of talent that exists in that Department. In all of these cases the working of political co-operation has enhanced our position. In terms of foreign affairs, it has given our neutrality a new and deeper meaning. We have not been forced into positions that we do not want to take. Nevertheless, we have had influence where in the past we might not have had it. I hope that the sensitivity shown in the development of the concept of political co-operation will be continued in the coming years.
I thank the Minister again for giving us this opportunity of discussing the workings of the Community. In looking back over the history of the Community in the past 30 years we see it in terms of large advances followed by major retreats, followed by a reassessment in which a more realistic, forward-looking stance was adopted. We think in terms of the great advances of the Coal and Steel Communities followed by the great defeat and failures of the Defence Community and the European Political Community of the fifties, this in turn leading to the big conference at Messina which fixed the foundations for the Treaty of Rome. Then we saw in the sixties the attempt at great advances followed by further failures.
Perhaps we are now at one of those slow-moving realistic phases in the development of the Community where looking back, much of the real progress has been made in the past.
I am very glad to listen to Senator Manning who had the privilege of receiving my first preference vote in the European election and have agreed with very much of what he has said. I hope he will be a candidate again but given the present political atmosphere, that is unlikely.
It is a great pity and it is probably a reflection of the interest in the European Community that for a great period of this Debate, there have been only three Senators present. I do not wish to chastise them or blame them for this, but the European Community has an enormous public relations job to do not only on the people of this country generally but on our parliamentarians.
When I asked people's opinions about Europe in the last week there was either a massive yawn or howls of cynicism in reaction to one's asking people what they thought European parliamentarians and people who worked for the European ideal were doing. The problem the European Parliament has is one of public relations, one of communications and of getting over the message that it is not just a monumental bore which the words "European Economic Community" seem to conjure up for most of the people. There really have been real benefits in the European Community although it is very difficult for the average individual to actually touch on them. The EMS has been of great benefit to most countries and has been a notable success in the last few years. But, on the other hand, if you ask the average person in this country what the EMS is he will not be able to tell you and he will not be able to tell you how it works. You will find the same with MCAs, CAP and all the other groups of initials used in relation to the EEC. They are utterly meaningless to people.
One of the implications of this was the European election itself in which, on the whole, people voted not on European issues, but on local and personality issues. Traditional patterns of voting were very obvious in those elections. On the whole, people voted for those parties for which they had always voted. That is exactly what the European Community should not be educating people to do. People were not voting for the groups — the Gaullist Group or for the Christian Democratic Group or for the Socialist Group in Europe. They were voting for the people for whom they had always voted because they felt safer with them.
The abolition of the dual mandate would probably help to solve that problem. Part of the problem lies with the media. The media refuse, on the whole, to give the EEC the coverage which it deserves and it is the media presumably in the end that must lead the people along this road, that must create the interest. The EEC Parliament does not get the coverage because we are in a catch-22 situation in which the people are not interested and, consequently, such news does not sell newspapers.
The so-called gravy train in which people are involved is the most common complaint we hear. It is supposed to be a somewhat taboo subject in parliamentary circles. This is what people associate with the EEC more than anything else. It is impossible for anybody to understand people being paid these vast salaries when everybody here and abroad is being asked to tighten his belt in the middle of a recession. It is absolutely impossible for people to understand why EEC conferences always appear to be held in climates where there is sun in the middle of winter and why there are junkets to unnecessary interparliamentary unions which seem to achieve very little. They always stay in the most expensive hotels. There are endless dinners and receptions, duty free shops and massive hotel allowances. I do not know the details of the recent situation we had, but it looked extremely bad when the newspapers said that people were getting large allowances for staying in hotels when in fact they did not stay in those hotels at all. Yet, according to these allegations, they were keeping the money. The inquiry into that appears for some reason to have been stopped. That may or may not mean that they are guilty, but it looks very bad. That is the sort of thing people remember. I know of people who have come back from the gravy train to Brussels and beyond with voracious appetites for Dom Perignon and Krug, people who did not know the difference between burgundy and claret when they embarked on that. We cannot justify this sort of publicity in a time of restraint. We cannot allow massive bureaucratic scandals of this sort to be flaunted before the public when we are being asked by Ministers to tighten our belts. It means they lose their credibility, the European parliamentarians lose their credibility and in the end the European Parliament suffers in the eyes of the people.
