Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 1972

Vol. 263 No. 1

Return to Writ: Mid-Cork. - European Communities Bill, 1972: Second Stage.

The Taoiseach

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Os rud é gurb é seo an chéad ócáid go bhfuil an córas nua aistriúcháin le bheith againn, ba mhaith liom tús a chur leis an díospóireacht seo i nGaeilge, agus ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an córas agus moladh a thabhairt dos na teicneoiraithe a chuir isteach é. Mar sin féin, os rud é go bhfuil an méid atá le rá agam sa ráiteas seo beagáinín casta, is fearr leanúint as Béarla.

There is also before the House, in addition to the European Communities Bill, 1972, a motion for the approval of the Treaty of Accession. I would propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission and with the agreement of the House, that this motion should be discussed concurrently with the Second Stage of the Bill which is now being taken.

I have taken the opportunity, in view of the technical nature of the statement in connection with the introduction of the Bill, to circulate copies of that statement. Deputies will see in the course of what I have to say, the need for the circulation of the copies, because unfortunately some of the language that I shall be using will be rather technical. I tried to avoid using that kind of technical language but I was advised that for the sake of accuracy it would be necessary.

The purpose of this Bill is to make the legislative provisions necessary so as to enable Ireland to fulfil the obligations which will arise from her membership of the European Communities and, of course, to exercise the rights which membership will confer. The necessary constitutional provision to enable this country to accede to the European Communities has already been made by the amendment of the Constitution which was approved by the people on 10th May of this year. This vote represented an overwhelming endorsement by the people of the Government's decision that Ireland should join the European Communities and their approval also of the terms of accession which had been negotiated by the Government.

Now that the necessary constitutional provision has been made, the way is clear to make the appropriate legislative provisions. The treaties governing the European Communities and the secondary legislation of the Communities must be given the effect, in this country, required by the treaties. It is proposed to authorise the making of ministerial regulations, where necessary, to enable the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation to be fully effective here.

The White Paper on the Accession of Ireland to the European Communities which was published in January of this year indicated in chapter 4 the constitutional and legislative measures which would be necessary to enable this country to accede to the European Communities. It was explained that, in general, the treaties provide only a framework for the achievement of their aims, leaving the implementation of these aims to the Community institutions created by the treaties. For this purpose the treaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community confer on the Council of Ministers and the Commission power to make provisions of various kinds by means of regulations, directive and decisions. In the case of the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, the power conferred is to make provisions by means of decisions and recommendations. In addition to conferring the powers I have mentioned, the treaties themselves contain a number of provisions which are directly applicable in the national law of member States.

Chapter 4 went on to indicate that, to make the legislative changes necessary, the Government would introduce a Bill after the referendum providing for the enactment into our domestic law of the Community treaties and secondary legislation. This is the Bill now before the House.

In discussing the actual provisions of the Bill, it is necessary to advert to certain provisions of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC and Euratom and of the Decision of the Council concerning accession to the European Coal and Steel Community as well as to the Act Concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties which is annexed to the treaty and the Council Decision. Article 1 of the treaty and Article 1 of the Council Decision provide for membership of the three Communities by Ireland and the other acceding countries and for these countries becoming parties to the treaties establishing the Communities, as amended or supplemented. These Articles also provide that the provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the member States and the powers and jurisdiction of the institutions of the Community as set out in the original Community treaties shall apply in respect of the Accession Treaty and Decision. And Article 2 of the Act setting out the conditions of accession to the Communities provides:

From the date of accession, the provisions of the original treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those treaties and in this Act.

In order to give effect in Ireland to these treaty provisions, the Bill provides that from 1st January, 1973, the treaties governing the Communities as well as the acts adopted by the Community institutions, which are known as the secondary legislation of the Communities, shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law of the State under the conditions laid down in those treaties. The Bill further authorises Ministers to make regulations which are necessary to enable the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation to be fully effective in the State.

It might perhaps be useful if I were to clarify for the information of the House the nature of the Community instruments, that is the treaties and the acts adopted by the Community institutions, which this Bill proposes to enact into Irish law. The treaties by which the three Communities were established have over the years been supplemented or amended by a number of treaties and other acts. In the Act concerning the Conditions of Assession and the Adjustments to the Treaties, to which I have already referred, the expression "original treaties" is defined to mean the treaties establishing the three Communities, as supplemented or amended by treaties or other acts entering into force before the accession of the new member States to the Communities. These supplementing and amending treaties and other acts are not listed in the Treaty and other documents of accession but a list is contained in the Appendix to the Explanatory Memorandum on the documents of Accession which has been circulated to Deputies. It will be seen that these instruments, many of which are of very minor importance, number more than thirty treaties, protocols, conventions, decisions and regulations. The Government decided that the principal instruments among them should be specifically listed by name in section 1 of the Bill which deals with definitions. Therefore, the expression "the treaties governing the European Communities" is used in the Bill to mean the treaties establishing the Communities together with the principal instruments supplementing or amending those treaties, which are listed in section 1, as supplemented or amended by further treaties or other acts. The net result is that "the treaties governing the European Communities as defined in section 1, are the same treaties as the "original treaties", as defined in the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession, taken together with the Treaty of Accession to the EEC and EURATOM and the Decision on Accession to the ECSC.

There is further provision in section I that any treaty or act amending or supplementing those listed in the definition which enters into force between the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, that is 22nd January, 1972, and the date of accession, that is 1st January, 1973, will not be included in the definition of "the treaties governing the European Communities" unless the Government make an order, to be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Thus the Bill ensures that no instrument of which Deputies are unaware when considering the Bill will be made part of our law unless both Houses of the Oireachtas subsequently agree to the addition of that instrument to those covered by the Bill. I should say that no such instrument is under consideration in the Community and that the Government do not anticipate, therefore, that they will be seeking approval for an order under subsection 2 of section 1.

In section 2 of the Bill the effect and application in the State of the treaties and the secondary legislation is set out. It is most important for a clear understanding of what section 2 and also section 3 are intended to achieve that a distinction should be made between the two categories into which the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation fall. There are, in the first place, those provisions of the treaties and the acts of the Community institutions which are directly applicable in member States without further legislative action on the part of national Governments. Secondly, there are the provisions which are not directly applicable and which require implementing measures by member States.

Furthermore, as explained in the White Paper, the secondary legislation of the Communities takes a number of forms which it might be as well to recall here. In the case of the EEC and EURATOM, directly applicable secondary legislation is comprised mainly of regulations which apply generally and are binding in their entirety without further enactment on the part of member States. Secondary legislation of the EEC and EURATOM which is not directly applicable usually takes two forms. There are directives which are binding as to the results to be achieved while leaving the national authorities the choice of form and methods. There are also decisions which are usually concerned with a particular question and may be addressed to a government, a firm or an individual. In the case of the ECSC, decisions apply directly in member States in rather the same way as EEC and EURATOM regulations, and recommendations apply indirectly on the same lines as directives in the case of the other two Communities.

In the case of provisions, both of the treaties and secondary legislation, which are not directly applicable it is left, as I have said, to the member States to decide on the appropriate means for achieving the prescribed objectives. Section 3 of the Bill makes provision for the implementation of these provisions by empowering Ministers to make regulations for this purpose. The powers conferred by section 3 are also intended to be employed for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of directly applicable legislation, where this is necessary to make them fully operative in the State. For example, the texts of Community regulations frequently state that member States are required to take all necessary measures to make the regulations effective. Such measures may, for instance, include provisions for the enforcement of the regulations. Sometimes the Community regulations themselves provide for their own enforcement by empowering the Commission to impose monetary penalties for infringements. However, where this is not the case, it may be necessary for the member States to establish their own systems of enforcement. Or it might be necessary, in order to give full effect to a particular Community regulation or an implementing Ministerial regulation, to repeal, amend or apply an existing enactment in the same sphere. Section 3 confers on Ministers the necessary power to make regulations to these ends.

The powers conferred on Ministers to make regulations, under section 3 of this Bill, are admittedly considerable. These powers are, however, necessary for the fulfilment of Community obligations and I am confident that Deputies will fully appreciate this. Recognising the extent of the powers conferred under section 3, the Government have decided that there should be provision made that regulations shall cease to have statutory effect unless they are confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas not later than the end of the year following that in which they are made. This provision is contained in section 4. The Government believe that this provision represents the best and most practical means in all the circumstances for enabling the Houses of the Oireachtas to have an effective voice and to exercise effective supervision and control over legislation flowing from our Community obligations. The application of section 3 will require the introduction each year of a Bill providing for the confirmation of Ministerial regulations. Thus, the opportunity will be afforded for an annual debate on legislative action taken by Ministers as a consequence of our membership of the Communities. I believe that Deputies will welcome the opportunity for such debates. It will also, of course, be open to Deputies to raise in this House matters relating to our membership of the Communities under normal Parliamentary procedures.

I should also draw attention to the provision in subsection 2 of section 4 of the Bill for the convening of the Dáil if it has been adjourned for more than ten days, at the request of a majority of Members, for the purpose of considering Ministerial regulations under the Act.

I should like to deal further with aspects of section 3 of the Bill relating to the making of Ministerial regulations to implement Community legislation which is not directly applicable, or to make supplementary provisions. As I have said already, the powers conferred on Ministers by this Bill are considerable. However, the Government believe that they are not excessive. Many of the Community provisions requiring detailed implementation are of a minor nature and would not warrant implementation by statute.

Ministerial regulations would quite clearly be the most suitable method of implementation. A cursory reading of the first appendix to the explanatory memorandum on the Bill makes this clear. Very many of the Community directives listed therein are of an administrative or quasi-administrative nature and to enact them into Irish law by means of statutes would be inappropriate.

Deputies may consider that some Community provisions are of such importance that they should be implemented by statute. Certainly, Community instruments can be distinguished on the basis of their relative importance. Some are more important than others and it may be that it will be found desirable, in particular cases, to implement by statute Community legislation which might not be directly applicable. This is not precluded by the Bill. However, the Bill now before the House is a measure of broad principle rather than of detail, and it would be inappropriate to distinguish between Community provisions by dealing with some of them and not with others in such a Bill.

There are a number of further points I wish to make on the question of the making of ministerial regulations under the Bill. Such regulations will provide specifically for amendment and repeal as appropriate, in accordance with the usual practice of our legislation. Furthermore, in the case of ministerial regulations made under section 3 as in all other ministerial regulations, our courts will be the ultimate safeguard against any attempted use of the section in excess of the powers conferred. The courts can examine and, if appropriate, declare null and void any regulations made in excess of the powers granted by the Section.

It is important also to remember that a small part only of the total body of Community legislation will require the making of ministerial regulations. Most Community legislation—mainly in the form of regulations—is directly applicable and, following its adoption by the institutions of the Community, the Houses of the Oireachtas, like the other national Parliaments of member States, shall have no function in its implementation, except when, in relatively rare cases, it is expected that it will be necessary to make supplementary provisions to give it full effect. The volume of Community legislation which is not directly applicable— particularly directives — is much smaller. In the latter case we shall have to make any domestic legislative or administrative provisions which may be required in order to achieve the results prescribed. However, the result to be achieved is normally spelled out in considerable detail in such Community legislation, and there is little scope, therefore, for discussion as regards the content of the implementing measures.

There is a certain loss of freedom of action involved here. This, I think, is fully appreciated by Members of this House and by the people. It was discussed in the White Paper on the Accession of Ireland to the Communities and received a great deal of attention in the referendum campaign. The treaties establishing the Communities assign certain powers of decision to the Community institutions. As a consequence, there are corresponding limitations of freedom of action at the national level, limitations which relate however only to the economic, commercial and related social matters covered by the treaties. There is a pooling of decision-making at Community level, and the corresponding limitation of national freedom of action is accepted by member States because their interests are best served by membership. We, in deciding to become a member of the Communities have similarly accepted the necessary limitations on our freedom of action within the limited fields involved.

I am confident that the House will accept that it is reasonable to provide that in the relatively limited number of cases in which it will be required, domestic legislation, the substance of which will in any event be decided by the Community institutions, may be in the form of ministerial regulations. As I have already indicated, this does not preclude enactment by statute in particular cases, and ministerial regulations will be subject to confirmation by Act of the Oireachtas.

Finally, I should like to advert to the question of statute law revision in the context of our impending membership of the Communities.

As Deputies are aware, a statute law revision Act provides for repeal of provisions of statute law which are no longer in force because they have become obsolete, or have been impliedly repealed, and which have not been specifically repealed. Repeals are effected under such an act only of provisions concerning whose effective obsolescence or repeal there is no room for doubt. In the circumstances of our membership of the Communities and the direct application here of community legislation, it is desirable that our own enactments should be subjected to continuous examination with a view to relatively frequent elimination of "dead-wood" provisions in this way.

The Government accordingly intend to make greater use of statute law revision Acts which are an existing feature of our legislative process and the Attorney General has been instructed to be prepared for such a programme of statute law revision and, indeed, to include within it a general revision of much of our statute law which is generally regarded in legal circles as being badly needed.

With regard to the motion for the approval of the Treaty of Accession I would refer the House to the memorandum explaining the provisions of the treaty which has been circulated to Deputies. The terms for our admission to the Communities contained in the Treaty of Accession and related instruments were explained very fully in the White Paper laid before the House in January last.

There are, however, two matters on which I do wish to comment. The first of these concerns the arrangements to be made for dealing with prospective Community legislation.

The Government have been considering the question of arrangements for the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine proposals for Community legislation; that is an examination before decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers on the proposals. Deputies will appreciate that this is a difficult question which raises a number of problems requiring the most careful consideration. Not least of the problems is the very heavy flow of proposals and communications produced by the institutions of the Communities. The volume of paper involved is vast and poses problems for any Parliament of a member State or any individual member of Parliament in dealing with it.

Some of the present member States, for example, Germany, have the advantage of an established system of specialist parliamentary committees which has to some extent facilitated the examination of draft Community legislation. However, even in member States which have such arrangements, we understand that considerable difficulties have arisen for the parliamentary committees in dealing with the large mass of Community documentation and in distinguishing the more important policy documents from the essentially technical proposals.

Other member States, for example, France and Belgium, have not established any special procedures for the consideration in the national Parliaments of proposals for Community legislation.

A further difficulty is the need prescribed by the Communities to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents. In any parliamentary arrangements made, it would, of course, be necessary to respect these Community requirements.

These are some of the considerations involved. I mention them at this stage to let the House know that the Government have certainly not lost sight of this question and that the difficulties that present themselves have been under examination. I have in mind that there might be consultation in the matter between the parties in the near future.

The second matter on which I shall comment is the meeting of the heads of State or Government of the member States. By now Deputies will doubtless have seen the communiqué issued at the close of last week's Summit conference in Paris. This statement was the outcome of much prolonged and dedicated work, not only at the summit itself, but also during the preceding months. The preparatory work, carried out under the direction of the Council of Ministers, had aimed at identifying the areas in which decisions and actions were necessary, as well as the nature and extent of differences in views on the best methods for achieving progress. This ground work by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance meant that the nine States approached Paris with a clear picture of the possibilities and the problems.

The conference itself was characterised by a spirit of friendliness, a desire to make substantial progress, and a determination to overcome problems. This keynote was immediately apparent from the opening statements, all of which sought to highlight areas of accord, rather than to dwell on sources of potential friction.

The first subject area related to questions of economic and monetary union. The decisions, announced in the communiqué, to set up a European Monetary Co-operation Fund, to define a common community position on international monetary reform and to effect the transition to the second stage of economic and monetary union on 1st January, 1974, demonstrate the will to proceed with the goal of complete EMU by 1980.

Progress on these monetary aspects, apart from their general importance in the development of the Community, is also of particular interest to us in that it is a necessary step to safeguard the framework within which the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community operates.

Progress towards economic and monetary union also however gives rise to the question of the undeveloped regions, since in the absence of specific countervailing measures, there would be a tendency for development to concentrate in established centres. For this reason, we, in common with some other countries were especially interested in securing progress on regional policy. In view of the importance of this topic, and the misunderstandings which appear to surround it, some elaboration on this question will be of interest.

Prior to the Summit, proposals for regional policy measures had already been drawn up. These were in two forms

(1) to use the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for regional development activities, and

(2) to establish a Regional Development Fund together with any related administrative mechanisms.

The initial budget allocation suggested for each of these two funds was of the order of £20 million per year.

The Summit communiqué affirmed the desire of the Community to give a high priority to correcting regional and structural imbalances.

It was agreed that the Regional Development Fund should be set up before the end of 1973. It was also agreed that from the beginning of the second stage of EMU—that is from 1st January, 1974—this Fund will be financed from the Community budget. I should add that in discussing such financing it was clear that all the member States were thinking of a substantial fund, with a budget many times in excess of the earlier proposal of an initial £20 million. Since the Community Budget for 1973 is aready fixed it would clearly not have been practicable to provide substantial funds before 1974. This latter date is also appropriate in that it ensures parallel progress in regional policy comparable with that on other aspects of economic and monetary union.

I may also point out that these decisions to take substantial action in 1974 do not preclude decisions being taken in the interim on the more modest existing proposals. These latter will be on the agenda for the Council of Ministers' meeting in December, and it is our hope that progress would be made then.

The Community concern to deal effectively with the human problems posed by development was demonstrated not only in the sphere of regional policy, but in other subject areas also. In the realm of social policy, for example, they invited Community institutions to draw up by 1st January, 1974, an action programme covering working conditions, training, measures for consumer protection, and other areas of importance in work and leisure activities.

On the question of external relations the Summit affirmed the desire of the member States to become a positive beneficial force in the international sphere. There was general agreement to aid the developing countries on a larger and more effective scale. In the realm of trade relations it was agreed to define a common Community approach as soon as possible, and the institutions are to prepare a report on this aspect by 1st July, 1973.

The many decisions taken at the Summit will clearly mean a heavy burden of work for the Community institutions. In addition to considering the effective functioning of these institutions, related issues such as a wider participation in the European Parliament were also discussed. Since the latter topic was the subject of some debate at the conference itself and of considerable comment elsewhere, I may perhaps be permitted to outline our position.

There was a proposal on this subject from the Dutch delegation. This was that the European Parliament should draw up a plan on the basis of Article 138 of the Treaty, to provide for direct elections to the Parliament, and that Council decisions on this plan should be taken by the end of 1973. We supported the Dutch proposal in general, but it became obvious that several difficulties surrounded these suggestions. We therefore eventually agreed with the formula which appeared in the communiqué. This indicated the general agreement to strengthen the powers of the Parliament, while leaving open the question of a date by which direct election would operate.

The blend of principle and pragmatism which went into the preparation of this solution was a splendid example of the Community's ability and will to forge a Europe which can command loyalty, admiration and respect; a Europe which can provide peace, prosperity and a spirit of idealism for its peoples.