The dual mandate does the European Community a great deal of harm in the public eye, because people see these parliamentarians getting enormous salaries, flying backwards and forwards, being paid too much, and not being able to do the work in either parliament. While I accept that the European Community has done a lot of good work, it has to do a great deal in terms of public relations to convince people it is even necessary. Senator Lanigan's point was interesting when he said that perhaps if there was another referendum people would not vote so convincingly for the EEC because they could not see any tangible benefits. There would not be a very high poll, I suspect, because people are not interested any more. It is up to the Government and the EEC to do something about this and to explain to the people of all these countries, especially Ireland, where the benefits are and to dispel the real fears and cynicism felt about the EEC.
I should like to start with a small detail in the report and then briefly to look at some of the principles underlying what I consider the European Community to be. There is in the report a small section — I believe far too small a section — dealing with education. It is a pity that in that area, where there are certain important practical problems, the Community seems to have made a decision, whether conscious or not, to regard education as a necessary detail to be added on to the really important matters of economics, political co-operation and so forth. In the practical field of examinations I believe the Community could have done a great deal more. There is a problem that is known in French as equivalence des diplomes which is a very technical and complex area. It is not just a question of comparing pieces of paper and regulations. It brings into its scope all sorts of attitudes towards examinations, education and all sorts of matters of comparability. Precisely because it is so complex an area which no one country could handle on its own, it seems to me that the Community could have tackled this, and the whole area of education, with a little more vigour and determination. There is, for example, a European University or a university in gestation in Florence, but again one has the impression that this is a sop thrown out to the educational community, that it is perhaps another aspect of the gravy train where academics and a few promising post-graduate students may be shunted off so that the Community appears to be doing something, so that there is an item on the balance sheet and in a report such as this. The next point with which I would like to deal is to be found on page 107 of the report, subparagraph (c), delegation of powers to the Commission. It says:
It is desirable that powers should be delegated more frequently to the Commission, with the latter being asked to submit stock formulae or formula [as the "Wise Men" suggested] for the principal eventualities, on the understanding that it remains for the Council to decide, on a case-by-case basis, when the appropriate conditions are fulfilled for recourse to such delegation of powers.
What I wish to discuss here is not so much the content of this paragraph as the way in which it is expressed. Having, in my comparative youth, undertaken a certain amount of research in the area of Community co-operation in education, one of the things I found was the difficulty which people had in understanding each other, not so much in understanding individual words and phrases, sentences and so forth but in understanding the concepts behind the languages and in understanding the quite important and fundamental differences and attitudes which were reflected in linguistic differences. The reason I begin with this paragraph is that it seems to reflect certain aspects of the Community which might be important when we come to consider the attitude of the public and others to the Community as a whole. That paragraph is not really English; it sounds like a translation from French or some Latin or Romance language into English. Many of the phrases used and the way it is constructed reflect more a French attitude rather than the kind of attitude with which we would be familiar in the English language.
There are two points which I should like to make in respect of this paragraph. They are related very much to the main burden of what I want to say. The first is that this paragraph is couched in language which is not the common English that the not so common ordinary people of this country, or any other English speaking country, might be able to understand and, indeed, want to read. This touches upon the whole area of the way the Community operates, the way the Community presents itself to people. It touches on the public relations aspects of it in that many of the most important expressions of what the Community is doing are put in a language which people look at and turn away from.
When one considers a paragraph of this kind, which is not the worst that I have ever seen, one understands what Senator Ross means when he says that the Community, to many people, is nothing more than a monumental bore. This is unfortunate in that, confronted with this kind of language, confronted with this kind of approach to communicating what is going on in the Community, a great many people switch off and turn away from what the Community is doing, and miss not only the important practical aspects, which in many cases affect them directly, but also affect the more fundamental aspects of what the Community is, and what it is doing in the world at large.
To a certain extent this reflects the tendency of the Community to develop into a bureaucracy remote from the ordinary life of the people. This bureaucracy to a certain extent is reflected in the flood of secondary legislation which is incredibly boring to most people but, in fact, when we look at it more closely and chip or batter our way into the substance of what it is saying, it is of direct importance to them.
The second aspect — and it is an aspect to which I wish to return — is the interpretation which might possibly be taken out of my reaction to this paragraph. It might well be said that my reaction to that paragraph is a chauvinistic one, in other words that I am reacting to something from a foreign country which is in some way alien or unintelligible to me, and that consequently I am rejecting it. This leads to one of the important things we must say here and try to keep in our minds.
Senator Lanigan used the phrase "a fair crack of the whip" and there are other phrases which could be used. What are we getting out of the EEC? What are we gaining from it? What comes out in the balance sheet of our relationship with the EEC and with the other countries in the Community? Are we gaining from it or are we losing from it overall? These are definitely very valid questions. The more we concentrate upon that aspect of it, the more we are pushed into a situation in which this becomes a kind of trading operation. We look at balances and we look at debits and credits, and so forth, and if it were to turn out that in any particular year, or at any particular time when we were under pressure — as might well be the case now — we appeared to be losing from it, there would be a valid temptation to say: "This is not a success. This is a company which is trading at a loss, or which is not paying its way. The sooner we get out of it and cut our losses the better". That is an attitude which many people would have as Senator Lanigan suggested and Senator Ross also took up the point.
It is important, therefore, without going into deep or too lengthy a historical analysis or treatment of the Community, to remind ourselves of what the Community was. It was an act of faith basically when we come down to it. It was an act of faith in a future markedly different from the past which European countries enjoyed. The genesis of the Community, as we know, was largely in the Second World War, an experience which most of us in this House did not encounter personally due either to age or to geographical location.
Nevertheless it was an experience of great importance to the mainland countries of Europe in that it brought home to them, and to many important influential people, and to many not so important or influential, the necessity for a new departure, a new approach to the relationship between countries and peoples. The Community was an attempt to cope with the problems which had been created by nationalism. I differentiate very clearly between nationalism and patriotism. It was an attempt to cope with the fact that, ironically, nationalism had brought about almost the suicide of nations. It was an attempt to approach the problem of the relationships of countries with something of a more positive and a more constructive nature. There has always been a certain tendency to regard the Community as a shelter, an escape, a means of defence against a wicked, uncomfortable world. This approach has often been characterised by the phrase "little Europe". People have even made reference to another concept which preceded it, namely, the concept of Festung Europa.
It has always seemed to me — and I can claim to have had an interest in European integration for some time — that the integration of Europe, the development of the European Community, must not be restricted to Europe. It must not be seen in a purely European context. It must be seen in a global context. It must be seen in a context of the global community, of a world characterised by disorder, and not only that but a world which, despite appearances, for a long time has been operated upon and permeated by forces, by organisations, by aspects which ignored national frontiers.
National frontiers are extremely important in the economic world, but the reality behind the national frontiers has been a world economic community. It is not organised. It does not have institutions, or only peripheral, superficial institutions, but it is the reality. One of the factors we must take into account is that, alone in that Community, even the greatest and the most powerful of nations cannot isolate themselves. This is a reality with which we have to come to terms and with which the founders of the Community tried to come to terms.
This brings us back to the aspect of the bureaucracy, the aspect of the secondary legislation: one of the decisions or principles taken into account by the founders of the Community was the realisation that international co-operation, or European co-operation, that was founded upon abstract principles or founded upon idealistic and romantic aspirations, had rarely, if ever, worked, and that, for there to be success, the Community that they hoped to see must start with the fundamental economic realities, must start with the practical. That is why, for example, they started with the European Coal and Steel Community which were the key industries, the key sources of power, the key sources of conflict on mainland Europe. But that emphasis on practicalities was always balanced or was always set within a context of aspiration of an ideal, of political objectives that went far beyond the details of the practicalities. One of the things that has happened or could have happened in the Community is that those practicalities, upon which the Community was founded, in many cases, have tended to drown, smother, or by-pass the aspirations. In our attitude to the EEC and to the Community we forget that the European Community was an act of faith in a broader future markedly different from and better than the past which brought Europe nearly to disaster.
I believe that in our approach to the Community we must do what we can to bring back to the people at this time — particularly in the context of these doubts, this anxiety, this certain cynicism and disillusion with the Community — the realisation of the fundamental aspirations behind it and also a clearer understanding of the practicalities. We must find some way of presenting the practicalities in a way which are intelligible, in a way which will show how European co-operation and European integration are realities.
I mentioned the concept of a little Europe. It seems to me that the only way eventually we can bring about some kind of order in the affairs of the human race, some kind of basic justice, some kind of democratic order in the affairs of the human race, is by eventually extending to the world community the better aspects of what we in western Europe have tried to do over the last 30 years or so. That is why I believe in the Community, that is why I believe we must do our best to revive the faith in the Community which our people had in 1972 and 1973. That is why we must back up and support the Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and all the other Ministers who are fighting our corner for us in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. At the same time we must remember that there is something bigger, more important and more fundamental to our long-term interests than the balance sheet which might at a particular time seem to be a little bit in the red.
The European Community impinges to such an extent on all of our affairs today that the scope of a debate such as this is virtually unlimited. There were in the the report which we are discussing references to every aspect of our own domestic policy as well as to Community policy and there naturally therefore arose in this debate a large variety of topics, a large number of questions, some of them dealing with broad issues, some of them dealing with particular points but together covering a great deal of ground.