Mr. Ryan

Os rud é go raibh mé i gcoinne an chórais aistriúcháin nua seo, nílim chun aon úsáid a bhaint as. I am convinced and so are the people of Ireland that the £24,000 that went towards creating this Irish translation system and the £7,000 annually which it will cost to operate it could have been spent on something far more necessary and helpful to achieve all the national ideals.

The Bill introduced by the Taoiseach today is, I submit, the greatest rubber stamp that was ever offered to this assembly. One can accept, as the people did last May the obligation to introduce into our domestic law the directives, regulations and decisions of the Community but that does not require this House—and the Government should not require it or require the people of Ireland—to give to the Government a rubber stamp not only to endorse what has already been decided before our entry but also to endorse every act done by a Government Minister in this country merely on the Minister's claim that it is necessary to implement the Community obligations by the use of the Ministerial rubber stamp.

A vow of chastity does not require an operation to create sterility in order to implement the vow but this House and the Seanad are being asked to render the Parliament utterly sterile in relation to a vast and growing field of legislation and ministerial and Governmental decisions which go far beyond the obligations of the treaties establishing the European Communities. We cannot accept the Taoiseach's suggestion that it will be adequate for Members of the House to use what he calls normal Parliamentary procedure to control or influence or guide the policies, decisions and actions of the European Community so far as they affect this country. Nor will it be sufficient to have an annual debate on legislative action taken by Ministers if the annual debate is to be in the form of the rubber stamp produced by the Government in this their first act following the decision of our people to join the European Community.

This procedure which the Government offer us is not even a charade of democracy; it is an open and complete declaration by the Government that they now regard Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann as irrelevant. I think it is a bit late in the day for the Taoiseach to endeavour to calm people's fears in this regard by suggesting, as he promised, I think, on several occasions over the last year or more, that he might have discussions with the leaders of Opposition parties to see in what way some review committee could be set up to examine the proposals which would emanate from time to time from the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

We have 132 pages in this explanatory memorandum of which I think 127 or 128 are lists of regulations and other decisions and acts of the European Community which are binding on this country. One would have thought that if the Government were sincere about wanting to involve everybody in this process they would before now have agreed to the establishment of an allparty committee which could examine the existing legislation so that the Members of this House would be in a position to explain to their constituents what was involved. But all we have is this massive explanatory memorandum that is a supplement to a two-page Bill and that is totally inadequate guidance in a country which, even if the Government of the day are not disposed to act in a democratic way, at least, surely, subscribes to the Summit Declaration of the nine heads of State and heads of government last week, which declared a determination to have Europe proceed in a democratic way to achieve the ideals and the objectives of the Rome Treaty.

No brake whatsoever is offered in the Bill. The suggestion that the regulations will not come into effect unless they are confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas passed not later than the end of the year following that in which they are made, in our system means that any Government commanding a majority in this House—and it is not improbable that any Government in this country would have command of a majority—can go through the charade of consultation with Parliament and every year automatically obtain complete endorsement for what Ministers have already decided on.

And again, the pretended offer of giving power to Parliament by enabling a majority of Members of the House to notify the Ceann Comhairle of their desire to have the House recalled to deal with a regulation, is something which is obviously worthless as long as a Government command a majority in the House.

Perhaps it is that the Taoiseach anticipates some difficulties within his own party which might mean that from time to time there might be a number of the Fianna Fáil Party crossing the floor. This is something we devoutly wish but even if that were about to happen and the Taoiseach had reason to fear it, I doubt very much if he would be providing a legal scheme to bring about his own downfall or his own frustration.

We will on Committee Stage be dealing in greater detail with these very glaring defects in the Bill and we hope that the Government may see their way to providing this right of recall to a smaller number than a majority. One could, for instance, suggest two-fifths. That would require a substantial number of Members. Certainly any proportion other than a simple majority is very necessary if democracy is to operate. It may well be that members of an Opposition at any time could be very concerned about some governmental proposal. Surely it is not unreasonable that if the matter were important those Members would have a right to recall the Dáil. The Government would still have available to them within the Dáil, most probably, a majority to support their proposals but if there was a significant body of opinion in the country, as represented in the Dáil, which was concerned about what the Government were doing it would be most desirable that consultation and public debate should take place.

We have seen in Norway how a people concerned about their lack of control, about their lack of involvement, turned against the whole concept of the European movement and it was clear from the Summit conference that the heads of State and the heads of government recognised the fact that this alienation was taking place between the common people and the governments of countries and the government of Europe as represented by the Council and Commission, in particular. This danger, which is certainly there, will not be met unless we not only pretend to give but actually give a power of public debate, at least, to our own parliamentary institutions. If that is not done, then we could find ourselves in very grievous trouble in years to come.

It is interesting to study the way in which Britain has dealt with this problem. Britain, which has not got a written constitution, has put a number of brakes on the regulations and on the orders in council which can be made to give the force of domestic law in Britain to actions of the Community. It is provided in the European Communities Act in Britain that the powers of Ministers shall not include power to make any provision imposing or increasing taxation. That is a very critical field, one in which if Britain can do it surely we also can reserve to ourselves this limited power. But, the Government have not even got the decency, have not even got sufficient sense of fair play, to leave to this Dáil that power which it has been found possible to leave to the British Parliament and still enable the British Parliament and the British Government and the people of Britain to accept the obligations of the Rome Treaty.

There are other limitations also in the British legislation. They cannot, for instance, create new criminal offences under such regulations. But, here, the Fianna Fáil Government, convinced always that they alone have the right to rule and that they should exercise this right away from the glare of public criticism or even public argument or public debate, decide that they will not allow any reservations, any restrictions, on their absolute power to do as they want as long as they can claim that it is necessary in their view to do it in order to implement the obligations which arise by reason of the European treaties.

It is not sufficient, I submit, to say that the courts would have the right ultimately to say whether or not the Government had exceeded their powers under any regulations which might be made by Ministers. The process of asserting a right, the process of challenging legislation, including regulations, is a very costly one which in our unfair social system has to be carried personally by any person making the complaint. That is a very, very serious discouragement to anybody who wants to question governmental decisions and governmental action.

So, again I have to say, and say it very sincerely—it may not be the Taoiseach's personal intention but, nevertheless, it is the effect of the Government's action—that the offers being made to control regulations by parliamentary decisions and debate, or to prevent abuse by people having recourse to the courts, are totally inadequate to preserve for our people the kind of involvement, the kind of active and useful consideration of European activity which we must have if the massive support which was given by our people on 10th May last is to be sustained in the future, and it will need to be sustained in the future if we are to avoid the disenchantment which can so easily breed very serious civil strife and result in social disorder and serious human distress.

The communiqué issued by the summit conference last week is one which gives joy to the people of Ireland. It must be recognised that a communiqué issued from any international conference has to be drawn up according to the rules of the game, which usually require such careful language that very few commitments are entered into. But, the communiqué of last week enters into commitments, very important commitments. It gives not merely indications but also the most specific promises for action in many fields. We are convinced, however, that the present Government are totally unprepared for this measure of reform to which Europe is now committed and significantly unprepared for the pace which has been set by the other eight member nations of the European Community.

We have pleaded with the Government again and again to get ready for the European race because there are promises of assistance from a regional development fund, while there are promises of assistance from the European Social Fund, none of these will be of any value to us unless we make our own efforts and our own plans. We will get very little money from Brussels unless we can prove that the money can be usefully used. It is clear from the Government's state of inaction that they are not ready to meet the demands which will be made by our people to accept and get full value from the undertakings of the European Community.

The European Community is not governed by meetings of Ministers or heads of State and heads of government. While the communiqué of last week was certainly one to encourage us, it would be wrong for our people to assume that because of nice words uttered in Paris last Friday or Saturday morning all is now well and that no personal effort is required. The EEC is governed by its Commission and its Council of Ministers and it is inadequately controlled by its Parliament. Indeed, one of the very reasons why we must urge strongly that additional powers be given to this Dáil is because of the inadequacy of the powers available to the European Parliament at the present time. We will need in the forthcoming weeks and months—it is not a question now of years; it is a question of weeks and months—to convince the controllers of the destinies of Europe of the special needs of Ireland. An emotional sympathy, which could easily have developed in Paris, will not carry us through when we want millions here and millions there for specific schemes to provide alternative industry where industry is closing down, to provide industry in areas which are becoming depopulated and provide industry and jobs in areas of the country where a totally inadequate standard of living can only be achieved at present.

We will also need to have our own schemes to more fairly distribute our own wealth, our own property, not merely an increased wealth which may be produced for what we have already. Here we have seen from the Government's inactivity in this field that they are not ready to meet this challenge. We in Fine Gael have always felt that one of the principle advantages which might flow to Ireland from membership of the EEC, were Fianna Fáil still in power, would be that they would not be able to sit back as they have for so long neglecting some of the most urgent social needs in this country. The conservative Fianna Fáil Party, who have been so reluctant to carry out reforms that are now almost antiques in other countries, find themselves bound by the communiqué issued last Saturday morning to accept what they would not be willing to either accept or to preach in this country. That includes new arrangements whereby the workers would have an effective say in decision making in the Community and with management in the running of their own business enterprises here at home.

I hope that whatever other lines this or any future debates might take they will not be conducted so as to have a repetition of the referendum campaign. The referendum is over and done with and a totally new world opens up. It would be very wrong if people felt that our life is to be entirely controlled by Brussels. That is far from the truth. If we fail in many respects in the future, it will be our failure. Our efforts, must therefore, be concentrated on our own Government, our own society, our own institutions to see to it that they are working effectively to make Ireland's case in Brussels, Strasbourg and in the other centres of the European institutions.

Our people would become understandably bored if the referendum campaign were to be continued. If we can, therefore, draw our people's attention to the opportunities available and get them to work within those opportunities in the future, I believe we will achieve something. We will achieve nothing if we persuade our people that they made a bad choice on the 10th May last. Even if some of us believe that they made a bad choice there is nothing to be gained by a continuation of crying or indeed of jollification over the decision of the 10th May last. It is now a fact of our political, social and economic life and it is that fact and those obligations which we must now accept.

The communiqué of last week certainly kills the argument of the referendum campaign—this is the only argument I promise the House that I will refer to—which indeed is sometimes continued nowadays that the European Community is a rich man's club without regard to the misfortunes of the less privileged in Europe or elsewhere. The communiqué of last week is, I believe, a milestone in European social history. It acknowledges new obligations to people in Europe and the rest of the world in a way which no international statement has ever previously acknowledged. This must surely quicken the pace of social reform in this country.

In relation to economic responsibilities we in Ireland must feel grateful that the heads of state and Government acknowledge as a first priority in the economic field steps to control inflation. We are delighted to see the Fianna Fáil Party at last tied to the obligation to do something about inflation, because God knows they have clearly been recklessly indifferent and quite obviously incapable of dealing with the problem of inflation here. Inflation is our most serious problem. Our rate of inflation is twice the rate of inflation which is creating a crisis atmosphere in Europe. We have been running a rate of inflation in this country twice the European rate for the last four years. Now at last we are fortunate enough to be tied to an obligation to control that inflation.

It is perhaps regrettable that the Ministers did not spell out the steps they propose to take to control inflation. One can certainly accept that it is not as simple a task as would enable a statement to be issued at 12.30 on a Saturday morning. The communiqué, however, acknowledges that in existing economic conditions the heads of State consider that priority should be given to the fight against inflation and to a return to price stability. This is regarded as so urgent that it is not left over to 1973, 1974 or 1975 but is to be dealt with at the enlarged Council of Ministers to meet on the 30th and 31st of this month. That ought to create for us in this country as well a sense of urgency. We cannot meet the competition of Europe if we allow inflation to run madly ahead, or tolerate it and accept it as we have presumed to over the past four years. No matter what the Council of Ministers may decide later this month—it is only a few days away—we here will have to control it own inflation. If we do not control it and effectively control it, if necessary by radical methods, we will lose many of the benefits and opportunities we should be availing of on 1st January next.

This communiqué of last week was a radical departure in some respects in relation to the several date commitments the Ministers made and this is something which should give us encouragement even as it imposes on us very specific responsibilities. The European Community has been called upon to produce a development fund by 31st December, 1973, and we are directed immediately as a country to prepare and produce a convincing regional policy. We have yet to see the Government doing this. The Community is also committed to produce a programme for industry by 1st January, 1974, and a new social policy to create real social justice by the same date. The environment is to have a policy produced for it by 1st July, 1973. All these are quickening the pace of activity and certainly creating immense problems for this country. Not only have we inadequately used the skills and staffs available to us but we are now to lose many of our best brains and most skilled personnel to the institutions of the Community in Brussels where they will have to act without having particular regard to the problems of this country. Therefore the introduction of this Bill and the obligations imposed by last week's communiqué may make the Government and people sit up and take notice.

The courtship is over. We now have the responsibilities of married life, with all the financial stresses and strains and new responsibilities which that married condition imposes. We have yet to see from the Government a sufficient conduct or even demeanour to convince us that they now accept the responsibilities of their married state. We certainly do not think that the blank cheque they are seeking from the Dáil today is an acceptance of the responsibilities which are now lying on this country, ...not merely on the Government. It is very important that the Government remember this or they will do very serious damage to the whole tone of our society and the moral fibre of our people. The EEC is not and must not be allowed to become a government-controlled organisation isolated from the people. The heads of State last week accepted that the tendency to develop in that way had done harm to the Community and would do more in future and it is a sad thing indeed to see the Government a few days after the production of that communiqué excelling even the worst excesses of wrongdoing by the Community ever since it was established and one would hope that when we come to Committee Stage of this Bill, the Government will accept some of the amendments which we propose to table.

In the vigorous action in the social field which the communiqué recommended last week the need for consumer protection was also emphasised and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, we are now the only country of the nine member States of the European Community which has not got consumer protection legislation. Quite clearly we on the fringe of Europe are going to have new articles put on to our market and we will have to take steps to stop Ireland being what it has often been in the past, the dumping ground of rejected products from Britain, America and elsewhere; but we will not be able to stop this unless we have adequate consumer protection legislation and institutions, and again we would hope that the communiqué of last week might awaken this Government who certainly have been deaf to the appeals of our people. The social programme also imposes an obligation on member States, as is acknowledged as an obligation on Europe, to reduce the disparities in incomes not only between large European regions but within countries themselves, another field in which the Government has singularly failed our people.

But amidst the sunshine, and there is a great deal of sunshine in the communiqué of the heads of State, there are also some clouds and I think that one of the largest clouds certainly casting a shadow is the totally inadequate way of dealing with the European Parliament. No timetable has been set for direct elections to the European Parliament. Indeed, while it recommends that steps be taken before 30th June next year to improve decision-making in the European institutions, it does not say that that step should be the giving of greater power to the European Parliament. There will be no direct elections to the European Parliament until the European Parliament has greater power and it may well be that the European Parliament will not get greater power until there are direct elections, but merely to acknowledge, as the communiqué did last week, that there are defects in Europe and failing to take the steps to cure these defects in an effective way, is not going to create the spirit of confidence which will be so necessary if the target date of December, 1980, is to be met.

We need to carry our people. We do not want to have a feeling of disappointment, a feeling of remorse, because of the decision taken last May. Were that feeling to permeate our people it would have disastrous effects upon us because we would find ourselves in an unhappy position of being within a Community we do not like, a Community we feared and detested, and at the same time unable to break the bond because of the greater damage which would be done were we to leave it. Therefore we must make our institutions more democratic in Europe and if we cannot do that immediately and if we have to depend on the willingness of others to agree with us in this regard—and from what the Taoiseach said today, I gather that it was only Holland, Belgium and ourselves who felt strongly on this—if we cannot convince the other six states to be serious about giving more effective power and say and efficiency to the European Parliament, we must certainly within our own control and in our own domain, make our own Parliament as effective as possible in reviewing the policies, the administration, the decisions and the regulations of the European Commission. Even if the Ministers last week found themselves unable to specify dates or steps for the strengthening of the European Parliament, surely they ought at least to have set out some guidelines as to how the European Parliament could be strengthened.

This is, I think, an area of very grievous weakness and we would hope, therefore, that this country would play a more effective part in the European Parliament than it has played in any international organisation of which it has previously been a member, which emphasises the need to have an allparty permanent European committee of Members of this House.

I mentioned earlier the need for this because of the mass of regulations and draft regulations which will need to be examined before they even get to the stage of becoming ministerial regulations. There will also be a need for a parliamentary committee on European affairs here in order that this Dáil itself can work as a Parliament and so that the Members will have some real understanding of what is happening.

We will be taking from this House, or from this House and the Seanad, before the end of this year—a decision has not yet been taken in this respect —ten public representatives to be sent to the European Parliament. It will be vital that those representatives be effective in the European Parliament, but they will not be effective if they trot along on 1st January next as junior freshmen without a clue as to how the European Parliament operates or without a notion as to the powers of the European Parliament or any understanding as to how the European Parliament ought to develop in the future.

This is a highly technical field. The fact that an explanatory memorandum of 132 pages had to be issued to explain a two-page Bill on this occasion emphasises just how complicated are all the procedures of the EEC and how vast are the ramifications of what the communities do. Therefore, the establishment of a parliamentary committee on European affairs is a need of extreme urgency and that committee ought to be established before the month is out. It is as serious as that.

The Taoiseach mentioned that the German Parliament has a system of permanent committees dealing with particular problems. One would think from what he said that it is only the German Parliament which has such committees. Maybe he heard it over a cup of coffee, laced, or otherwise, with cognac, while he was talking to Herr Brandt last week. Goodness only knows. All we get is this little morsel of brilliant intelligence from the Taoiseach but that alone shows the need for the establishment of a parliamentary committee here. Every European Parliament has these committees, not recently but decades ago. Earlier this year when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was traipsing around the American continent seeking support for our attitude in relation to the North, I went, when I thought it was relevant, to meetings of the Foreign Affairs Committees of European Parliaments. They have all had such committees for years, but here we have had no more than these empty, casual promises that the Taoiseach is so expert at throwing out frequently about consultations with the Opposition about doing something in the future.

This matter is critically urgent. We have not yet determined here as a Parliament how we are to send our representatives, how we will elect them. The Committee of Selection of this House have not yet sat to decide who or from which parties members will go, what their strength will be or whether they will go from here or from here and the Seanad. We have not yet decided whether they will be selected by this House or nominated by the parties. Totally inadequate consideration has been given to the consequences to representation in this Dáil when, as I hope, ten of our most effective Members will find themselves absent from here for more than one-third of the year while attending the European Parliament.