In replying to the debate I hope that I can manage adequately to advert to the principal points that were raised. If I fail to do so I ask pardon in advance of Senators for whom I will not provide an answer to some query or point they have raised. I wish to apologise to the Seanad for the fact that I was not able to be here when the House first discussed this motion on December 17. I read that debate with great interest and I have listened with interest to the conclusion of the debate today.
I should like first of all to deal with some of the more general issues that were raised. One point that was raised by Senator Robinson and echoed by Senator Manning is something that I know has exercised the minds of many Senators. This is that the committee on secondary legislation — which is, of course, an important part of our whole system of participation in the Community — remained in abeyance for so long due to the occurrence of a general election. As was pointed out, this was not just on the occasion of this particular election, it had happened previously. We can all accept the point that some provision should be made to ensure that it does not happen in the future. The difficulty is that when the new Parliament assembles, and the full two Houses are finally together, there is so much to be done before the committees can get going properly. But certainly for a lapse of some six months to have occurred on those two successive occasions in regard to this very important committee is something that we should not allow to occur again. I am sorry if any delays in my Department contributed to this delay. It is necessary for the Departments concerned and also for the House to make sure that we can avoid this.
Other general points about the link between the Community and ourselves were raised by Senator Robinson and Senator Manning. The suggestion was made that after each Council meeting there might be some form of report to Parliament, I think this might be going a bit too far. This month alone I have already had two Council meetings and I will have another one next Monday and Tuesday. I would not like to have to come in three times a month to report on such Council meetings.
I feel that we might be able to do more in regard to the discussions in this House, however. We have not done too badly here in the Seanad; we had a debate on neutrality in the context of European Political Co-operation in December and we are now discussing this report. But, after all, we are discussing this report which was issued in July. We only started to discuss it in December. It may well be that we should try to find time when the next report is out to get at it a little more quickly, get down and discuss it while these things are still relevant.
This brings me to remarks of Senator Lanigan who said one of the things he noticed about the Eighteenth Report is that the problems that were there for solution were the same as in the Seventeenth Report. This is because they are truthful reports and I think we have got to face the reality. The probability is that in the Nineteenth Report we will still be talking about the question of unemployment, we will still be talking about the problem of inflation; we will still be talking of trying to find a way to relaunch the Community because these are the things we have been at for years trying to look for solutions. We have solved some minor problems all right but the big ones have eluded us and I think they will continue to elude us.
While I am talking about the debate on this report I would like to thank Senator Robinson for the tribute she paid to those who were responsible for compiling the report. This is a tribute which is well due. I would like to say that if any Senator has any ideas for the improvement of the report I should be very glad to know of them. What we want to do in the Department is to make this report as useful as possible to Members of the Oireachtas and to anybody else who is concerned with the question of development in the Community and our part there. I noticed one point which Senator Robinson made, that perhaps there were cases where we could follow through by giving the exact details of the implementation. She mentioned the particular point of the Irish instrument in regard to wildlife mentioned on page 53 of the report.
Another general point that was mentioned by several Senators was relations between the members of the European Parliament and the Oireachtas. Senator Lanigan suggested that members of the European Parliament should be allowed to attend discussions in the Oireachtas, take part in debates and give some account of their stewardship.
Senator Manning and Senator Ross also raised this and mentioned that they thought it would be a good idea if they were able to attend the Seanad. I think that the question of the disappearance of the dual mandate, whether that will be rapid or slow, raises this point of relationship in a very acute form. If we are to reach the position in which our parliamentarians in the European Parliament are not members of the Oireachtas, and few of them are, then I think we must make arrangements. That is why in setting up the joint committee it was instructed as part of the terms of reference which were passed here in the Seanad to look at this question of the dual mandate. There was the suggestion that such members might be given right of audience here in the Seanad. Perhaps this is something that the Constitutional Review Committee could look at. In talking of possible forms of a new Seanad it might be able to look at whether there should be a particular relationship between the 15 Members of the European Parliament and the Seanad. This is a matter that could well be studied in the coming months before we come back to this topic again both in the joint committee, the two Houses and possibly in the Constitutional Review Committee.
Senator Manning mentioned that he thought the Council of Ministers tended to neglect the European Parliament and not pay very much attention to it. I am happy to be able to tell him that a few months ago the Foreign Ministers — and the ten Foreign Ministers were present — met the extended Bureau of the Parliament in Strasbourg. We had a meeting of several hours during which we discussed the relationship between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament as an institution and made arrangements for meetings to be held in the future so that we could review the relationship. That gap there has been recognised. Instead of writing memoranda to one another we have got into the position in which we have come together in one room, probably still in the stage of talking to one another across the room, but we will get around a smaller table eventually and get real co-operation going.
Senators Manning and Ross both mentioned that there was a real PR job to be done for the Community and for the European Parliament. This is one of those things that seems to come in phases also. There is no denying the good public relations work which is done by the very excellent offices of the Community and the Parliament here in Dublin and by the Irish Council of the European Movement. At times they seem to be in full flood so that there is excellent information available and at other times not. Maybe we should ask ourselves whether we avail of these institutions that we have here in Dublin as much as we might. I would suggest that excellent information is there and perhaps we should take time to go looking for it rather than waiting for it to come to us. Senator Ross mentioned the bad image. I hope he was talking of Members of the European Parliament rather than Members of the Council of Ministers when he was talking about junkets to the sun in winter. I have been to Brussels twice this month already and all I found was that the snow clearance was worse than in Dublin. My feet got wetter walking the streets there than they did in Dublin.
Senator O'Connell brought up another quite fundamental point. Picking on a particular paragraph on page 109 of the report he used this to illustrate the difficulties of communication, the semantic problem that we have in a community such as this European Community of ours. It is not just a problem of translation, a question of changing word for word, or even of trying to parallel concept with concept. It is our common attempt to try to understand the whole context of the background of thought of our colleagues from other countries. We may think that the technical problems of trying to operate in six languages are difficult and expensive, but there is the deeper cultural problem of trying to get people from ten countries to think along uniform lines, not just to reach agreed texts but to get a unity of approach, and that fusion which will result ultimately in the creation of a new Europe. This is a problem of immensity far beyond that of the technical problem of translation.
A number of Senators mentioned the present discussions in regard to the mandate of 30 May, as it is called, which relates to the whole future of the Community. Earlier, Senator Willie Ryan and Senator Staunton were concerned about Ireland's interest in the maintenance of the CAP in the context of these discussions, which are now at a fairly advanced stage. Indeed, they are at a difficult and a delicate stage. Senators will be aware of the number and frequency of ministerial meetings which have been held on this topic. This is a measure of the tenacity with which the views of the various delegations, including our own, are being held. In spite of the difficulties, I hope that what will emerge from these negotiations will be a balanced package which will reconcile the legitimate — and I emphasise the legitimate — interests of all delegations, without undermining the Community's achievements, in particular those concerned with the common agricultural policy.
Senator Robinson reminds us that when we are talking of the problems of the limitation and manner of division of the Community's resources, we are talking of resources that are less than 3 per cent of the gross domestic product of the Community. She mentioned that what we really should be concerned with here is the political will to go beyond this. Senator Robinson rightly emphasised that we must see the common agricultural policy as part of the acquis communitaire, the common achievement, the common development which was central to the Community when we joined it. She suggested that perhaps it would be better for us if there were a change in the nature of the support which we in this country received if we moved over to income support rather than price support. There are certain advantages if we were to follow this line, but there are also disadvantages. If we did follow strongly the line of income support as against price support, we would possibly be turning our faces against the system which would allow our agriculture, which is still relatively undeveloped, to increase its productivity. That would be its main strength, that under the guidance of the common agricultural policy, its productivity would be increased. Our farmers would then be truly competitive.
Senator Lanigan mentioned that our farmers have suffered in recent years really serious falls in incomes. This is true, but let us not forget that one of the reasons for this great loss is something for which we all, as the Irish community, are responsible, namely, the level of our inflation as against the general inflation level of the Community. This is where we find ourselves in serious trouble.
Senator Willie Ryan also asked whether, in the present difficult economic situation, we should not consider strict limits on imports from certain non-EEC countries, thereby stimulating a demand for Irish-made goods and creating employment. He mentioned, in particular, the possible limitation of imports from Japan. I am sure that Senator Willie Ryan and others will appreciate that the small open economy like ours depends for its livelihood and its recovery from its present difficulties on its ability to export and to maintain exports at a high level. We cannot expect to export if we say that we are not prepared to allow others to export to us. This is not just true of us as a country, it is true of the Community as a whole that it is highly dependent on exports. We have a large deficit in our balance of trade with Japan, as has Europe as a whole. The greatest part of Ireland's imports from Japan consists of motor vehicles, parts for motor vehicles and technical products, many of these for incorporation in further manufacture in Ireland. I would hope that the efforts of the European Community to achieve an opening of Japanese markets — and this is being discussed with Japan at the moment — will in time lead to a better balance in Irish-Japanese trade by increasing our exports rather than by reducing Japanese imports. There is a further factor that we should not forget. Japanese investment in Ireland is high and is a very postitive factor to be set off, to some extent, against the negative trade balance. Not only is that investment high but it is an investment in high technology industry which allows us to compete with success on many difficult export markets.