It may well be—this I strongly suspect—that the Government do not want a strong parliamentary delegation in Strasbourg and Luxembourg because they feel that not having been given adequate opportunity for criticism at home, members of the Opposition might be critical of their own Government in the European Parliament in such a way that it might cause the Government embarrassment. If the Government hold that suspicion I think it is most unfair.

I have had the privilege of representing this country in the Council of Europe, which was an 18 and is now a 17-member community. Several other Members of this House have from time to time enjoyed a similar privilege. I cannot recall any occasion when party advantage was taken by members of the Irish delegation, when the Government of the day were abused by parliamentary representatives using the international platform in order to criticise their own domestic government. There have been occasions when representatives of different parties disagreed on matters of principle or policy —fair enough, that is inevitable when there are different outlooks on social and economic matters—but there has been no action that I know of, nor have I heard of it, among our delegations through which Irish interests were in any way damaged by representation abroad.

I believe it would help to strengthen our own Ministers in the work they have to do if we were to send a strong parliamentary delegation. Our delegation will be a small one compared with the size of the European Parliament. It will be loaded, admittedly, because we are a small nation. We will have ten, Germany, France, Italy and Britain will have 36 each. Most of the effective decisions will be taken by committees because the European Parliament, like the Council of Europe and the national Parliaments of Europe, works through committees. Our members will have to attend at these committees, away from the floodlights, away from the public credits, away from notoriety. That is where they will do their most effective work for this country.

Here we are, scarcely two months away from sending out the most important parliamentary delegation this sovereign republic has been ever asked to send anywhere, yet we have not come to any arrangement about looking after the kind of representation our delegation members should be giving in this Parliament while they are away.

All this imposes a serious obligation on the Government to have a quick decision in this respect. The members of the delegation will be away for one-third of the year and for most of that time this House will be sitting. They will be absent on some occasions when crucial decisions will be taken in this House on matters of domestic policy and there will be a conflict between the obligations they must render to their country in the European Communities and to their constituents here. Nothing has yet been done to resolve this difficulty.

There will be the need adequately to remunerate our representatives in Europe. Because they will be away for one-third of the year they will have to concentrate all their efforts and attention and time on their return to looking after the domestic needs of their own constituents and this will mean that they will be fulltime parliamentary representatives but they will be paid on the home base much less than the lowest paid member of any other European Parliament. What is spoken of with some jealousy as the daily expenses paid for attendance will not do much more than make it possible for them to pay their hotel bills and subsistence.

I am saying this in public because I know there are many people in our society who begrudge the payment of an adequate salary to those people who accept this responsibility, but it must be done or else this country will be inadequately represented in the European Parliament. The powers of that Parliament may not be very effective today but there is a goal to make it an efficient body, to make it truly democratic so that it can exercise control over the Council of Ministers. That control will require that we send our best so that they can effectively convince other countries of the peculiar needs of this country. Therefore, I hope the consultations the Taoiseach has suggested will take place as a matter of extreme urgency and that before the month is out we will have all the details known, all the machinery established and arrangements made so that on January next, when the Irish representatives for the first time stand up in the European Parliament, they will stand up representing our people in a truly democratic manner and be in a position to efficiently discharge their duties while they are there.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy is splitting infinitives.

Mr. Ryan

It is no wonder. I have just returned from the Council of Europe where there are many split infinitives. Where so many different languages are used it becomes difficult to use either of the official national languages here. However, I shall study the text of what I have said and I am sure, with the leave of the Chair, I shall be given permission to correct it.

This measure as a Bill is primarily one for Committee Stage but I hope the Government will accept the principle we are putting forth, namely, the need to give to the Dáil a more effective say in influencing and even in knowing about Europe than what has been offered in the Bill itself. Sometimes the troubles and problems of the world do not seem to be so overwhelming and fearful if people have adequate knowledge of them. It is fear of the unknown, it is anguish about uncertainty which most disturbs people. The Germans have a saying that a bad end is better than no end at all because it brings finality and knowledge. It is vitally important that our people should know what is going on in Europe. If they do not know, their support may decline.

Last week in Strasbourg, the debate on the Summit was remarkable for the large number of parliamentary representatives from Norway who spoke. They expressed their disappointment at the outcome of the referendum in Norway. In that country nearly three-quarters of Parliament favoured entry into Europe but the people went against it. The unanimous view of the members of the Norwegian delegation was that the people went against it primarily because they could not understand it. It was too remote and they were worried about the unknown. Our people could have followed the example of Norway and that would have had a devastating effect on our national morale.

The Government have an opportunity by being more forthcoming in this legislation and by being generous enough in the establishment of parliamentary committees, not only in relation to European affairs but in relation to other national activities, including the economic and social spheres. If they set up these committees and gave greater knowledge to our people, the confidence and support which are so necessary if we are to succeed in Europe will be forthcoming. That is the principle of our approach to this Bill and I hope it is one that will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Tully

On a day like this when talk of millions of pounds is bandied around the House, we are discussing the most important step taken by our Republic since its formation, as Deputy Ryan has pointed out. In years to come I think the only thing we will remember about it is that this was the day we introduced that monstrosity in the corner with the poor chap inside looking as if he were waiting for Godot, waiting for someone to drop a word of Irish so that he can translate it. Before it was erected I said it was a waste of time and money and I should like to repeat that. I hope that it is ventilated adequately; otherwise the poor man will be suffocated before he dies of boredom.

This debate is somewhat unreal. Deputy O'Donovan has pointed out to me that we have here a very small Bill—four sections and an explanatory memorandum of 132 pages. I admit that apart from the first two pages the remainder comprises an appendix which lists various secondary legislation, as it is described, of the European Parliament. I do not want to harp back to the referendum but I wonder what would have happened if this document—as it should have been —and the Bill had been published before the referendum and if the people knew what they would have to face. The Government and the main Opposition party seemed to conspire to keep it very quiet. Deputy Ryan has pointed out that now the honeymoon is over and the marriage may not go so well. As representatives of the "gooseberries", those who watched what was happening and did not take very much part in it, may we point out that this sort of thing was bound to happen. People were given the impression that all they had to do was to vote in favour of the EEC, that they would not even have to get up in the morning because somebody would come in with shovelfuls of gold for them every day. The Labour Party voted against entry and we worked hard to get the referendum defeated but, as we are democrats, we are accepting that the people made a decision. We believe it was the wrong decision but it is our job to ensure that so far as possible the Government—no matter what party may be in office—get the best advantage for the Irish people.

I should like to know where are the copies of the treaties we are discussing here. Is it not true that if we had copies of those treaties they would pile four feet high in the centre of this floor. We are talking about something neither the Minister nor the civil servants nor anyone else knows much about. We have a big list here but I am sure the majority of the people of the country have not a clue what it is all about. Incidentally, I wish the Minister well in his appointment——

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear. He deserved it.

Mr. Tully

He will have a tremendous job to do. As Deputy Ryan has pointed out, he should make it his business to see that the names of those who will represent this country in the European Parliament will be announced soon. There is no point in waiting until the last minute. It will not be very easy to get people to go to Strasbourg or Luxembourg. People who are elected here know that if they are obliged to spend 100 days each year out of the country even their best friends will be anxious to see that someone else represents their areas at the next election.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear. That has been the record.

Mr. Tully

For that reason, if for no other, the Government should make up their mind what they intend to do about this problem. I agree with Deputy Ryan that it would be a tragedy if the only people sent to the European Parliament were those who would have no further interest in politics here, those who would go to finish their careers as politicians in the European Parliament. That should not happen because I think it would be a tragedy for us.

In order to get the best bargain and to ensure that our country's interests are looked after sufficiently the proper people should be sent to the European Parliament and the choice should be made as quickly as possible. It does not appear that they will be overpaid and this may be another reason people may not be very anxious to go. However, even if they do go, if the system does not change some of them will be wasting their time. It appears many of these documents have not an English translation. It is rather extraordinary we should be rushing to join a Community and agreeing to accede to everything they propose while English translations of documents which will be binding on this country are not available.

Although the White Paper may be exhausting to read, it is admitted that it is not exhaustive. I wonder how many more explanatory documents will have to be introduced before we actually go into Europe. I do not want to be too critical. I believe the Minister worked very hard but there was a lot of misrepresentation and there is still misrepresentation. Immediately before the referendum the IDA published a document which, according to them, showed that there were 5,000 new jobs just around the corner. I worked it out at roughly 100 jobs per fairly sizeable town. It seems as if they decided on 100. It could have been 50 or 120 but 100 seemed to be right. If you are fishing you usually pick the right bait, and the right bait on this occasion seemed to be 100 jobs per town. Therefore, 100 jobs per town, making a total of 55,000, was what they suggested.

We all read the report last week. The 55,000 jobs have disappeared and with them 4,000 last year and another 2,000 this year, they suggest. It would appear that somebody is doing a deliberate job of political engineering or that somebody does not know the facts of life. I do not know which it is. Something has happened and I should like the Minister, or whoever is replying to this debate, to give us some explanation as to what has happened. I can assure the Minister that there is a lot of unrest in the country over this.

We have heard a lot about regional policy and what it will do for us. We have all heard the wonderful news that came out of Europe last week. They are now talking about £20 million. I am sure it will be like the redundancy payments. It was found that if the redundancy fund or the social fund were distributed amongst all the workers in Europe who needed it, it would have yielded about £2 per head. Now, £20 million spread over the regions of Europe that need assistance at present would not produce very much. We are told that in 1974 things will be better. Perhaps we could be told what proposals on regional policy the Taoiseach sent over or brought over with him to the summit conference. Mr. Heath did this and has been bragging since that his proposals had a big effect on the ultimate decision on regional policies. I should like to know did the Taoiseach produce any proposals at all. If he did, surely we should know what they are.

I am sure the House is aware that it is necessary to gear many of our schemes to the EEC regulations in order to qualify for things under various headings. I wonder what work has been done in an effort to gear Irish schemes to EEC conditions. Has there been an examination of what has to be changed? For example, at present the employee and the employer pay 50/50 into the redundancy fund and the fund does not qualify for any money from the EEC because, if the State does not participate, no money can be made available to it. Has this point been taken by the Departments concerned and what have they done to ensure that support will be given to the various schemes here?

I believe that very little has been done. I believe that somebody has got the idea that if he sits around and listens to other people talking, even if it is in French and he does not understand it, it is quite all right. They are talking about something and they must be doing good; after all it is the EEC. I believe that the same situation has arisen as has arisen on the trade union front for instance. Recently it was discovered that, while there is a statement in the White Paper issued by the Government to the effect that no change will be made between now and 1st January, 1973, without discussions taking place with the organisations concerned, during the past couple of months there was a wholesale overhaul of regulations affecting trade unions and trade unionists in the EEC. In fact, it is almost completed. The Six are changing the regulations now.

When inquiries were made as to whether this matter had been brought to the attention of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions it was found that it had not, because nobody knew about it. It had not been reported to the Minister or his representatives. When an effort was made to get some of the documentation again the reply came back: "We are terribly sorry. You can have it in French but it has not been translated into English." This seems to be so ridiculous that, if I did not know the person who checked on this and found out what was happening, I would not believe it was true. While we cannot get the English version of matters which are vitally affecting the country, we are being very careful; we are putting a box in the corner and arranging that if somebody uses a word of Irish in this House it will be translated immediately. If that is our preparation for the EEC somebody has got to wake up and something has got to be done about it very quickly.

The Minister says there will be an annual debate on the regulations and that anybody who wants to comment can do so and that this gives an opportunity to the Dáil to deal with these matters. In 1971 there were 1,830 regulations on agriculture alone in the EEC, and 330 on industry. At any given time there are between 1,500 and 2,000 regulations in existence on agriculture. They lapse but they are replaced by others from time to time. In 1971 a total of 2,862 regulations were promulgated. Does the Minister or does the Taoiseach suggest that on a given day in this House a Bill will be brought in dealing with all the regulations passed, a couple of thousand of them in a particular year, and then there will be a two or three days debate on them. If that is the way we are to deal with this matter, those who say we will have absolutely no say good, bad or indifferent in these matters are very nearly correct.

They will be made by a Minister and they will be in operation for anything up to 12 months because it is within a period of 12 months that they can be annulled. The fact that they can be in operation for anything up to a period of 12 months means that the discussion which will take place will take place after they have been in operation. If this is what the Government think is the democratic way to deal with this, they must have another look at it. Unfortunately whether we like it or not we are now part of what we call the rich man's club. Deputy Ryan does not seem to be too happy with that description. I am sorry if he is not. He says that they are not all so rich and that these good people are now making arrangements to do something about the social conditions of people in the EEC. Of course I know that they are not very long in existence and maybe they did not get around to that yet. They made themselves very rich first and then they started to talk about something else.

At present, regrettably, factories are closing—what happened in Tipperary recently is an example of how they close—and very little help is being given even with this wonderful organisation set up here last year by an Act of this House, Fóir Teoranta, a body supposed to rescue those in difficulty by providing money quickly. I had something to do with a firm looking for money almost five months ago from this body and, so far, the firm has not got any money. If this is the reaction by State organisations here, which imagine they are geared to EEC conditions, then there is something radically wrong.

I do not want to go into detail about what was discussed during the referendum campaign. We make no apology to anyone for the fact that we, in the Labour Party, opposed entry to the EEC.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tully

We did a very useful job during that campaign because we put the facts as we saw them before the electorate. The electorate were entitled to vote on what they thought was best for them and for the country. I wonder how many people, if they had the opportunity of reading and understanding the legislation before this House today, would now agree that the decision was a wise one because, whether we like it or not, it does appear now that we are going to allow the European Parliament to make most of our decisions for us.

Deputy Ryan referred to the necessity for setting up a committee to look after our foreign affairs section. This would be a good idea because all parties could take part in such a committee. I had the experience of being part of such a committee recently— the committee dealing with the value-added tax and, while we did not get very far; as a matter of fact we got nowhere—we at least had an opportunity of discussing fully all relevant matters not alone with the Minister but with his officials. If the Government are really sincere about talking to the people through their representatives a committee is the only way in which this can be done effectively. What the Taoiseach did today is no use to anybody, reading out part of his speech, a copy of which had been passed around, and then proceeding to give a further long speech from another brief which he had, copies of which were not passed round to the other parties in the House. If that is the new procedure being adopted here because of our entry into the EEC, or for some other reason, then a very big mistake is being made.

The people are entitled to know what is being done in their name. They can only know if every bit of information available is given to them through their representatives in this House. That can best be done through the medium of a committee in which it is possible to have a far wider debate and in which it is also possible to have matters dealt with much more speedily. If the new trend means that all we can do is take whatever we are given from the Government side of the House the people at large will remain uninformed because the Government side of the House will give us as little as possible. The only reason I can see —I hope I am wrong—for the Taoiseach not distributing his full speech today is that he did not want other people to read the speech faster than he could deliver it because they would be at an advantage in that they could make notes for later comment. The Taoiseach forestalled that by not distributing his speech in full and a great deal of information which should be in the possession of the people will not now be in their possession until this Bill is passed.

The Government are making a very poor effort at preparing the country for EEC entry. It is the task of the Government to ensure that all possible arrangements are made to enable the fullest possible information to be made available to the people. That is not being done. I have given a couple of instances. As I said earlier, I have a high regard for the Minister; I think he works hard. The Minister should ensure that for the short time that he will be in this House every bit of information available is given to the people. I understand that when the Minister leaves this House he will become a European civil servant; I understand that is the description to be given to him. He will not represent us. He will be appointed by the EEC. But, for the short time that remains to him here, he should ensure that we get as much information as we possibly can and all the assistance we need. If we do not the country, poor as it has been over the years, will be in a very much worse position.

Let me refer for a moment now to regional policy again. It has been suggested by the Taoiseach that a decision was, in fact, made to provide a very big sum of money to be spent on regions needing help. It is less than honest to make such a suggestion because no such decision has been made. As far as I can see a relatively small sum is being set aside to be spent by governments on regional policy and we will get only a very small share of that sum. It is even doubtful—this is something which has not been cleared up even yet—if we can continue whatever kind of regional policy or assistance we have ourselves. The least we are entitled to is to be told the facts as they are and not as some people would like us to believe they are.

Every effort must be made before this Bill is passed to ensure that it is a Bill designed to suit conditions in this country. I do not buy for one moment the Taoiseach's comment that the courts are there to protect. If a regulation is made and somebody takes it to the court and the court decides against, what good will that do anybody? We will be in the EEC. We have decided to go in and, once we are in, we are stuck there, warts and all. Regulations! We cannot alter them when we go in and to suggest that it is possible to go to the court and have a regulation rescinded is just not good enough.

We, in the Labour Party, have given a guarantee of our fullest support to any efforts made to assist the country when we enter the EEC, but we are still very, very doubtful about the wisdom of going in. We believe the decision was not a wise one. In so far as we can we will ensure that no fast ones will be pulled on us by anybody, be he continental or Irish.

Earlier today when the Taoiseach was talking about a very respected Member of this House who had died during the recess the Taoiseach said that he was "a good European". I shall not comment on that. He was a good Irishman certainly. The trouble about it is that there are a great many of us who seem to be inclined to put our European status before our national status. Here is where we might easily go on the rocks very quickly because it is of the utmost importance that we do everything to ensure that our nation survives, not as a poor relation of a very much bigger European community but as a nation with a long, long history. When the Bill goes to Committee Stage we, like the Fine Gael Party, will propose amendments to quite a number of the sections in the Bill. It is an extremely difficult Bill to try to amend because of the way in which everything has been lumped together and I would suggest it was a deliberate ploy in an effort to make it more difficult to deal with.

The powers and the rights which will remain with our Parliament are things which we would like to have explained far more fully. While some people are talking about a glorified London county council for the North of Ireland it does appear as if we could have a glorified Mayo or Clare county council running the State here. It would be a sad day if that happened and we should not allow our national Parliament to be downgraded to county council status. For that reason we must get far more information about this than we have got from the Bill, the White Paper or the Taoiseach's opening address here. I hope that before the debate is over we shall have got an answer to many of the questions which remain unanswered.

Finally, might I ask, even at this late stage, that efforts would be made by the Minister responsible to ensure that the documentation, which is at present unavailable to the people of this country, or which, if it is available at all, is not available in the language which most people use, should be made available in that language. It is not just enough to list the documentation and say: "This is what we are adopting". We want to know where it can be got and we want to get an opportunity of reading it. Giving a short synopsis of what is alleged to be in a particular regulation is not enough. That is simply an attempt, in very many cases, to pull a fast one on this House. I do not think the Government should get away with that and I do not think they will get away with it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his appointment in Brussels and to wish him well. We shall miss his breezy presence here, but no doubt it will be used to good effect in Brussels. That brings me to one particular point which I would like to make at this stage and which was referred to by the Taoiseach in the course of a reply to a question today. As I understand it, as regards the principal appointments, other than the appointment of the Minister as the Commissioner and the appointment by the Government of the Chief Justice as the Irish Judge in the European Courts, the procedure is that the Community will make appointments from nationals of this country after taking into account recommendations by the Government in respect of individuals.

I understand that the Government have invited applications from persons both in the Civil Service and outside it who are interested in these positions. It should be clearly understood, and this practice should be followed, that appointments of this character, because of the work involved, should be made from the best possible applicants. For that reason it is desirable that there should be no suggestion at any stage that any appointments would be made on a political basis or on the basis of any form of influence. Indeed, in this regard, the position in Britain, where there was a much more acute conflict between the two major parties in respect of EEC membership, resulted in two Commissioners being appointed, as they are entitled to, one from the Government and the other from the Opposition. It might be worth bearing that example in mind so far as further appointments are concerned.

I want, in the course of my remarks on this, to emphasise what has already been said by Deputy Ryan and, indeed, what was said on other occasions in regard to the effect of EEC membership and the implementing of decisions and directives. I believe it is important that we should establish a Dáil committee to deal with this, or possibly consideration might be given to a joint committee. That is a matter for discussion but certainly a committee representative of the Dáil is necessary to consider the necessary decisions and directives.

It is obvious from the numerous decisions and directives that have already been made, as well as those which are likely to follow the enlargement of the Community, and even from the lengthy explanatory memorandum that was issued in connection with this Bill, that it would be quite impossible for this Dáil as a whole to keep itself abreast of developments and adequately to comment on such decisions and directives if it is to be undertaken either in debates on the Estimates for Foreign Affairs or in specific debates.

I do not necessarily hold that because other Parliaments establish committees that we have any obligation to follow them. Their procedures in many cases are different from ours, but with the volume of legislation, the ordinary supply Estimates that have to be considered each year, with the heavy burden of business that takes up the Dáil programme, even between now and Christmas, and then the Estimates in the spring of the year, and whatever other legislation is introduced, it is obvious that it will be impossible adequately to consider the various matters that have to be discussed unless a committee is established.

Immediately on our accession to the Community we should set up a committee of that nature. Such a committee would be of immense value to the House and to the country generally because, if one is to judge from remarks that have been made here and elsewhere, the people must appreciate fully and be informed adequately of the reasons and the thinking behind the various decisions and directives that will affect many spheres of life. In addition, as has been said already, the delegating of ten Members of this House to the European Parliament will tax the resources, physical and otherwise, of these ten people. They will be involved in work on a scale that will be much greater than anything that has been experienced in the past by delegates to the various international bodies of which we are members. It is estimated that the number of meetings they will be expected to attend will represent approximately one-third of the time of the sitting days of the Dáil. Therefore, there will be a considerable burden of extra work imposed on them. If they are to represent adequately this country at the European Parliament it will be of assistance and possibly desirable that a Dáil Committee be comprised of some of those ten Members.

The precise terms of the Bill are very limited. The Bill contains two matters on which I would like further elaboration in the reply to the debate. I refer to differences in this proposed legislation from the legislation in Britain. In Britain the Second Schedule to the European Communities Bill exempts specifically any power to make or impose or increase taxation. Also exempted under that Schedule is any new criminal offence with imprisonment for more than two years or punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for more than three months or a fine of £400 or, on a daily basis, a fine of more than £5 a day. These two provisions are notable in that they are to apply in Britain where there is no written Constitution. In this country, where we have a written Constitution, we have followed the practise in Britain in one regard, that is, that no proposal to impose a charge or increase taxation can be adopted other than that proposed by the Government. Deputies are familiar with the rules which prevent the allowing of any amendment that would involve a charge on the public purse. It has been a basic part of our legislation that very definite safeguards are laid down in respect of criminal offences. There is a case to be made for considering here similar exemptions as have been made in Britain in this regard. Committee Stage will provide an opportunity for the discussion of appropriate amendments.

A number of matters that have been referred to here already were dealt with at the summit meeting which was held in Paris last week. Perhaps the most significant decisions to emanate from that meeting in so far as the immediate future of this country is concerned were those relating to regional and social policies and to one or two others that I will refer to later. In the conclusions contained in the communiqué the stipulation of a precise timetable is a distinct advantage both in respect of regional and social policies. It is important that the Government should indicate the nature of the proposals for regional development here. During the past few years it has been said many times that one area in which it should be possible for us to find common objectives with the North of Ireland would be in respect of regional policy for areas west of the Shannon and west of the Bann. Without defining specifically particular areas it has been said that underdeveloped areas in both parts of the country had many common problems and that when both Britain and this country adhere to the Community it should be possible to syncronise regional policies in respect of both areas and by co-operation to take effective action to improve the standard of living and to improve development in these areas.

The setting of a specific timetable means that action will have to be taken by the beginning of 1974 to co-ordinate regional policy and that a regional development fund will be set up not later than 31st December, 1973. Therefore, it is important that this country would indicate clearly well in advance of that date what proposals are in mind and what joint action may be possible between ourselves and the authorities in the North of Ireland to ensure that where possible decisions reached are complementary and that arrangements are co-ordinated for the purpose of regional development in both parts of the country.

Of course the decision in respect of social policy is of much significance here also. The communiqué stated that it was considered essential to ensure the increasing involvement of labour and management in the economic and social decisions of the Community. It states also that the institutions, after they have consulted labour and management, are invited between now and 1st January, 1974, to draw up a programme of action providing for concrete measures and corresponding resources, in particular the framework of the social fund based on the suggestions made in the course of the conference. It went on to say that the programme should aim in particular at carrying out a co-ordinated policy for employment and vocational training, at improving working conditions and conditions of life, at closely involving workers in the progress of firms and at facilitating, on the basis of the situation in the different countries, the conclusion of collective agreements at European level in appropriate fields and at strengthening and coordinating measures of consumer protection.

At present there is widespread concern in this country at the lack of consumer protection. There have been repeated expressions of concern not only by politicians but by consumer organisations, by housewives' organisations, by bodies representing different interests, as well as trade unions and workers, at the failure to provide adequate machinery for the purpose of protecting consumers. In this regard it is significant that in the last couple of years, since the introduction of decimalisation, the very rapid increase in the cost of living has caused not only acute problems but in respect of many people, dismay a the appalling prospect before them of trying to make ends meet and trying to provide for their wives and families. This is now reinforced by the coming into operation in the very near future of VAT. The recent experience arising out of the introduction of decimalisation, as well as the other factors that have influenced price rises, has undoubtedly caused and is at present the subject of very great concern. In that regard I believe it is important that we should improve the machinery for consumer protection and generally involve this country in taking action and implementing decisions in the light of the recommendation made in respect of social policy in the communiqué issued after the Paris meeting.

In respect of the environment policy —and here is an area in which, I believe, we lag behind many European countries—our legislation is almost non-existent. The legislation that covers things such as pollution and so on is clearly inadequate to deal with the needs of modern industry and to provide proper environmental guidelines and proper legislative sanctions to ensure that these guidelines are adhered to. Here we have an opportunity that many other European countries would like to have. Up to the present our environment has largely escaped the acute industrial problems that affect more developed industrial countries and cities with much larger industrial areas on the Continent and elsewhere. We, to a great extent, have so far avoided, through circumstances, the worst effects of pollution and industrial interference with living conditions generally. It is, therefore, important that we should use the opportunity we now have and bring into existence here an environmental policy. The reference in the Community document is that the heads of State or of government emphasise the importance of a community environmental policy. To this end they invited the Community institutions to establish before 31st July, 1973, a programme of action accompanied by a precise timetable. It may be that because of the wide areas which this particular communiqué covers and the number of topics that were considered, that it is, in many respects, over-ambitious. Some of these decisions are obviously interrelated while others are entirely separate. To the extent that they are inter-related, action in one sphere will obviously result in action and reaction elsewhere in respect of other spheres. This applies particularly in the case of the one dealing with the environment. It should be possible for us to preserve our many natural advantages and to ensure that we will be in the forefront of those countries that value such a way of life as we have, improve conditions by taking the necessary action and complying with the directive which was laid down here to complete the timetable and lay down a precise plan of action for the middle of next year.

The decisions which were taken, of course, were all primarily designed to develop and strengthen the economy of Europe and the economy of member States. The decision which was taken by the people in the referendum last May was the right decision. It was the right decision taken after the fullest possible consideration of all aspects of the matter as put before the people. There is little advantage now in going back over the campaign prior to that decision because the decision was emphatic, it was clear. There is an obligation on all of us to see that we make the best possible use of the opportunity offered and take whatever action we can, as elected public representatives, as a Government and as a State, to get from the Community the maximum economic, social and other advantages for this country. It is essential, in order to do that, that there should be the fullest possible information available. That cannot be done merely by having periodic debates here in the Dáil on either an Estimate or a Motion. It is essential that we should establish a Dáil committee to consider the various aspects and to keep the Members of the House, as well as the country, fully, efficiently and accurately informed on the various measures.

This is a completely new departure for this country. It is a development of a kind that so far we have never had, from the point of view of political procedures as well as direct involvement in the institutions of the EEC. It is true that we have, since the State was set up, been a member of many international organisations; in almost all these cases we were represented either at governmental level or at official level and in the case of the Council of Europe and some other parliamentary bodies, at parliamentary level. However, where representation was at parliamentary level it was a few times a year at most, an occasional committee meeting or perhaps conferences held annually or at more frequent intervals. In the main, the representation was at governmental level or at official level. This, for the first time, means representation on an entirely new level. The Minister who has been in charge of the negotiations will now become the Commissioner on behalf of this country and then, as has been said, will become an international or European civil servant not directly answerable or responsible to the Government here. We shall be represented by our Mission and also represented at parliamentary level. It is essential to ensure that the public commitment to this is not merely full but that the greatest possible advantage will be secured from our membership.

As in any other international organisation and as in regard to any other decision affecting people's lives some things will not work out as was anticipated and others may work out differently but generally the institutions of EEC have functioned effectively and well for member countries. We now, with Britain and Denmark, are becoming members of this enlarged Community thus affording us a chance to use EEC funds for regional development and social improvements. It would be impossible, I believe, in a debate like this not to consider the effect of EEC membership on the situation in the North of Ireland. I have referred to the regional development problem. Undoubtedly, one of the acute problems and one that must be faced in any future arrangement about the North and one which must at some stage and perhaps in stages be faced is the problem of improving our rates of social welfare payments in order to bring them up to levels comparable to those at present being paid in the North of Ireland.

This makes it essential from the point of view of our own social welfare receipients as well as their counterparts in the North that our standards should rise and that we should avail to the fullest extent not only of the funds available from the Social Fund and the saving in respect of the agricultural subsidies but also of the terms announced in the Paris communiqué in which it was emphasised that the heads of states or governments attached as much importance to vigorous action in the social field as to the achievement of the economic and monetary union. They went on to suggest that it was essential to ensure the increasing involvement of labour and management, to which I have already referred, in economic and social decisions of the Community and invited the institutions, after consultation with labour and management, to draw up between now and 1st January, 1974, within 12 months after the enlargement of the Community, a programme of action providing for concrete measures and the corresponding resources particularly in the framework of the Social Fund based on the various suggestions made at the conference, and that it should aim particularly at a co-ordinated policy for increasing employment and vocational training.

In this communiqué and the decisions taken and in the objectives and aims announced at the end of it these are matters in line with our aims, economic and social, our aims for the general improvement of standards of living, for the purpose of developing industry and agriculture and providing a new standard of social welfare benefits and payments, and for getting the participation of all involved, labour and management, workers, employers and trade unions to combine and discuss at joint meetings the steps necessary to provide a higher standard of living and to provide the means and recommend various changes whereby these improvements could be made. Therefore, it is essential if we are to gain the maximum advantage, to get behind our membership of the Community full knowledge and effective participation on behalf of all sections in this country who are involved and concerned to get the maximum gain from it.

There will be an opportunity on the Committee Stage of the Bill to discuss necessary amendments but, as the Bill is framed, it is less than adequate in two particular respects: first, the fact that it appears that it is possible as the Bill is drafted for the Community to impose taxation here. That power under British legislation is reserved to the British Parliament. I believe we should reserve that power to ourselves. Secondly, we should also ensure that no new criminal offences are created except where legislation is passed by this House after the normal procedure for the enactment of legislation. It is important that these reservations should be considered between now and the Committee Stage to see if it is possible to draft the necessary amendments. It is also important that Government Departments, particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs or other Departments that may be involved, should make available without delay any decisions or directives and documentation dealing with decisions or directives of the EEC. It is impossible to gain support for or acquiescence in decisions if people are not aware of what action has been taken in Brussels. Nothing causes more frustration or greater resentment than not knowing what decisions are made or what action follows in respect of these decisions.

It is obvious, therefore, that the fullest possible information should be made available and it is mainly because of that aspect of the matter that we believe that a Dáil Committee should be established. It is probably not inappropriate that on the day when we are considering the Second Stage of this Bill the Taoiseach in the course of his tribute to the late Deputy Patrick Hogan referred specifically to his work as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. With the exception of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, it is probably the only permanent Dáil Committee that has ever existed. Other Committee are established ad hoc and in many cases they have done useful work, but the Public Accounts Committee which is specifically provided for—and the Comptroller and Auditor General is a constitutional officer—is a Committee which performs very useful and, indeed, essential public work.

Other countries have other committees. It does not follow that because of that we should imitate them but in the US they have a very powerful committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Many European countries have committees analogous to the Public Accounts Committee in regard to accounts and analagous to the Foreign Relations Committee or committees of that character to deal with particular problems. The present decision now affords us an opportunity of profiting from experience elsewhere and of using our own experience with the Public Accounts Committee and other committees here to establish a committee system, particularly in respect of this decision which will get from the House on the one hand and the Community on the other, the maximum advantage for the country as a whole. I believe that is the main desire of our people. They took this decision having considered all aspects of it and they want to see the best possible use made of the decision so clearly and unmistakably given last May.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I regret that I missed a part of this debate, which nobody likes to do when he has to speak, because I had to attend the Committee on the Implications of Irish Unity. There is, of course, a connection between the two topics and this has been brought out by other speakers in this debate and I should like to begin by referring to that.

I have here a document which was laid on my desk, called EEC Member- ship a Solution to the Northern Ireland Problem. This document—its providence is not stated on its face or at its foot—but I take it to be an official document. The Minister says they are not sure.

Dr. Hillery

I am afraid they are not.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The document begins with the words:

The possibility of EEC membership providing a solution to the Northern Ireland problem can be examined in three stages.

It reaches extremely optimistic positions—well, not extremely, but fairly optimistic positions about how entry——

Dr. Hillery

It must be a Labour Party document.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

From internal evidence, it is not a Labour Party document.

Dr. Hillery

I have not got it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I will have pleasure in passing my copy to the Minister. It seems to have come from some place. We do not know where. It is an interesting document. I am not saying that it is not a fair-minded one, although it seems to me a little over-optimistic. It is argued in this document and in other documents and in a certain number of official statements that EEC membership does in a certain sense already bring about the unity of Ireland or certainly tends strongly in that direction. This was put in a rather extreme form by a member of the Minister's party at Bodenstown a couple of years ago when he suggested that by entering the EEC we would be fulfilling the dream of Wolfe Tone. I rather doubt whether Wolfe Tone actually foresaw the EEC and I also doubt whether it would have met his condition of breaking the connection with England. It does not seem to be quite based on that hypothesis. That kind of presentation of what the EEC can do is exaggerated, not very helpful and during the referendum campaign our party warned against exaggeratedly high hopes there.

Now, of course, the people have decided to come in to the EEC, to the Communities, and it does appear that Britain and with it Northern Ireland is also going in. While we are a bit sceptical about how fast that takes us towards unity, at the same time I would agree that there is reason to believe that now that the people of Ireland have decided to go into the Communities, the idea of joint action working for common goals in the Community may be a better approach to better relations in this island than a merely insular approach and we certainly would not throw cold water on that. We would be very willing to explore that.

It seems to us that if that debate is simply deposited on the iteration and reiteration of two principles, on our side Partition must go; on the side of the Northern majority, Partition must stay, that is not a dialogue that is taking anybody in this country anywhere except towards increased violence.

So, I think that whatever possibilities participation in the Communities does hold out for better and closer relations between North and South should certainly be explored and it is a fact, of course, that this Bill and the corresponding Bill in the United Kingdom will bring about a large accretion of common law, law held in common both north and south here, and that is a positive thing, that if we can take the question into a wider forum, take it out of the narrow insular confrontation, there may be in the long run some hope there. But, of course, it is a long run because the real border does not run between two territories; it runs between people's minds, formation, conditioning, psychology, and so on, and that is not going to be changed by the possession of a certain number of more or less technical regulations in common or the fact of just belonging to a wider entity, but I do not think we should close any doors there. It is possible that in the pursuit of an effective regional policy in the Community we may find common ground with Northern Ireland which would be common also to both communities there and that we may be able to work on that together.

In general concerning this Bill, we should like to say this: as is quite widely known, our party provided the main democratic opposition in the referendum period to entering the Communities on the Government's terms. We have absolutely no apology to make for that. We believe that we rendered a public service by submitting the Government's proposals to reasoned scrutiny and putting that case before the electorate. However, once the electorate made its decision, as it did very clearly, the leader of our party and the rest of our party accepted the verdict of the people and we recognise that this commits us also to not opposing flatly consequential legislation which we recognise as deriving from the popular verdict in that referendum.

We should like to state that basic principle of our policy: (1) we do accept the verdict of the people; (2) we do not think that this requires of us either uncritical acquiescence in everything the Government propose under this head or yet merely sterile opposition to general principles on which the people have given their verdict. We still have very serious doubts about the implications of EEC membership for our people. We doubt if the picture is quite as rosy as Government spokesmen and spokesmen of the main Opposition party found it to be during the referendum period but we hope that they are right. We are not going into this in any spirit of hoping to say "I told you so". We hope that those who augured great benefits for this country and not serious damage may be proved to be right. So, we are approaching this whole problem in a spirit of continuing, constructive criticism. It seems to us that the whole question of what effect EEC membership will have in the long term on the lives of our people in this island depends on whether or not the Communities develop an effective regional policy. We have heard a lot of lip service being paid to regional policy but that lip service was paid in abundance even before the recent summit when there was much jubilation about this principle being accepted. We cannot just take that for granted and assume that all will be well because whether the Communities do or do not develop an effective regional policy is literally a matter of life and death for our people.

I would like to refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, who will be going to Europe as Commissioner. I would like to extend to him our good wishes for a successful, creative and happy period as Commissioner. During his period as Minister for Foreign Affairs he has consistently treated this House with respect. This is unfortunately a characteristic which we cannot always take for granted universally. He has tried to build a base for general support for the foreign policy which he intends to pursue and has had a considerable measure of success in that. We wish him well.