Senator Ryan also raised the question of the availability of EEC funds for arterial drainage schemes and for the improvement of roads. We take every opportunity to press for increased structural aid under FEOGA's guidance system for drainage. It was mentioned in the introduction to this debate on 17 December last that the July 1981 Council approved an additional £10 million for arterial drainage under the acceleration of drainage works in the west. This brings the total EEC commitment for arterial drainage purposes to £15 million for the period from January 1979 up to December 1986. To date almost £8 million has been spent on the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme and £3.5 million of this has so far been recouped from FEOGA. Senator Willie Ryan raised the particular point as regards the River Suir. I am sorry that I do not have the answer for that. I suggest he go to the horse's mouth, the Office of Public Works, who determine the priority for arterial drainage schemes.
On the question of EEC funds for the improvement of roads, the annual Irish quota of aid received from the regional fund for roads is a fixed percentage of just under 6 per cent. We have consistently over the years pressed for an increase in the resources allocated to the regional fund which would give more money to be spent on infrastructure.
Senator Lanigan asked this evening in regard to the provision of regional fund money for houses. My understanding is that in fact housing is not regularly supported out of the fund although houses for miners can be supported under the Coal and Steel Treaty and we have indeed received some money in this regard for the Arigna area. When the money can be got we have managed to get it.
Senator Staunton spoke the last day on the size of the regional fund and the lack of development of a comprehensive Community regional policy. It is a fact that Ireland, Greece and the Mezzogiorno area of Southern Italy are the poorest and least developed regions of the Community and that the income disparities between these areas and the richer areas of the Community have widened since our entry. Here is a very real difficulty. The Community proclaims that it aims at convergence and, rather than convergence we have in fact seen divergence. In our case there are some reasons for this. For most of that period our national income per head has grown at or above the Community average. But also through those years our population, and in particular our dependent population, the young and the old, has grown even more rapidly. So we have difficulties not only of development but of demography that have hindered us during those years.
The suggestion is sometimes made that if we designated only the west for regional fund purposes then we would manage to get more money for these areas which definitely need this structural support more than anywhere else. In fact, the division of most of the quota of money under the regional fund is based on population. We gain in regard to our share of the regional fund by having the whole population of Ireland included in the sum which has to be got. If we were to say that only the west was a special area for regional purposes it would have a very severe impact on our share of the fund. The regional fund is used to increase the resources of our capital programme. It is for us, then, within that programme to establish our own regional policy and to give particular attention to the designated areas, which are largely in the western part of the country.
Senator Lanigan raised the specific query in regard to some figures on page 63 of the report where there was only £6 million being received where some £30 million had in fact been approved. These grants are largely for infrastructure. Anyone who is a member of a local authority knows the many years it takes to discuss, to plan, to approve and finally to construct many of these public works. As I understand it, this is why these figures appeared in this particular way. If we were to see this happen on a static fund year after year, we would think that the figures were seriously wrong. I hope they will be closer when we come to examine the next report.
Senator Robinson raised the point, in regard to the social fund, that it would be informative and helpful if Members of the Oireachtas and the public could have made available to them the information which is contained in the reports which we make to the Community in regard to our compliance with Community directives and decisions. She mentioned in particular measures to control discrimination. This is something I will certainly undertake to look into and see whether this can be done.
On an issue closely related to social policy, Senator O'Connell spoke this evening of education policy, and he was rather critical of the Community's work in regard to the academic recognition of diplomas. But he almost excused them when he went on to say how difficult and what a tremendously complex job this is, that it was just a matter of an EEC comparison. Perhaps this is an area in which the Community could do more. If we look at any area we can say the Community should have been able to do more.
Senator O'Connell spoke also of the European University institute in Florence and seemed to suggest that this is only a gesture, only part of the gravy train. I would like to assure him it is much more than this. The European university has been established now for five or six years. It is an on-going institution. It is an institution which is devoted towards co-operation in Europe. Its staff and its students are extremely carefully chosen. It is aimed at the diffusion of ideas throughout Europe. Even the staff are not allowed more than a limited amount of time so that as many fresh ideas as possible be brought into this academic body.