We also hope that his abilities in the Commission, which of course will be in the service of the Communities generally, and obviously not of this country, will be of some service to this country. We hope that the Commissioner dealing with the regional policy may be from one of the less developed regions of Europe. If so, the extreme underdevelopment of this country in relation to the rest of Europe would seem to entitle Deputy Dr. Hillery for consideration for the commissionership dealing with regional policy. We know we cannot set it up like that just because we want to do so but I think that hope might reasonably be expressed here.

I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to attempt to go into great detail about this Bill. We will be coming back to it on Committee Stage. We will have a certain number of amendments to offer, as the other Opposition party will. We are worried, and the more we look at this Bill, the explanatory memorandum accompanying it and the Taoiseach's statement at the beginning of the debate today the more worried we are, about just how prepared this Parliament is for the legislative effects of entry into Europe. We feel we have suddenly been plunged in at the deep end. The Taoiseach deals with that rather lightly in his opening statement today. He stated:

Recognising the extent of the powers conferred under section 3, the Government have decided that there should be provision made that regulations shall cease to have statutory effect unless they are confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas not later than the end of the year following that in which they are made. This provision is contained in section 4. The Government believe that this provision represents the best and most practical means in all the circumstances for enabling the Houses of the Oireachtas to have an effective voice and to exercise effective supervision and control over legislation flowing from our Community obligations.... Thus, the opportunity will be afforded for an annual debate on legislative action taken by Ministers as a consequence of our membership of the Communities. I believe that Deputies will welcome the opportunity for such debates. It will also, of course, be open to Deputies to raise in this House matters relating to our membership of the Communities under normal parliamentary procedures.

All that sounds very good but is there much reality in it? Is it really expected that this House has the power in its existing set-up, already more or less swamped by the burden of domestic legislation, working on a shoe-string with Deputies and even parties without effective secretarial help, nothing comparable to what exists in other Parliaments, to do what the Taoiseach states? We are barely able to keep our heads above the legislative water at the moment. Now suddenly this great flood comes in. We have all seen the 196 pages of lists of regulations which are about to become law.

Let us look at how few Deputies are in the House during this debate. Are we exercising effective supervision and control? How many of us can put our hands on our hearts and say that we have read this list of titles let alone say we are exercising effective supervision and control over all these instruments here. How many of us have even seen these instruments? Are all these available? If I ask for an item here can I get it? If I ask for Resolution 967, can I get it? Will the Minister's Department hand it to me immediately? What are we effectively supervising and controlling? We do not know where these instruments are.

Mr. Tully

We do not know what is in them. If Deputy O'Brien got them he would be all right because he knows French.

Dr. Hillery

They are in the Dáil Library.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

All of them?

Dr. Hillery

I have not checked but I have been told they are all there.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

All right. I accept it if the Minister says they are in the Dáil Library. We need to know more about these matters. This raises in a most acute form the general question of whether Parliament is not an obsolescent institution which more and more presents the facade of discussion over decisions which are in reality taken elsewhere in complex bureaucracies and technocracies and now will be taken in that way outside this country.

We raised that general question during the referendum. Are we abdicating a large part of our sovereign responsibilities and our responsibilities as a Parliament? The electorate decided they were prepared to take that risk but that still leaves on us the very important onus of trying to find methods whereby we, representing the people, will not become helpless spectators, or even people standing by in ignorance of a great flood of new law and regulation or newly adopted laws and regulations which will change the lives of our people.

These regulations which we have in great number here are mandatory. They are not just guidelines as to what we should do. They are actual decisions. We have heard annual debates here on various matters and we know to what extent they can become a formality. A period of perhaps two days is set aside in the year, the Opposition have their say and the Government have their vote. That is the end of it. A great number of decisions go through in that way.

We believe that there is a sufficiently disquieting quantity of unscrutinised, unexamined legislation. I mean by that that it is not given adequate attention when there are only a few Deputies concerned with it. A great number of Deputies simply take the whip and put it through. This is not unique to us and it is not the fault of the present Government. I am not making party political points on this. This new system involves a vast increase in the area of unscrutinised, unexamined legislation.

These are problems which we will have in common with Britain and, I suppose, with Denmark. Most of the countries of the Europe of the Six have a less strong parliamentary tradition and a stronger bureaucratic tradition than is the case in this country and in Great Britain. Therefore these procedures are perhaps less alarming to them than they should be to us.

We will have an opportunity to look at this again at a later stage. Some Deputies have already asked the Minister, and I add my voice to their's even though he might not have his mind as fully charged with the future of Dáil Éireann as he would in other circumstances, that he would ask his colleagues the question: "Are radically new parliamentary procedures not required if parliamentary democracy in this country is to have any adequacy in the reality of what will happen to us as distinct from taking part in the ritual of the annual debate?"

I believe disquiet on this is shared not only by those of us who favoured a "no" vote in the referendum but must be shared by a great many who voted "yes". I missed most of Deputy Tully's speech but he and Deputy Cosgrave asked the Minister how the Government propose to cope with this. We do not take what the Taoiseach said today as adequate. This is not effective supervision and control. You cannot, through an annual debate of a couple of days, exercise anything like effective supervision and control over this kind of thing, over thousands of regulations. You cannot even adequately look at them. We cannot just leave this responsibility to the civil servants in a Government Department. If we do it is a greater abdication of democracy in favour of bureaucracy than we have yet had or that the people would want us to have.

I suppose what we are groping for here—and I would like to hear the views of other Deputies on this—is the emergence into being of a kind of committee system appropriate to our needs and our system. I am not here arguing for the American committee system. The American committee system operates, and I think could only operate, within their general framework of the separation of parts where the Government of the day, of the President, does not depend on having a majority in Congress. That is what gives the American committee system its flexibility, a flexibility achieved really through a degree of irresponsibility. In a system where you have responsible Government— and I am not using the word in the sense of supplying applause necessarily to the Government of the day but the kind of Government which is answerable to Parliament through a majority—you cannot have exactly that kind of committee system, but I think a system of scrutiny committees in particular areas, committees of the Oireachtas rather than just of the Dáil, could serve a useful purpose here.

The kind of thing I have in mind is joint committees of Deputies and Senators with a particular interest in a particular field, as it might be, agriculture. To some extent the panel system in the Seanad is a pointer there, though it is perhaps a rather wavering pointer for various historical and cultural reasons. What I would like to see here is our taking up the slack in our system. We have a Seanad and the people pay for a Seanad as well as a Dáil and they are probably going to have to pay more shortly if the Government act on Devlin and the people will want to see that they are getting value for it and specifically, because I think it is a question of values, not an absolute question of how high a Deputy's salary is or a Senator's salary is, but what value they are getting from that, many people have doubts as to what, for example, the utility of the Seanad is. Here they all are, a lot of them, and they cost a fair amount of money, and I think we could possibly draw on reserves there.

Certain responsibilities which we have they do not have but the responsibility of scrutinising legislation and regulations is particularly theirs and I would like to see such scrutiny committees bringing the attention of the Dáil and Seanad to particularly sensitive areas and getting down in little groups to work on that. I do not think that Members of the Oireachtas should be required to do this on their own but I think that an adequate secretariat could be, should be and must be supplied for this kind of activity because otherwise our debate here, our annual debate of two or three days to deal with thousands of regulations is going to be a purely ritual and formal affair.

We on these benches cannot accept that at all; we cannot accept that as a means of dealing with this problem. The most urgent question which we want answered at this stage of the Bill is how the Government propose that the Oireachtas shall exercise what the Taoiseach has called effective supervision and control in this area. We are not satisfied with what he said in his opening statement on this. We are not going to oppose the Bill as a whole because we believe that in general it is consequential on the decision of the people in the referendum. We will, however, ask for a very clear answer on how Parliament will exercise effective supervision and control over this great mass of decisions which affect us. We are not satisfied with what the Taoiseach said about that today and we hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will give a very clear answer on it at the end of the debate.

Dr. FitzGerald

This Bill is designed to deal with the problem proposed by legislation by the EEC and, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, that legislation takes different forms. There are regulations which are directly applicable and binding on us and there are directives and other less binding proposals which require us to legislate by some domestic method to implement the key elements of such directives.

On the question of regulations, there is no point or sense in our debating them in this House after they have been made and have become binding on us in law in this country. I do not think anybody is proposing that. However, I think some people will be concerned that democratic control of some kind will be exercised over the legislative process in regard to these regulations which is at this moment in the history of the Community inadequately democratic. Let us be clear as to how these matters are dealt with legislatively.

Various bodies contribute to this legislation. The Commission proposals have the right of initiative. The Commission are not a very democratic body because their appointment is by the will of nine Governments jointly, each Government being separately responsible to its own Parliament and that Parliament to its own people. The chain is a long one and the degree of responsibility of the Commission, through that chain, is very limited. The Commission are also responsible to the European Parliament but that Parliament's power to resist the Commission is limited to cases where a two-thirds majority can be secured for that purpose. It is something that has never happened and is unlikely ever to happen. Therefore, democratic control over the proposals is inadequate. I withdraw "inadequate". It is limited, and being limited at that stage it is very important that we should have adequate democratic control over the legislation, the introduction into law of these matters.

We move from there to what happens to regulations after they have been in draft adopted by the Commission as an initiative to the Council of Ministers. Either by requirement of the Treaty or by convention these proposals are then sent to the European Parliament for a view, but that view is a consultative one. They are often sent to the Economic and Social Committee. I think the Summit decided that this would be done generally and not merely in certain cases. However, these bodies have limited functions. The Parliament itself is indirectly elected. It is elected from among the membership of the different member Parliaments and in a number of cases it is selected by a system which is in no way proportionate to the membership. Otherwise, the Communist Parties of Italy and France would not have been excluded for so long.

The Parliament itself which is thus indirectly elected has only a limited power of consultation. It can express its views which may be and frequently are ignored by the Council of Ministers. One cannot therefore say there is adequate democratic control in that set-up. The Council of Ministers are the legislature, the lawmakers. We see them, perhaps, as a governmental agency because they consist of people who are members of national Governments. Their constitutional function is not that of the executive, which in most countries has power to initiate legislation. However, they make the laws, they decree them, but as a legislature they are defective democratically in that they themselves are not elected democratically but are the representatives of Governments which are then responsible back to Parliament which is then responsible back to the people.

At each stage in this chain the system is inadequately democratic and the system of control over the making of regulations is unsatisfactory. I think that is common ground, something which many of us have been concerned about and something about which we on this side of the House were very frank during the EEC campaign. It is important that we should be so and that people should not be deluded in this matter.

The question then arises of how can we best tackle this, of how we can best improve democratic control. There are two channels. One would be to try to assert the right of national Parliaments to play a greater role in the formulation of such regulations. The other would be so to strengthen the European Parliament and so to increase its representativeness of the peoples of Europe as to give to it an adequate legislative function which as a parliament it should have. We could pursue either or both of these courses and I think there are people who would seek to pursue both, but the frustration caused by the slowness with which Governments have tackled this problem of giving the European Parliament adequate powers and making it adequately representative has made many people despair of progress on this front. This in turn has led to a certain feeling that if we are not to get anywhere on that front in the foreseeable future then, if we are to have adequate democratic control over legislation which is to be binding on this country, the only way we can have it is through our Parliament at least being allowed to express its point of view before the regulations come into law. I think that is an understandable reaction.

I am not however sure it is a wise one. I think there could be a danger here. If we set up such a mechanism through which draft regulations would be brought before this House or before a Committee of this House, and if that mechanism became defective, it would take the feet from under pressure for the reform of the European Parliament. I would fear lest a certain complacent self-satisfaction on the part of national parliaments at the fact that they had required a role in the formulation of these proposals through consultation at draft stage might induce them and parliamentarians to reduce this pressure to turn the European Parliament into a genuine legislature, and I would be concerned lest anything we would do in this House would have that effect.

The point is that the role we could play in the formulation of these regulations at that point could only be a consultative one and it does not seem to me that we could adequately reinforce democratic control by adding to the consultative role of the European Parliament a consultative role for national Parliaments in respect of regulations, thus having two processes of consultation but no process of democratic legislation. I would fear lest the pressure to have a reformed European Parliament would in that way be reduced.

It seems to me that what we should do in respect of regulations is not to try to diversify the form of consultation, which is inadequate, but to insist in a way we have not yet insisted that the European Parliament would become, both in its method of election and in its powers and functions, a genuine democratic legislature.

Here I must express some disappointment in regard to the Summit and at the Irish Government's role at the Summit. Here I must reserve judgment until I hear more. I regret I was unable to remain in the House for the latter part of the Taoiseach's speech. I therefore speak at the disadvantage of not being clear about how much he told the House of his role and that of his colleagues at the Summit on this issue. Perhaps what I may say on this will be misguided or misinformed. I accept that. I had to speak now because I was called on to do so and nobody else seemed to be offering. Because of that I have not had time to inform myself adequately on this point.

However, from simply reading the newspapers and talking to journalists who were at the Summit I have not any information that the Irish representatives raised or pressed this issue of the reform of the European Parliament. Perhaps they did and if so I should like to be told that by the Minister. We have heard of the magnificent defence of this principle by the Dutch Prime Minister, who argued long into the night and who held up the drafting of the communiqué. None of the newspapers told us about any such dramatic intervention by the Irish representatives and it is unsatisfactory if the Taoiseach did not dwell on this need. It would be unsatisfactory if we did not pursue this principle as energetically as possible in order to achieve the democratic development of the Community. I hope the Minister will tell us of the position we took at the Summit and of how strongly we supported it.

Two separate issues arise here. One is the question of direct elections and the other relates to the powers of Parliament. Both are important from the point of view of democratic control but for us the former has a special importance and this is beginning to be understood by most people engaged in politics here. The special importance arises from the fact that our method of election is unique within the Community. There is no other country within the Community which has a system in which the people are given a free and uninhibited choice between members of the same party. This is our glory and, at times, is the great irritation in the democratic parties here. It can cause problems for individuals in constituencies when undue competitiveness occurs within a party rather than between parties. However, that is what we have and the people on two occasions have endorsed the system.

If a Deputy becomes a member of the European Parliament—and this applies to Senators also—and if he plays the role we would wish him to play, if he becomes an active member of the committees of that Parliament, his absences from this country will be so prolonged that in a purely competitive position and in an election in which his work in Europe may not count in his favour, but where he has to face his colleague who has not left the country, he is liable to suffer. We will face a serious problem in persuading sufficient Members of this House who are likely to seek re-election to enter the European Parliament. We do not want all of our ten European members to be people who are about to retire from politics but it will be difficult to get people who want to be re-elected to go to the European Parliament where their energies will be so absorbed that their absences from this country will be noted. We can recall at least one Minister for Foreign Affairs who lost out by his absences and who, in time, was not re-elected to this House. I think other Ministers for Foreign Affairs to some degree have suffered in their electoral popularity although I do not refer to the present incumbent who seems fairly safe in Clare for as long as he remains there. However, other Ministers have felt a certain chill wind blowing from the people because they spent too long in New York. Deputies who have to spend an inordinate amount of time outside this country will find themselves in difficulties.

In other countries there is the single seat system which obtains in Britain, or there is a list system of some kind under which the parties are able to give special preference to their own nominee on the list. Consequently, if one of their men spends his time in Brussels or Luxembourg they can put him at the top of the list and, although the public may express preferences between him and other people, the inherent bias in the list system enables the party to ensure that the man who does his duty in Europe will not suffer as a result. We do not have this system and, therefore, there is a strong practical reason for us to press for direct elections, a reason which is understood and shared by all parties in this House. I should like to know how strongly our Government feel about this.

I recall asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs the attitude of the Government on this matter and, in terms of total parliamentary propriety, he told me he was not able to say because this was a matter entirely for the House. I asked him how the House could express its communal will on this subject and on this he seemed somewhat vague. Despite that, the Taoiseach was not inhibited in going to Brussels and saying what he thought and I believe he spoke for the Irish people. I believe the views he expressed were those we share although apparently he must have arrived at them by looking into his heart in order to see what the Dáil Members were thinking because, despite the suggestion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Dáil was not consulted on this matter.

I should like to hear the Government's view on the powers of Parliament. We are in a curious position in that we do not know what the Government are thinking, we do not know their attitude on this. The Government has told us that it is a matter for the Dáil but the Dáil is not allowed to discuss it. There was no debate on the EEC before the recess although I pressed that we should have a debate so that we would have some discussion of the Government's attitude at the Summit. On this vital issue of democratic control we have never heard a clear statement from the Government of what they think should be done to give the European Parliament adequate power and what timetable should be fixed. Although we have no other evidence on the matter, perhaps the heads of State of the eight European countries have heard the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs discourse eloquently on this subject in Paris last week but we have not been told what was said. Whatever about democratic control in Europe there is very little democratic control here at the moment on this issue. The Government have a duty, as a minimum, to tell us what is their policy and, as a maximum, to consult the House and see what their policy should be. I do not think that is asking too much but at least we should be told what was the Government's policy in Paris. Why should this be a matter of mystery? Why should we not know our own Government's policy——

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy was not in the House. It is not fair that he should blame the Taoiseach when he was not present.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Taoiseach explained in detail the line we took, if he explained where we stood——

Dr. Hillery

He explained the position.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Taoiseach explained where we stand on particular clauses of the Vedel Report and at what stage we think increased power should be given, if he discoursed on how rapidly we should move to legislative powers——

Dr. Hillery

I do not think it is fair that the Deputy should go as far as he did when he was not in the House. That is not good for Parliament and it undermines the co-operation we might have here if someone who was not present can come in and say critical things about a speech he did not hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not think the Minister has been listening. I have said that we were in the position that the Taoiseach and his Ministers went to Paris without telling the people their position on this issue—not a murmur reached us. Until this afternoon we did not know what he said there. We are grateful for that small mercy even now but we have damn little democratic control if we only hear about it a week later. If, in fact, he told us in detail his views on the process by which in time the European Parliament should acquire the role of a genuine legislature, if he discussed the Vedel Report and told us about the timetable and process in which we should reach it—I am glad he did it at this stage—if the Minister is suggesting he did that——

Dr. Hillery

I am not saying he did. The Deputy is now on another hypothesis. The Deputy should attend the House.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy has not left this House since he entered it at 3 p.m. However, he has not been in this Chamber throughout the period, nor have certain other people because we have other duties to attend to.

Dr. Hillery

Perhaps I should say the Deputy should not make a speech on a hypothesis. It is not necessary.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Minister is saying the Taoiseach gave us these details I am grateful but, from the Minister's tone and comments in the last minute or so, I gather I was unduly generous to the Taoiseach in suggesting that he developed this them in the detail I propounded. Therefore, I may have been correct in suggesting that the House still does not know any details of the Government's policy. At best, we certainly did not know it until one week after the Summit and I regard that as totally unsatisfactory.