I have already spoken about the question of convergence. I would just like to mention here the point made by Senator Murphy on the last occasion. As I mentioned already, we have to be frank. The Treaty objective of convergence of the EEC economy is not being achieved. Nonetheless Europe is still a valid ideal in a world that has become interdependent, and I refer to the particular point that Senator Murphy made about the difficulties of controlling interest rates. It is a point which was echoed by Senator Ross this evening when he talked about the significance and the relative success of the EMS. Greater economic and monetary co-ordination between countries can reduce sensitivity to external monetary changes. This is something we are constantly striving for within the Community.
Senator Robinson turned to another area and mentioned that we were in danger of being hauled before the European Court in regard to a directive on company law. This is so. It may not be a very good plea but we are not the only ones outstanding in this regard — we are, in fact, one of six. And why is it that six of the ten have not found themselves able to meet the time schedule? There have been about seven directives in regard to company law. Some of these have been adopted. They are all highly technical. They require a very careful consideration, and in many cases require legislation, and we have found it very difficult to complete this examination and to draft the legislation within the time schedule. Some of the difficulty is reflected by something that Senator Lanigan said about the same directive on company law. The Senator was not worried that we had not brought them in long ago. He said he never wanted to see them enforced at all because he thought of the dangers of these proposals to our small companies and people operating on a small scale. The criticism which Senator Lanigan made of these directives is an indication of how careful we must be in looking at these from the point of view of our own position. We were supposed to implement this directive on company law before December 1978, so we are three years overdue. I hope the work will be completed soon.
There was some reference to the accessions of new member states. Senator Manning welcomed the accession of Greece and expressed some concern about the effects if the newly elected Government of Greece were to withdraw from the Community or were the discussion of this topic to interfere with the work of the Community. We would like to see Greece remain a member of the Community, but the entry of Greece has made things more difficult for every one of the other nine. The entry of Spain and Portugal will make things more difficult for every one of the ten. There is a new adjustment to go on and a new equilibrium has to be found. As happened on the accession of Greece, the percentage of Community funds received by us was naturally reduced. When Spain and Portugal enter the same will happen again. Whether this percentage reduction will constitute a decrease in actual funds will depend on the growth of the Community's own resources and the decisions taken by the Community in regard to their use. We are pressing for an increase in the 1 per cent VAT limit which Senator Robinson mentioned today and we have a voice in the use of the resources, whether under that 1 per cent limit or after it being raised. We will defend our interest and have consistently been pressing for increases in Community resources to take account of the effects of enlargement.
I turn now from economic matters, which are governed almost entirely by the Treaties, to the questions of European Political Co-operation which lie outside the Treaty frameworks. These were touched on by a number of Senators in this debate. Senator Robinson mentioned the question of neutrality in the debate held here on 2 December last and the Senator also mentioned the seminar on European Political Co-operation which was held by the International Affairs Committee of the Royal Irish Academy, also, I think, in December. The Senator said that this RIA seminar had given a clearer view of the problem of neutrality and she asked me if I would in my reply repeat these clarifications. It is getting rather late and I do not think I will repeat them now. I will refer Senator Robinson to her own references, to the debate of 2 December 1981 in this House and to the papers that were presented at the Royal Irish Academy. These will be published in due course and I am sure that Senators who are interested would in the meantime be able to get copies of the papers presented from the secretary of the International Affairs Committee of the academy. I think that, rather than go into a long discussion now, it is preferable to do this. Neutrality discussions seem to come up at regular intervals of about three weeks. There was one occasion when a radio interviewer said: "I know, Minister, that you did this interview on neutrality three weeks ago but would you mind doing it again?" So I would be grateful if I could be forgiven this evening.
Senator Manning characterised European Political Co-operation as a success and I agree with him. He also characterised it as a matter that needs careful handling. I certainly agree with him. It is a delicate area and we must operate skillfully in this regard.
On the actual items of European Political Co-operation Senator Lanigan raised here the question of Poland. He was very critical of the Community. He said that they had done nothing for Poland and that the only country with an expressed view was Germany which was worried about the debts of the Polish people. Both of those charges are unfair and I think both of them are wrong. We in the Community among the Ten have been considering the question of Poland with great care. If we wish to concentrate on only taking actions that will not damage the interests of the Polish people, that will not damage Europe as a whole, then we must be very careful indeed. The situation in Poland continues to be a major preoccupation of the European Community member states. The response of the Ten to the imposition of martial law and subsequent developments is being closely co-ordinated within the EPC and the Community framework. Members of the House will already be familiar with the statement issued by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten on 15 December. It was quoted in this House when we had a short debate on Poland on the last sitting day before Christmas. Subsequently, on 4 January, the Foreign Ministers met in special session to discuss the Polish problem in all its aspects and agreed on a detailed communique which called for the release of those interned, the suspension of martial law and a resumption of the dialogue under which Poland had been moving forward.