At this stage we should be putting the emphasis not so much on this House discussing in advance draft regulations but on getting to the stage where we exercise as a people, with the other peoples in Europe, democratic control over regulations. It will be the legislature elected by the people of Europe who will determine these regulations. That should be our aim and objective.

The real difficulty arises with regard to directives. In his speech the Taoiseach tended to diminish or dismiss this problem. At one point he suggested the amount of leeway left to us in devising legislation to meet the requirements of directives of the EEC and the associated Communities was limited. In a sense he seemed to suggest there was not much point in this House having a role to play because the legislation would have to follow so closely on the directives that there was not much leeway or freedom for us to make up our own mind. I am not convinced by that argument. I realise that directives are laid down in terms which settle the general principles of the legislation but the reason they are directives and not regulations is the clear recognition by the Ministers when they are legislating in this way that the area in which they are legislating is one that needs, within the limits of the general principles, freedom of action by the national governments. That makes me rather suspicious of the Taoiseach's argument that the leeway is so small it does not matter much what legislative role we have. Where the Ministers of these countries decide not to operate by way of regulation but by way of directives so that we shall have freedom to legislate, we should not in this House inhibit ourselves in respect of that freedom which the legislature of the EEC in the form of the Council of Ministers has given to us. We should exercise that freedom as fully as possible.

That does not mean, of course, that every directive should be a matter for legislation in the form of a statute of this House. In many instances, as the Taoiseach very properly said, the matters concerned are of such a character, and involve such administrative detail, that the appropriate method of action for us is by way of a domestic regulation or order made by a Minister rather than by way of an Act of this House. This we accept. I would accept also that it is not easy to decide in advance as between cases where legislation is desirable and cases where orders are desirable. I do not think we can lay down rules or criteria for this. Some flexibility of judgment must be left to the Government of the day to decide between the different ways of legislating in respect of directives or, indeed, decisions or, in the case of the Coal and Steel Community, recommendations.

What I am concerned about is that the Government by the way they have drafted this Bill have sought to emasculate Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann in these matters because they have created a situation in which the Government have the power to act by order—and this seems to us appropriate—but these orders may not be challenged in this House if the Government are slick enough to bring them in during a recess period. In those circumstances this House can have no say in the matter unless a majority demand the recall of the House and that majority would, of course, be the Government. It could not be anything else.

There is a phoney provision in this Bill designed to suggest that this House would have some say in the matter and that this House could consider a directive where they thought it appropriate; discuss it and decide whether they liked it in that form. In fact, of course, this House has no such power. The Bill is drafted in a curious way to deprive the House of this power. All the Government have to do is to introduce the relevant orders in respect of directives of the Community at a point when the House has gone into recess and ensure that none of their TD's join with the Opposition in recalling the House —not too difficult a problem, I suspect, in normal circumstances or, indeed, in virtually any circumstances for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

Dr. O'Donovan

What does the Deputy think he is arguing?

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy has joined me in the House rather recently and my line of argument would require attention over a period of time.

Dr. O'Donovan

Did he not realise when the original Bill was before the House that this would be the result? Is the Deputy so stupid that he did not know that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Deputy FitzGerald.

Dr. FitzGerald

Does the Deputy want me to repeat my entire argument?

Dr. O'Donovan

No, on the contrary. The Deputy may give me a Smart Alec answer——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must allow the Deputy in possession to continue.

Dr. O'Donovan

When we passed the previous Bill we passed this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald is entitled to his time.

Dr. O'Donovan

He is entitled to say what he likes, to talk a load of rubbish.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am grateful for the Deputy's usual constructive comment. In pursuit of my line of argument——

Dr. O'Donovan

Go on. Talk ten to the dozen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to cease interrupting.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not often create trouble in this House. All I can say is that the Deputy is entitled to talk any way he likes.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was under that impression before the Deputy made that point.

Dr. O'Donovan

He is also entitled to pretend he is opposing the Government when he is not opposing them at all.

Dr. FitzGerald

As Deputy O'Donovan would know if he had been in the House when Deputy Cruise-O'Brien was speaking, the position of the Labour Party in this matter is that they are not opposing the Bill any more than we are. We are raising points in respect of which we are dissatisfied and on which we will seek radical amendments on Committee Stage. I understand from listening——

Dr. O'Donovan

I think I am entitled to say that I have as little respect for Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's views on this matter as I have for Deputy FitzGerals's.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Donovan will have an opportunity to speak.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is a pity Deputy O'Donovan was not here to pursue the same campaign against his colleague as against me on this occasion. My position on this—and it is very close, I think, to the spokesman of the Labour Party——

Dr. O'Donovan

Spokesman? On what?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald must be allowed to make his own contribution.

Dr. O'Donovan

I want to make a point.

Mr. Andrews

He is making a point of order. He is entitled to make a point of order.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is Deputy FitzGerald saying that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien is our spokesman on this matter?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not true.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a point of order.

Mr. Andrews

It is a good point.

Dr. FitzGerald

I defer to Deputy O'Donovan since his knowledge of the parliamentary names of the Labour Party is obviously and properly superior to mine.

Dr. O'Donovan

A Smart Alec point.

Dr. FitzGerald

I apologise if I suggested in any way that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien was speaking for the Labour Party when he told the House the Bill would not be opposed. I thought he reflected the views of that party but, if I am wrong, no doubt we will be informed in due course.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy can be as smart as he likes.

Dr. FitzGerald

The issue we were dealing with before these matters were raised related to the procedure for legislating by way of regulations. The appropriate method of dealing with the problems of implementing directives of the Community would be, it seems to me, for the Government, in their wisdom and using the discretion they must have in these matters, to determine whether in a particular instance an Act of this House or an Order was the appropriate mechanism. If it is an Act there is no problem. We will proceed in the normal way. If it is an Order the Order should be made in such a way that it is open to this House or anybody in this House to challenge it and require a debate on it. We cannot accept any subterfuge as a result of which by making Orders during the parliamentary recess and by using——

Dr. O'Donovan

Why did the Deputy not wake up to this when the major Act was being passed? This is rubbish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not interrupt Deputy FitzGerald by questioning him.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will subside because I have dealt with him now. He is talking rubbish as usual.

Mr. Andrews

Coalition how are you—!

Dr. O'Donovan

I have silenced him for once.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was hoping the Deputy had finished but my optimism is unfulfilled, I am afraid.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is seldom that the Deputy is silenced.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is now being optimistic if he thinks that. May I proceed, with the protection of the Chair? It is difficult to keep one's train of thought in these curious circumstances.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am well used to it. Is the Deputy asking for the protection of the Chair?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am waiting for the Deputy to finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must insist that the Deputy be heard without interruption. Deputies are well aware of the rules of the House. Deputy O'Donovan is a skilled parliamentarian of long standing and he knows the rules of the House.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is so. I have already said I will subside. It is surprising that Deputy FitzGerald has subsided so much.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald without interruption.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am prepared to do whatever is the opposite to subside if I am allowed to do so in peace.

Mr. Andrews

Subsume?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not sure of the verb.

Major de Valera

The word is erupt.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy de Valera's helpful suggestion exaggerates the tone in which I shall be speaking. The problem here is serious. I am surprised and puzzled that the Government should adopt this peculiar technique in this matter. On Committee Stage I hope they will see the force of our arguments and ensure that, in respect of matters which are within our domestic competence, that is, the question of how we legislate domestically in respect of directives, the Dáil will have the normal rights if necessary, and that a procedure will be adopted which will enable us to challenge any Order laid on the table of the House, at any time, in respect of the implementation of a directive or decision or recommendation of the Community institutions.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is it only now the Deputy has learned that? I thought the Deputy was an expert on these matters.

Dr. FitzGerald

That concludes what I have to say on that point, unless Deputy O'Donovan wants to enlighten the House further.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not invite interruptions.

Dr. FitzGerald

I want to speak briefly on the Summit and what happened there. I have already dealt with one aspect of it and I incurred the displeasure of the Minister because of the necessarily speculative nature of some of my observations due to the fact that I was not here for that part of the Taoiseach's speech. I repeat my apology for that omission which I would not have wished to happen had it not been imposed on me by other circumstances.

There are other aspects of the Summit to which I wish to refer. The agreement on regional policy seems to me to be satisfactory. On this, of course, one has to await further clarification. To some degree one has to await events to see the procedures of the Council of Ministers in the implementation of the decisions of heads of state at the Summit conference. It seems to me that the form in which this matter has been dealt with at the Summit is likely to prove more enduringly satisfactory in the long run than any attempt, at that kind of meeting, at this point in time, to produce some quantification of the amount of money to be made available. It is not possible at this stage— nor indeed would it be possible at any stage—to make a firm forecast for any specific period of time ahead of what will be required in order to accelerate the growth of the less favoured parts of the Community, in order to reduce the disparities that now exist and reduce them sufficiently to enable the economic and monetary union to be pursued by the target date of 1980.

Dr. O'Donovan

Go on. Stop talking academic rubbish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Donovan has been asked by the Chair on many occasions not to interrupt.

Dr. O'Donovan

My apologies. If a man talks rubbish in this House —this is a serious matter——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputies feel they cannot bear what a Deputy is saying there is a way in which they need not hear it.

Dr. FitzGerald

What point had I reached in my rubbish? I cannot remember now.

Dr. O'Donovan

Get on with the monetary union.

Dr. FitzGerald

I thank the Deputy. That gives me a clue. If the Deputy had waited he might have found himself agreeing with me in my next point. He did intervene rather quickly. I myself am sceptical as to the feasibility of achieving economic and monetary union by 1980. Consent by silence?

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

There we are. Nonetheless that is the target set and, indeed, the very fact that there are forces working in that direction and major powers very concerned to achieve it, and an adequate regional policy is an essential precondition of this achievement, means that, for the first time, we are in a situation in which there exist many powerful pressures which must work in favour of an adequate regional policy. The pressures are that countries like France and Germany are determined to move ahead as rapidly as possible—optimistically they talk of 1980—towards economic and monetary union. They recognise, and here the element of parallelism in the communiqué is of vital importance, that one could not achieve economic and monetary union while there were major disparities remaining between parts of member States and therefore an adequate regional policy is an essential precondition of the achievement of that unity. One may argue about how long it will take to narrow these disparities to the point where economic and monetary union becomes feasible. One may disagree as to what the time-scale may be. I think they are optimistic. What is important is the link between the two. At this stage there is agreement that they cannot, in fact, proceed to economic and monetary union unless these disparities are narrowed and, therefore, as they move towards that goal and as the disparities fail to be adequately narrowed in the late seventies, there will have to be a slowing down of the process of economic and monetary union and a stepping up of regional aids to bridge the gap and to bring as near as possible the date of achievement of economic and monetary union.

Dr. O'Donovan

A slowing down in economic and monetary union? Sure there is nothing happening over economic and monetary union at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Donovan will make his own contribution in his own time.

Dr. O'Donovan

I doubt it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I trust he will give me as many opportunities of intervening as he has had in mine.

Dr. O'Donovan

I doubt if I will talk about it at all, but I hate people to talk about a slowing down of economic and monetary union when there is no evidence at all of economic and monetary union at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a primary rule of this House that the Deputy in possession must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Dr. O'Donovan

I always put up with interruptions from other people. I never make any protest about them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is well aware of the primary rule of the House. He knows that interruptions do not make for orderly debate.

Dr. O'Donovan

They may not, but I put up with them.

Dr. FitzGerald

They do not make for consecutiveness in thought. This relationship between economic and monetary union and regional policy carefully woven into this communiqué by a number of balancing phrases is, I think, the most crucial element in it from our point of view. I think, too, that we may express at this stage, subject to what may turn out in due course, provisional satisfaction with this part of it. It was, of course, fortunate for us that our interests in this matter coincided with those of other countries, most notably the United Kingdom, which, in this particular instance, was in a very strong position to secure what it wanted; and what it wanted in general terms coincided with our interests, although it needs this policy for a different purpose, to deal with declining industrial areas, while we need it to deal with areas which have no industry and which are primarily agricultural.

Dr. O'Donovan

We will wait and see.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am waiting to see if I can proceed with my speech without interruption. There does not seem much hope of it, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, does there?

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy is quite capable of looking after himself.

Dr. FitzGerald

I would need to be, in this House at the moment. On that part of the communiqué then we can, I think, express satisfaction. We can also be pleased about the emphasis on social policy which was a somewhat unexpected element, something which had not been heralded by much discussion beforehand, or debate, or publicity. Of course, the actual elements of social policy involved are relatively minor and in a sense tangential to the crucial issues of social policy which arise in the whole field of adequacy of social security, redistribution of income and so on. Nevertheless they are of themselves in their own way each of them important and some of them are of particular importance to this country. It is, for example, encouraging to find a concern with the question of consumer protection because I am afraid we have not had from the Government here much interest in this subject. Now, pushed from behind by other members of the Nine, we may get some action on that front. Again we have this reference, somewhat vaguely expressed but clearly intended to apply to the development of industrial democracy, to giving workers a share in decision making in the firms in which they work. Here is something on which we, the Labour and Fine Gael Parties, have put forward ideas, ideas which do not coincide in detail because Labour policy goes further than ours——

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

——but, nonetheless, there is common ground between us on the need to make progress to the point where workers have a genuine say in the decisions in the firms in which they work. That is something about which the Government have done nothing whatever. They have shown no interest in it at any stage. There has been no progress of any kind in the last 15 years on this front. Now there will be progress because here as elsewhere the impact of EEC membership is to push progressive policies—this, of course, being one of the most powerful arguments for membership though one perhaps not sufficiently valued by some people participating in the debate some months ago.

Dr. O'Donovan

We had other reasons.

Dr. FitzGerald

We welcome these elements of social policy and others that I have mentioned, but where their importance really lies is that in upvaluing this question of social policy to the point of making it a major element in the Summit and in the Summit communiqué there has been introduced an aspect of policy which in the longer term may have great significance for us. There is, of course, at this point in time no suggestion, no proposal, nothing concrete being put forward by anyone to the effect that there should be a common social security policy of the Nine but, once the Nine concern themselves with social policy, once they recognise its relevance, they will be forced by the logic of events to expand the area of social policy in which they are concerned; we are now, I think, at the beginning of a process, not before the 1980s possibly, but in the 1980s, which will lead to a situation where a common monetary and economic policy and a common regional and common agricultural policy will have to be matched by a common social policy extending to social security. To us this could be of great importance.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is straight enough.

Dr. FitzGerald

Clearly, as the country in Europe amongst the Nine which is the least wealthy, anything happening in this sphere would in its redistributive effects benefit us more than others. In addition to that there is the fact that there could be long-term implications for the problem that we have here by our relationship with Northern Ireland, because one of the obstacles and, perhaps, underneath it all, for many people in Northern Ireland one of the most serious obstacles, to reunification is the understandable fear that reunification could lead to a lowering of social benefits because, as we know, and it has been established in this House, though not without difficulty in view of the attempts by the relevant Minister to hide the facts, social benefits in Northern Ireland are at a rate of about 2.15 times what they are here per head of population. The bridging of that gap poses problems. The maintenance of benefits of that level in Northern Ireland can be achieved only at the cost of massive subsidies approaching a figure of £100 million a year.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is the Deputy afraid we will have to pay for them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald.

Dr. FitzGerald

The maintenance, therefore, of the present levels of social benefit in Northern Ireland in the event of any ultimate reunification would depend for the foreseeable future—probably, I would think, for the next quarter of a century in any event—upon some arrangement by which financial assistance for this purpose could come from outside. This might be part of an arrangement with the United Kingdom in a settlement eventually of this problem, but I do not think such a solution could ever be really satisfactory for us. We may have to face it. It may have to be part of a solution found at some stage, but the idea of a direct financial subsidy from the United Kingdom to any part of a united Ireland, should that come about by consent and agreement in time over the next ten, 15 or 20 years, is something which, though we may have to accept it as a necessary element, would not be very welcome to us. If in this period of time, if in the 1980s, a common European social security policy emerged then, in those circumstances, we would have a way out of that particular difficulty and this could be one of many ways in which membership of the Community might help us to resolve our differences between the two parts of our country, North and South.

Therefore, these elements of social policy, not too important in themselves, introduced into the Summit discussion may portend a development, in the longer run, of considerable importance to us.

These seem to me to be the major areas of potential gain for us in what happened in Paris. The area of disappointment is, of course, the political area where so little progress was made. There one does not detect, in the wording of the communiqué, those elements of parallelism which were so clear in the regional policy. I do not feel that there is implicit, in the wording of the communiqué, an obligation to move towards having a genuine system of democratic control by the European Parliament as a necessary precondition of movement to economic and monetary union. Yet I feel that to move to economic and monetary union without that would be dangerous and could even be disastrous. I cannot conceive how you could have an economic and monetary union, how you could move eventually towards a single currency, without having an adequate confederal system with adequate parliamentary and political control; what you would have otherwise is government by nine central banks, and that is something which none of us would look towards.

It is vital, therefore, that our Government should insist in future, whether or not this is successfully insisted upon at this particular conference, on parallelism in this area and that further progress after 1975 towards economic and monetary union should be accompanied not only by adequate progress on the regional front—that, I think, is assured by the terms of the communiqué —but also on the political front, which is not assured by the communiqué. Those seem to me to be the major issues that emerge from the Summit.

Dr. O'Donovan

Question?

Dr. FitzGerald

There are, of course, others and from Deputy O'Donovan's intervention I am sure when he comes to speak we shall hear of some of them.

Dr. O'Donovan

Deputy O'Donovan has no intention of speaking. We decided on this months ago.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not intend to detain the House to any great extent on this Bill. Since the establishment of the State no Bill of greater significance, of such wide implications or of such vital concern to this country has been presented to this House. I fail to understand why a Bill of these dimensions should be going through this House in the presence of six or seven Members, why there should be such apathy towards a Bill which affects the rights of every elected representative in the House.

Prior to the referendum, there were different views as to whether it would be a right or a practical step to enter the EEC, but no matter what views were held then—and many of us held the view that it would not be in the interests of this country to join—the result of the referendum was a clear indication that it was the wish of the vast majority of our people that we should enter this Community. Those of us who held the contrary view may not have changed our view in relation to this issue, but we readily and wholeheartedly accept the verdict of the people, believing that the citizens have a right to do what they conscientiously feel to be right. Since they have that right and since they have decided by such a substantial majority to join this Community, it rests as a responsibility on every single Member of this House to see that we get the maximum benefit from joining and that the undertakings given prior to the referendum will be honoured. When the decision was taken on 10th May last people lived in an atmosphere of expectation. I wonder is the feeling of expectations as strong today as it was prior to 10th May.

Dr. O'Donovan

I doubt it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Having been elected by the people to speak for them not alone must we accept responsibility for seeing that the people get the greatest benefit from membership but we must also endeavour to minimise the hardship or the disadvantages which may result from membership. Those of us who read the daily papers will see that the speeches from the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other members of the Government are not as cheery and as rosy in relation to EEC membership now as they were in the months of February, March, April and the first week of May. There seems to be a change of attitude. We were told that as a result of our membership £30 million would be saved on subsidies and that this money would be channelled into the pockets of the poorer sections of the community. According to a speech made by a Minister in recent weeks the amount seems to have reduced to £20,000.

Dr. O'Donovan

At a meeting of the Crumlin Youth Club last night I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy refer to the £30,000 figure.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In any case at this stage the figure is immaterial because the Irish people have given to the Government a blank cheque in respect of the future of this country. We are now in the Common Market and we must make the best of it. However, in order to do this we must have an opportunity in this House of frequent debate in respect of financial and economic policies which will have a serious effect on the people of this country.

Statements have been made recently in Brussels to the effect that a period of great inflation is now being experienced and that steps will have to be taken to curb this inflation. It is only fair during this debate to remind the House that from now on it will be from Brussels that we will receive decisions in relation to the restriction of credit and to the methods by which public moneys can be invested. I wonder how the Irish people will react to being told by Brussels that a period of inflation is being experienced. I wonder how they will react to a situation whereby, at the decision of the people in Brussels, prices and charges can be increased with resulting widespread unemployment. It will be at Brussels, too, that decisions will be made regarding the directing of money into whichever schemes are decided there and which schemes may not be in the best interests of this country especially if, as a result of curbs being imposed, there will be widespread unemployment and hardship for various sections of our community.

I would be interested to know what percentage of the people outside this House realise the implications of the European Communities Bill. The net result of this proposed legislation will be that the level of democracy in Ireland as we have known it will have disappeared. Are people aware that the passing of this Bill will mean, perhaps, a zero rating of the strength of the democracy we have enjoyed up to now and that we are increasing vastly the power and the authority of civil servants and others of the bureaucratic society in Europe? In effect, we are handing over to these people the authority which up to now has been vested in the elected representatives of the Irish people. Whatever authority is to be vested in individual Ministers or in the bureaucrats in Brussels will be vested in then openly and in the full knowledge of the elected representatives of this House and with the full approval of the vast majority of the people of this country.

The five brief sections of the Bill deal with seven major treaties and more than a hundred treaties of lesser importance. The Bill deals also with future and existing legislation of the Commission, the Council and the Court of the EEC. When enacted, this Bill will put all these laws into effect in this country.

Dr. O'Donovan

Thousands of them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am not aware of what laws have been passed in Brussels. Even if I were so aware I might not understand them. Neither do I know what implications these laws will have in respect of my constituents. As a Member of this House. I have not been made aware of the seven major treaties and the hundred lesser ones referred to. Despite this I am faced here with a Bill that will bring all these laws and orders into effect in this country.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Section 2 of the Bill will have the effect of binding on Irish citizens the several thousand regulations of the European Communities. Details of many of these regulations have been circulated to us but we are told that there may be a number of others that have not been circulated. Despite the comings and goings to Brussels, the delegations and the negotiations, we are now told that they do not know whether all the regulations and all the treaties that are involved have been circulated in the memorandum which accompanied the Bill. It is certainly correct to say that the list of orders and regulations that were circulated with the Bill were never debated in this House. We have never heard what advantages or disadvantages are likely to flow from them. We certainly do not know enough about them. We are asked to pass this Bill and to have all these treaties enacted as the law of this land despite the fact that after ten years of negotiation with Brussels the Government cannot say whether they have supplied Deputies and the country with a full list. That is an admission of faulty negotiation. I still say that the negotiations for Ireland's entry into the EEC have not been as complete and as satisfactory as could have been the case if there had been a greater degree of commonsense and intelligence put into these negotiations.

I am satisfied that the great period of prosperity expected by the farmers of this country may last in so far as cattle exports are concerned and in so far as dead meat exports are concerned but I am also satisfied that there is a dark and gloomy day approaching for the tillage farmers of this country particularly those engaged in the production of cereals and root crops such as beet. Those engaged in the sugar beet industry face a difficult time. I am entitled to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the event of any order having been made or likely to be made which will affect the tillage farmers of my constituency, which will put beet growing practically out of existence, which will turn the Carlow and Thurles beet factories into rookeries, as is likely and as can be seen even from the present hours statistics, what immediate remedy he has so that those engaged in the sugar beet industry will not suffer any financial loss as a result of our entry into the EEC. He cannot tell me. As a Member of this House, dealing with a Bill which includes some of the important regulations that may already have been passed in Brussels and that may have a very serious effect in relation to sugar beet production, I am entitled to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs with what will he replace the beet factories at Carlow and Thurles and what will he provide for the beet growing and cereal producing farmers in my constituency where the land is suitable for tillage and tillage only and not suitable for the production of cattle for export. This is a very serious matter and on an occasion such as this this House is entitled to information of this kind from the Minister.

I read recently that consideration was being given in Brussels to the provision of a fund of, I think, 270,000 dollars or £270,000—I have the newspaper cuttings but as I did not expect to be called upon so soon to speak I have not got them with me—to compensate farmers and to encourage farmers to leave the land. I believe there is a duty and a responsibility on the Government to tell us whether in the event of the passage of this Bill and as and from the 1st of next January one of the policies of Brussels will be to buy people off the land, to have them suitably compensated. My reading of this was that suitable alternative employment was to be provided for such people. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs tell this House what suitable alternative employment can be provided for a small farmer between 40 and 60 years of age in this country and what will be the measure of his compensation for the surrender of his livelihood on his holding?

I cannot say, and I am sure no Member of this House can say, what are the implications of any of these numerous regulations that have been made in Brussels and which are being fully adopted as part of our Irish legislation. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that by the stroke of a pen and without any discussion we are to adopt as part of our law all of these regulations, important and otherwise, that have been adopted in Brussels. Six-monthly or annual discussions are of little value. It is most regrettable that after the passage of this Bill the elected Members of Dáil Éireann will not have the power or the authority to prevent the EEC Commission, Council or Court from legislating and taking decisions for a huge area of our economic and social life and that this House, on the passage of this Bill, with the full backing of the majority of the Irish people, is handing over the power to raise taxation to the EEC institutions. Institutions that have not been elected and are in no way responsible will have the right to impose various methods of taxation in relation to this country. It was a principle of democracy that there should not be taxation without representation; where there was representation there was always a voice to be raised for or against different forms of taxation, but now we see that taxation can be imposed in the name of a democracy and we shall have no say in regard to the EEC institutions. This will cover a very wide area of our economic and social life. From the passage of this Bill and particularly from 1st of January, 1973, I think the House will have transferred a vast section of power and authority to people who have not been elected. Power and authority at present vested in this Parliament will be handed over to executives in Dublin and Brussels.

Section 3 of the Bill gives Government Ministers power to make regulations to enforce EEC treaties and enactments of the Brussels institutions and also power to import EEC legislation. They will also have power to decide without any prior discussion in Parliament which pieces of domestic law should be replaced to conform with EEC law. With almost 30 years experience as a Member of the House I have never seen a Bill coming up for discussion which gave Ministers such unprecedented increases in power and authority.

The procedure under section 4 whereby the Oireachtas must approve ministerial regulations within one year is, I think, wholly unsatisfactory considering the mass of regulations involved and the fact that they will be already enforced for a considerable time affecting citizens and organisations before they can be discussed in Parliament. That cannot be described as democracy. If the House agrees to give Ministers these powers there should be certain safeguards. If Ministers are to get unprecedented powers of this kind there should be an obligation on them within a period of weeks, not months or years, to have discussions in this House in regard to whatever orders or regulations they make. If there is not some provision in this regard the House will be turned into a glorified county council, a complete farce, because to discuss annually a series of orders or regulations made by Ministers when these are already enforced and already law is similar to closing the stable door when the horse is gone. What point will there be in discussing orders and regulations which are already law? What opportunity will the House have of preventing an irresponsible Minister from making or enforcing an irresponsible law? We have had our share of irresponsible Ministers and laws already. I cannot even see the wisdom in having a committee of the House set up for the purpose of considering these ministerial orders and regulations because, again, that would vest certain authority in privileged Members of Parliament who would have the honour of sitting on these committees and this would deprive Parliament as a whole of the right of discussing these matters.

It is certain that in this Bill the power and authority of Parliament is going and we seem to have reached the stage in Ireland when in national government and local government the rights and privileges of elected representatives are quickly being eroded. The surest way of reaching perfection in dictatorship in national and local government is to deprive elected representatives of rights and functions and vest them in a few who can use them without having to answer to Parliament for months after the orders and regulations have been made. That is the first step towards dictatorship. The voice of the people will be silent because the only effective machinery which the people have of making their voice heard is through Parliament. If Parliament is silent and ineffective the voice of the people cannot be heard.

I want to know how the voice of the people, whether in the depressed west, the declining midlands or in the south will be heard in relation to this Bill. How can they have an effective voice in Brussels?

Section 4 of the Bill confers on Ministers power to implement Community enactments. More serious still is the fact that some of the Community enactments take the form of directives to Ministers to impose laws or regulations. A directive may be viewed in a particular way in Germany and viewed in another way in Britain and in France. An Irishman can be led but he cannot be driven. It is a very serious matter that Ministers should have power to implement directives when we do not know what these directives will be. In the event of a directive being contrary to the Irish cultural way of life, what opportunity will the House have to express an opinion in regard to it before the directive has been implemented and has become part of our law? Laws foreign to our faith and to our culture may be imposed upon us by way of directives.

I have said and I repeat that 99 per cent of our people do not realise the full implications of EEC membership. There is clear evidence in the Bill before the House that the Government did not realise it. We are told that some of the regulations and treaties are covered in the Bill. There may be others that they do not know about. They are being covered en bloc. The directives are binding on member States and will be binding on us as from 1st Jaunary next. It is right that we should ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to state if he has examined all the regulations, treaties, commitments and directives of the Community to date and to say if any of them is contrary to our Irish and Christian way of life or to the cultural standards that we have had and are anxious to maintain.

As I have said, the directives are binding on member States but the method of implementing them is left to the discretion of the member State. There is no reason why the Dáil should agree to divest itself of the power to decide such matters through the procedure of tabling motions in the House, having a discussion and having a vote of the House.

In regard to directives from Brussels let us be careful, let us be wary. An alternative to the method suggested in the Bill would be for the Minister to table a motion in the House in regard to each and every directive, to give the House all available information in the matter, to have the directive debated, the Members of the House being in a position to register their approval or disapproval in the division lobbies. According to this Bill, that will not be the procedure. The power to implement directives will be vested in Government Ministers. Surely Members of this House are not so indifferent in the matter of the authority that has been entrusted to them by the votes of the people as to accept such a proposition.

By passing this Bill we all agree to surrender the right to legislate. We surrender it to Ministers, even though such surrender is not obligatory under the terms of membership of the EEC. There is no such obligation but the Bill confers this right on Ministers. Parliamentary procedure would not permit a Deputy to bring in his bugle and to sound the Last Post but this Bill sounds the Last Post over the right of this House to legislate. I feel that this is not an obligation for membership of the EEC. We are going further in this Bill than the terms of membership of the EEC have asked us to go.

It has been Government policy to cut down the rights of elected representatives at every stage in this country over the last few years. This Bill is the champion of all Bills so far as the whittling down of the authority of elected representatives is concerned because it transfers from Parliament to Ministers the right to legislate and allows us to have discussions on orders, treaties and regulations when they are already in force as part of our laws in this country.

A very grievous defect in this Bill is that there is no provision whereby Parliament can discuss or influence beforehand the regulations, decisions and directives of the EEC institutions. Is this exposing the inefficiency of Brussels or is it making our inactivity known to all Europe? Is the machinery in Brussels so complicated and ineffective that where there are regulations, decisions and directives to be made they must be formulated in Brussels and forwarded to this House immediately afterwards for perusal here? The people in Brussels should have them conveyed here beforehand so that they can be debated in Parliament.

I can see endless trouble in relation to this matter and also in relation to parliamentary questions. I can see every Minister of the present Government saying that particular matters are no longer the functions of their Departments, that they are matters for Brussels. Where will the vast majority of Deputies get information for their elected representatives? It is hard enough at the present time to elicit information from Ministers. As soon as they have the cloak of the EEC around their shoulders it will be used to prevent this House from getting !valuable information. If I want information on any of the Orders referred to in the memorandum I hope I will be advised by the General Office. I would like to be able to put down a parliamentary question to elicit information on any of those Orders.

What Minister is going to be responsible? Who is going to give the information? Can it be raised on the Adjournment and what will the result of an Adjournment Debate be in relation to these matters? The entire effectiveness of Parliament after the passage of this Bill is gone. What will be left is the skeleton of Parliament, the flesh of Parliament having been stripped from it. If we cannot discuss regulations and decisions and directives beforehand, what is the purpose of coming to discuss them 12 months after they have been passed, when, in the meantime, our social and economic life may have been seriously affected as a result of their passage? Can the House not see the wisdom of at least debates in advance so that certain decisions and directives might be sent back to Brussels for reconsideration? At the moment under our procedure here, if any Deputy finds fault with any of the Estimates on the Order Paper, he has the right to table a motion that that Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. What is wrong with giving us machinery to deal with regulations, decisions and directives from Brussels and enabling us to put down a motion in this House setting out that in the opinion of Dáil Éireann this direction, decision or directive should be reconsidered by the authorities in Brussels, giving the reasons which Parliament may have for asking Brussels to reconsider, in the interests of the majority of our people, any regulation which the Irish Parliament may consider to be not in the best interests of the economic or social life of the country?

I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take a look at this matter again with a view to leaving some breath of life in Parliament, leaving some effectiveness in Parliament, with some confidence, faith and trust still coming from the people in their own Parliament. The big danger we have seen in recent years is the fact that so many of our people were inclined to flout and to ignore Parliament. It was one of the great boasts, the great pride of ourselves in this House in all parties, that we had set up this institution which won the admiration, respect and support of all the people in the country. If we want the vast majority of our people to respect Parliament, to look up to Parliament as their own, as their protector, their guard, their guide, their adviser, their ruler, their lawmaker, the supreme authority in this country, the supreme court, if we want the people to continue having faith, having belief in an Irish Parliament, in the light of all the lives laid down during, before and after the Civil War and the efforts made to ensure that this country would have a Parliament which would speak for and on behalf of all our people, if we want a position in which we, whether Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour, can cherish Parliament and the right to speak in Parliament, to salute and love Parliament as it was set up by the people of this country Parliament must be effective.

In recent times respect for Parliament, respect for the institutions of the State, is slowly but surely diminishing, which is a bad sign, but what respect for Parliament are we going to have when we have no say at all in relation to the directives, regulations. decisions and proposals of the EEC institutions? If Parliament loses its effectiveness in this country, we are playing right into the hands of unsavoury elements. It would be a wrong thing that Parliament should tie itself up and we should find ourselves, like the disobedient bulldog which is tied up, locked up and muzzled. In any democracy we must cherish the right to rule, to speak, to investigate, +to probe, to know, to learn and to be taught, to act and to obey and if all these functions are to be taken from Parliament, where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves with a generation coming on and a generation after them who do not wish to honour and respect the free right of Parliament in a democracy. Great sacrifices were made in this country to ensure the setting up of this Parliament. Many lives were lost and great sacrifices were made and Parliament was established. In an established Parliament the very rights this Bill is passing over to bureaucrats in Brussels and investing in individual Ministers are making Parliament ineffective, a Parliament set up following the sacrifices of the lives of so many of our people in the past.

Has really serious thought been given to this by the Government? I know that really serious thought was not given in relation to the referendum because if the question had been put to the people, "Do you want rule from Dáil Éireann or rule from Brussels?" the vast majority of our people would undoubtedly have shown their confidence in their own Parliament, but since the Irish people have decided by an overwhelming majority to take rule from Brussels instead of from this House, that is their own lookout and their own responsibility, but those of us who still cherish Parliament and the right of a Parliament to be effective must plead with the Government and with those in authority in Brussels to allow us to debate in advance directives, regulations and decisions which are going to have such a big effect on our lives, the lives of our children and our children's children. This, in my opinion, is vital.

If there is no provision for such prior discussion on important EEC proposals, then the elected representatives of the Irish people will have no opportunity whatever of making their views on vital issues known to the Government so as to inform and influence the policy of the Irish Minister on the Common Market Council. Is he going to make up his own mind or will he be making his mind up in accordance with the wishes of Parliament? We want the wishes of Parliament to be effective because, as I have said, we have no guarantee as to the regulations or orders that will be imposed upon us and this House should at least try to influence the Irish Minister in relation to having the Irish viewpoint on vital issues put forward clearly and without any doubt. This, in my opinion, represents a further increase in the power of the Government and of individual Ministers at the expense of this House which will be losing its power and authority.

I presume that the Minister will scarcely be replaying tonight but if he is to reply tomorrow perhaps he would institute certain inquiries in the meantime from his friend and affectionate colleague, the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Heath. At the moment Mr. Heath is considering the adoption of machinery which will enable the British Parliament to consider important EEC proposals before they are decided on in Brussels and before they become binding on Member states and their citizens. Mr. Heath is busily engaged at Westminster in trying to maintain some degree of democracy there. He is trying to provide machinery whereby the Westminster Parliament can discuss all these regulations before they become law in Brussels.

What has our Minister for Foreign Affairs done so far in this respect? The British Conservative Party are at the moment tightening political nuts in regard to this Brussels exercise and it is astonishing that we are not being given the same opportunity to discuss these regulations, to give the Irish people a voice in regard to these EEC proposals by having them placed in Parliament for discussion. It is astonishing that the Taoiseach and the Minister did not take this step before the British even thought of it.

The enactment of laws and their adoption by the people of a country is a serious matter. It is particularly serious in regard to laws about which we do not know in advance. How serious will it be if the people of this country wake up one morning to find themselves bound by laws with which they are not acquainted and with which they do not agree? We may be going through a period of indifference in this country but may I say this indifference is not attributable to our young people? Despite all the criticisms of their faults we have a very fine generation of young people who have a fine national outlook and spirit. I hope we do not tie them through this Bill by regulations which would be in conflict with our religious way of life, our culture, our language, the glories of our past. This would be seriously resented by our young people, the men and women of tomorrow.