I reported on this meeting of 4 January to my Cabinet colleagues on the following day and the Government issued a statement condemning the repression of human rights in Poland and reiterating the main element of the communique of the Ten. Intensive contacts are continuing among the Ten in order to ensure a full exchange of information and the working out and implementation of a common approach to the Polish situation. The Foreign Ministers of the Ten have agreed that they will travel to the opening of the Madrid Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in order to make statements on the Polish situation at that conference which, of course, is part of the follow-up to the Helsinki process. We agree this is something we should do in order that we shall, in front of all the countries of Europe who will be present, countries of eastern Europe, the neutrals and the nonaligned, make clear to them our serious concern regarding the polish situation.
Exactly how events will develop in poland in the coming weeks and months is by no means clear. We have indicated in our communique that we look forward to the removal of those measures which were taken in December and to the resumption of a general dialogue between the Polish Government and Solidarity and the Church in Poland. We shall continue to press these appeals on the Polish authorities in the most effective ways open to us. These will include the discussions which we will have in preparation for the Madrid meeting where the President of the Council will speak on our behalf and each of us will follow up with our own contribution. We will continue also the discussions within the United Nations and its specialised agencies. We will, as time goes on, consider whether other measures would be appropriate.
The Middle East was raised also. Senator Murphy raised particularly the question of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the possibility of this organisation setting up an office in Dublin. We are not aware of a PLO intention to open an office in Dublin. With regard to our attitude to the PLO, we support the Venice Declaration of the Ten which is based on security in the Middle East for all States including Israel and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement. We recognise the PLO as a representative body of the Palestinian people but not necessarily the only representative body of all the Palestinian people.
Senator Lanigan mentioned the multilateral force on the Sinai in which four countries who are members of the Ten are contributing towards this peace-keeping operation for the evacuation of the Sinai area in accordance with the Camp David Agreement. When we spoke on neutrality on 2 December Senator Lanigan was critical of that force at that time. I indicated in my reply on that occasion the reasons why we as one of the Ten had no objection to some of our colleagues engaging in such a peace-keeping operation.
Senator Lanigan talked also of the Golan Heights in this context but this is a separate issue. The matter of the Golan Heights is being discussed at the United Nations at the moment. We condemn the attempts of the Israeli Government to legitimise the de facto occupation of the Golan Heights. Our attitude was made absolutely clear in the United Nations. Senator Lanigan further criticised the holding by the Council of Europe of a meeting in Jerusalem. All I can say on that is that we have a lot to look after in the Council of Ministers but we will leave the Council of Europe to look after itself, it is not our concern.
The question of trade relations with South Africa was also raised. I appreciate the concern expressed on this issue. I would like to explain to the Senators who raised this on the occasion of the last debate that it is Government policy not to encourage trade between Ireland and South Africa. Irish semi-State bodies do not maintain offices in South Africa. So far as the European Community is concerned, a substantial level of trade between certain member states and South Africa undoubtedly does exist. However, the Ten have undertaken to consider how the collective weight of the European Community can be used in order to influence South Africa to abandon the apartheid system. We, for our part, will continue to press for firm action to this end. The Community and the member states are naturally concerned to continue to foster relations with other African states in the framework of the Lomé Convention and with States such as Angola and Mozambique which do not currently adhere to Lomé but which may nevertheless be eligible for benefit to some extent from Community assistance. We have supported the giving of such assistance.
Finally, I should like to turn to a point raised by Senator Robinson. She made reference to the Genscher-Colombo initiative, the so-called European Act, and she asked what is the nature of this Act. To that I give a simple answer: I do not know. One of the questions we have to discuss and one of the questions that is being discussed at official level, I think today, is the question of what is the nature of this European Act. Is it a political instrument? Is it a legal instrument? To what extent is it treaty, to what extent is it not treaty? I made reference to this Genscher-Colombo initiative on 2 December and there have been no developments since. I have nothing else to add.
I am grateful to the Seanad for the debate that took place on 17 December and again here this evening. It is good for us that we should have this report and that we should take it seriously in the way in which the Seanad has taken it on these two days. I hope I have answered most of the points raised. We have taken note of the points raised by Senators and we will look into them. There is no need to wait for the six-monthly debate in the House here in regard to the working of the Community. If at any time Senators wish for information about our attitude to any Community matter or about what the developments have been in regard to any Community matters, I and the officials of my Department will be only too happy to provide any information which we have.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 January 1982.