I suppose other Deputies have complimented the Minister on his appointment to Brussels. I wish to join with them in offering him sincere good wishes. I hope he will be happy and that he will be successful in his new responsibilities. I particularly wish him good health. I have always found Deputy Hillery to be a courteous and friendly gentleman. When he leaves this House his courtesy and kindness will be sadly missed because courtesy is rare on the benches on which he sits. I have known Deputy Hillery for many years. I know that one of the cherished possessions of his late mother was a photograph of him and me entering Leinster House on our first day. For those reasons I wish him the best of luck, particularly good health, in the very difficult job he is about to undertake abroad. I hope his mission will be a fruitful one for Ireland although I have grave doubts about it. I had my doubts about it before the referendum but we must respect and honour the wishes of the people. When the Minister is in Brussels the watchdogs of the EEC will be in this House. Where difficulties arise I would ask him to do his best to minimise them because this will be of considerable help to us. If anything goes wrong and if there is keen disappointment as a result of this Bill, in years to come the Irish people will say, "If you sow nettles you cannot expect roses to grow".

Mr. O'Higgins

I should like to join with Deputy Flanagan in his concluding remarks in wishing the Minister every success when he becomes Ireland's Commissioner in Europe. I think he will be happy to know that in leaving the Dáil and vacating his seat in Clare he can have this assurance that we will not move the writ.

Deputy Flanagan said many other things with which I could not agree. I think that, to some extent, he was raising an issue which has been settled already and he was debating again the debate which has concluded. I should not like it to go from this House that there is any feeling of doubt or anxiety held by the majority of Deputies regarding the validity of the democratic decision our people made last May.

We are going into Europe as a democracy, having made a democratic decision to do so. We did not do it in blinkers; we did not do it not knowing the score; we did it fully conscious of the challenges and of the arguments for and against entry. I do not think it can be doubted that a people who registered such a high percentage vote on such an issue could have any doubts about the correctness of their decision.

I hope we are going into Europe with our shoulders back and our heads up. I hope we are going in prepared to make a significant contribution in the building of a new society in Europe. This Bill is consequential on our entry; it is a necessary piece of legislative machinery. Possibly there are reservations in relation to some sections and there may be points to be made on the Committee Stage.

I am sorry Deputy Flanagan is not present now. I wonder if he seriously thinks anyone legislates for our people other than this Parliament? The whole purpose of this Bill is to ensure that, following our democratic decision, regulations and treaties which we have accepted will become part of our domestic law because this House so decides. If we change our views next month or in six months time that change will take place here. We can repeal and amend this legislation. Under our Constitution, and under the decision of the people in amending the Constitution, we can do anything we like. Fundamentally the source of our domestic law is the Parliament established by the Constitution. Let no one suggest a situation has arisen whereby people outside will legislate for us. We may follow their decisions, we may implement in a legislative manner what has been done, but the power with regard to our domestic law comes from an Act of this House.

This is part of the implementation of the people's decision last May. We are going into Europe having made a significant and well-considered decision but, having made that decision, I hope we will not merely be the silent member of the Nine. I say that very positively. I do not want the leader of our Government, whoever he may be, just to be the "ditto" to the views of any other Prime Minister. I am sure most Deputies would desire our participation in Europe to be significant and to have an aim.

At this stage I wonder if we have thought what our aims should be. There have been offers of discussion and a dialogue in relation to the future shape of Europe. There are those who hold that the Europe now being formed is to be a Europe of the nations, a Europe of governments, a Europe in which those in authority in each State will take the decisions. That is the view of the Gaullist Party in Europe. It was the view of the late President de Gaulle but I do not know to what extent that view is expressed by President Pompidou. Is that the view of our Government? I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be able to speak with authority on this matter when he concludes the debate. I should like to make it clear it is not my view and I do not think it is the view of my colleagues.

We want to see the new Europe a Europe of the European people, a Europe that will respond to the democratic influence of the ordinary people in all countries in Europe. We hope this view is shared by all Deputies in this House. We want to see a situation gradually develop when want, deprivation, hardship and unemployment in any part of Europe will as much concern us as it will concern the area involved. If we do not seek a Europe of peoples the great idealistic aims which sponsored and led to the Treaty of Rome and the associated treaties will never be achieved, in my view.

So, let our mission in Europe be to see that the institutions, now strengthened by our accession, and the development of those institutions will be imbued with a really significant democratic motive. That will mean eventually that the broad policies and the broad decisions in Europe will no longer be merely decisions at the summit amongst the heads of the nine Governments concerned, or the ten, or whatever it may be, and that, sooner or later, through the barrier of national governments by means of the democratic institution of the European Parliament the voice of European peoples will be heard.

I should like to feel that our Government will share in that desire. No one will hold out the hope that can quickly be achieved. Obviously it cannot. Many steps must be taken first. The beginning will be made in 1975 possibly when the European Parliament will be given incipient control in relation to the European budget and what flows from that, budgetary control. That is the first vestige of the real power which this Parliament will have. In my view, at least, we ought to press to see that Parliament democratically elected, elected by direct election from the people of Europe. When that is finally accomplished a rational development may take place which will more and more bring about the situation in which a federal development may take place throughout Europe. If we do not do that, if what happens in the immediate future merely maintains national boundaries and national decisions, and if it ensures that the nine States operate merely as loose members of a convival club, never allowing the problems and anxieties and difficulties of their own people to be translated over national barriers, we will not really succeed in achieving that wonderful idea and aim shared by Schumann and de Gaspari and all the others at the time of the initiation of the steps which led to the Treaty of Rome.

May I express the hope that serious and significant thought be given to what will be the big issue in Europe: where we stand? Are we to be the followers of Gaullism in the Europe of the future or will we take the stand best expressed, in my view, by the Dutch people, by the Dutch Government, by the ordinary people of Holland, the Netherlands, who desire to see Europe really the Europe of the peoples. I would hope that the Government, as the Government not merely of a small country but a country that has much to give, will share the view that the development of Europe should be based more and more on the democratic process which will lead inevitably to the participation of the people directly.

Secondly in regard to our role in Europe in the immediate future the transition period may be most important for us. It causes us problems here in all our parties, in the House, and in the other spheres of activity in the country in relation to fielding the necessary team to do the necessary work in Brussels and in Europe in the next two or three very significant years. Everybody affected appreciates the great importance which will attach to the quality of the work done and the quality of the men who do the work. I hope we will be able to put into the Commission—we are doing this—into the Parliament and into the service of the Commission and various places, men who will go in realising that the job they have to do will be of the utmost importance to their country.

We talk about regional policy. We talk about the material gains which may be there for us and other small countries in Europe. Of course this makes good sense. The Treaty of Rome has in its preamble as its fundamental objective the aim of reducing the differences existing between the various regions and to mitigate the backwardness of the less favoured That, as an aim, means the distribution in one way or another of the wealth of Europe. It means the achievement of the social aim to share out amongst those who are underprivileged and those who are in want the vast fortunes of the richer communities. It is in pursuance of that aim that regional policy has been suggested. Regional policy is one of the means whereby, in accordance with the preamble, that distribution can be achieved.

I am glad to note from the Summit meeting that there has been a general agreement that the initial steps towards regional policy will now be taken. I hope that what has been said in that respect will be followed up by us here not merely as one of the areas likely to benefit but, again, to set the headline. No group, or commissioner, or anyone else in Brussels will develop a regional policy for us. This we must develop for ourselves. I hope that the good sense of whatever plans may be drawn up, whatever the blueprint may be, will show the absurdity of a division, a boundary or partition in this country. Once we get down to trying to provide in our own country a distribution of opportunity for a decent way of life we will find the problem west of the Shannon to be the same west of the Lagan and to be the same in the western Hebrides. We will find the sharing out very quickly of what is a common problem to human beings, all Europeans, living in this western part of Europe.

I would hope that what has been said about regional policy will command the prior attention by the Government because it is from here it must come. Once the green light has been given in Brussels it will be up to us to do our own homework, to develop our own priorities and know exactly what we want for our undeveloped areas. I sincerely hope that we will not let others scoop the pool in that respect.

As I said at the outset, this is consequential legislation following a clear and significant decision by our people. I do not think that anything that has happened since that decision ought to cause us any regret. The difficulties are apparent. The challenge is there. I have no doubt that we will go into Europe next year. If we go in confident and strong in our resolution we will make a success of this new venture.

I am very much indebted to Deputy de Valera for permitting me to speak at this stage.

Major de Valera

I am grateful to Deputy O'Higgins for that remark. I merely exercised common courtesy.

This Bill and the debate so far can be approached logically under a number of heads, namely, the Bill itself, the ultimate aims, what our aims should be, the question raised by Deputy O'Higgins; the question of our power, where influence lies and, lastly, the functions of Parliament. Let me deal now, first of all, with the Bill itself. The details have been dealt with very fully by the Taoiseach in his opening statement and there is no point in repeating what he said. Fundamentally what is involved here is that this is a Bill to implement the referendum decision.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan is, I think, under a misapprehension. This Bill of its very nature is not a derogation from the power of Parliament but is, in principle, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out in passing, an assertion of the rights of Parliament and of the sovereignty of the Oireachtas, the Parliament of this State.

That can be clearly seen on an analysis of the situation. The referendum can be regarded in two ways. In the general sense and in all truth it was, and it was meant to be, a decision by the people as a whole as to whether we should enter into this association of a European Community. It was undoubtedly that. The decision when taken was an overwhelming and clear decision that the people wished to join with the other European Communities. That undoubtedly was what the referendum was and it was made that issue by the very people who opposed it. That is what the issue was joined upon and it was accepted as that issue by the Government and the parties who supported the proposition. I want, therefore, to emphasise at the outset, before I go into the legal side of it, that there is no doubt that substantively the verdict in the referendum was a clear decision by the people to go into Europe and, as such, is morally and every other way clearly mandatory upon us in this House. That must be accepted unequivocally.

Having said that, from the legal point of view and from the procedural point of view, and from the point of view of the principle of sovereignty, this referendum was merely in form an enabling decision. It merely enabled the Dáil and the organs of State to implement the decision that was made. Clearly it would be morally wrong not to implement that decision. Now, in order to implement that decision, this Bill was required and we are now freely and in our sovereign position as the representatives of the people doing this act on the people's direction and, at the same time, asserting our power to undo that act should we have a mandate to undo the act. Now, if that is the position, I cannot understand what are the arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament as far as principle is concerned.

The Constitution amendment was merely an enabling provision and, therefore, in due constitutional form, with the full sovereignty conferred on the organs of State by the Constitution, we are here exercising our sovereignty in passing this Bill. I fail to understand then the principle upon which Deputy Flanagan approached this. If he was complaining that too much was being accepted by this Parliament, that is another story—I hope to deal with that later—as far as mechanisms are concerned. But, on the principle of the thing, as Deputy O'Higgins said, this Bill is an assertion of the sovereignty of this Parliament and, in principle, this Parliament could equally repeal; but we are, of course, morally bound by the people's decision in the referendum.

Let us look now at the Bill in the light of what it is. There has been a decision by the electorate to go into Europe and that decision has to be implemented. As the Taoiseach pointed out:

From the date of accession, the provisions of the original treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those treaties and in this Act.

It was part of the conditions of entry, part of the conditions accepted by the people, that this should be done. How can it be done? The first part is clear enough. If you could list it all, then you accept it, and that is what is being done in this Bill as regards entry. Section 1 simply lists what has to be done as domestic law here.

as supplemented or amended by the treaty or other acts of which the dates of entry into force are dates not later than the 1st day of January, 1973.

No Deputy can complain that he has not got that information because it is set out in detail in the explanatory memorandum. Not only does the explanatory memorandum set that out in detail but it gives a list of existing Irish legislation which will be affected by Community law.

Mr. Tully

Surely Deputy de Valera is aware that the 1972 enactments are still down in the library in French. He may be able to read them but we are not.

Major de Valera

All right. That point may be of some practical importance but it is possible to have French translated.

Mr. Tully

Obviously the Government do not know that.

Major de Valera

The point I am making in reply to Deputy Flanagan is this, that in relation to the legislation which is in question and which we are adopting, although it is covered in the last phrase in the section which I quoted, in fact the Government have made Deputies and anyone else fully aware of that material by cataloguing it in detail in the explanatory memorandum and supplementing it by a note of the existing domestic provisions which are affected thereby. I make that point—Deputy Tully may not appreciate why I am making it— merely in answer to some of the criticisms made by Deputy Oliver Flanagan.

I fail to see what other way this could be done except possibly by scheduling all this in the Act itself. If anybody wants to make a point of that I am not going to quarrel with it, but the short phrase with a full tabulation appears to me to do the job equally well. Subsection (2) of the Bill is simply a precautionary thing. I would have thought possibly that that subsection is not necessary at all, but that is a matter of opinion. Section 2 does nothing more than implement the decision in the referendum. You are left with section 3, which is the power to make regulations, and section 4 which makes provision for confirming regulations in a certain case.

In the nature of this, we must have regulations. It is very difficult to see, with the mass of material that will be involved, much of it routine administrative material, how it could be efficiently or effectively dealt with other than by regulation. I myself have always deplored the tendency to legislate by regulation, but, unfortunately, modern parliaments and modern requirements of commercial and practical life have raised a problem that seems to be solvable only in this way, but I shall deal with that in my fourth point, if I get time, on the question of the parliamentary procedure itself.

There is one point I would make to the Minister on section 3 particularly with regard to the meticulous care taken in section 4. Would it not be well to provide in section 3 for the laying of the regulations before the House? That would immediately inform Deputies.

Deputy Flanagan also made a point on section 4 about recalling the Dáil by a majority. Again, one has to have recourse to practical considerations and I think this is a very important provision to put in. It does in principle assert the sovereignty of this parliament, but from a practical point of view I do not think one could go much further than the provision in the section.

To summarise that brief survey of the Bill, nobody has suggested any other method of doing it. Legislation by regulation seems to be a practical necessity and I find myself, at the end of that perusal, merely asking the Minister two questions: the first is the possibility of laying the regulations, in the first instance, before the House with whatever necessary provisions were desirable. That would certainly ensure that Deputies, if they wanted to, could see the regulations and comment on them. The second is, if one wanted to be completely fastidious, the possibility of listing the material in the White Paper as a schedule, but, frankly, I do not see the necessity for that.

This is a tidy bit of legislation and, like all tidy and simple provisions which are produced in this way, it does reflect a good deal of care and forethought in its preparation. Having dealt with that aspect of Deputy Flanagan's contribution which, as I said, I took up in that detail in order to refute the suggestion that this Parliament, in principle, was sacrificing sovereignty, I come to the question raised by Deputy O'Higgins: what is our aim? Is it the aim, as I think he put it, of a Europe of European nations or is it a new Europe of European peoples? In the short-term, I certainly see the contrast between these two approaches; in the long-term I am not so sure. In the short-term, there are undoubtedly two standpoints from which one can approach this. In all the countries involved there are people who would approach it one way and others who would approach it the other way in the current context. However, in the long-term the evolution of history will largely determine what Europe is to be. Therefore, in the long-term one has to accept that modern technology, communications, population growth, the complexities of society and the interdependence of communities are leading to greater and more highly organised groups of peoples.

Before our time the USA had evolved from a group of states that were coalescing into a single super nation. Much the same thing has happened in Russia, although that country has evolved in an entirely different way. China and India also come to mind. Europe, marked so strongly with its national states to the extent that in our time we have experienced two world wars originating in that Continent, cannot resist forever that tendency towards aglomoration. It should be clear to any thinking person that this evolutionary process will continue and that Europe will evolve into something similar to the other great super states. However, it will not become such a super state overnight. In the evoluation of it, even to a stage advanced much further than we can consider here, the individual nature of the European states will survive as units in some form or other in the great community that will evolve. Let us take as an example the USA. Although that country is now a super nation there is yet a difference between, say, Virginia and California or between New York and Texas. There are yet state boundaries for certain purposes. Therefore, it is dangerous for us to put the question here too much in terms of black and white. Perhaps in the long term everybody will subscribe to the idea of the community of European peoples in this greater nation sharing their economic and social life as happens in the USA. This may well be an acceptable idea and, even for those who do not accept it, it may have to be accepted as an inevitable result of history.

While accepting all that and while in a sense working towards that ideal —I hope that when we go into Europe we will play our full part as Europeans —it is a great mistake to forget that at this moment there are in Europe these traditional nations with strong national characteristics and interests. We have only to think of our own strong traditions and interests of which Deputy Flanagan spoke so eloquently at one stage this evening. If there is to be an achievement of that integrated Europe of which Deputy O'Higgins spoke, it can be effected only through the harmonisation, the development, the co-operation and the mutual trust and respect of these nations which at the starting point make up this community which we are entering.

The ideal of Schuman, of which Deputy O'Higgins spoke also, is a laudable one. It is an ambition which can inspire loyalty and enthusiasm but it is my opinion that with it there is a danger of becoming too abstract and too abandened in the pursuit of this aim without a due regard to the realities of the situation. It is in reality that we live. At this point I wish to make a reference to the Gaullist Party in France. Deputy O'Higgins referred to Gaullists if not in terms of contempt at least in terms of reprobation. Maybe I am wronging him in that. However, we in this country should be very much on our guard against being too critical of the Gaullist approach. Perhaps there are many people who would disagree with me but my own view is that we would not be debating this matter at all today if it had not been for General de Gaulle's intervention a few years ago when he put the breakes on. If he had not intervened at that time I doubt whether there would be a European Community today for us to enter. In the incipient stages of the Community, under Dr. Hallstein and the Commission there was a tendency towards a type of bureaucratic autocracy which, if it had not been put into proportion, could have gone entirely wrong. It is my opinion that it was General de Gaulle's intervention that enabled all parts of Europe to find their sense of proportion. There is now a structure which is acceptable and which has great potentialities.

Many have sought to villify the approach of the French President at that time. This was particularly so in English-speaking countries. In the early stages I had certain apprehensions concerning the approach of the Commission under the then leadership. However, that is in the past and there is now a balanced structure between Commission and Council of Ministers and an incipient Parliament. This is a viable and a workable proposition. Perhaps it would be no harm to say a few words on that subject in this debate. One is logically led back to the question posed by Deputy O'Higgins: "What is the approach?" Should we go in, just see the ideal of this united Europe in a blaze, abandon all else and throw ourselves in towards that, without reference to the transition stages, the road over which we have to travel and the facts as they are? Frankly, I think not. For this reason I think we must approach Europe to some extent in the same sense as the much despised Gaullists have approached it. Once when I was over there I remember a French Deputy making a rather penetrating remark to me about those enthusiastic, idealistic Europeans. He said: "It is very funny. They are great Europeans until it comes to matters affecting them in the home and then they are all Gaullists." While we want to go into this wholeheartedly, co-operatively, energetically and enthusiastically we still have to look after our own interests and remember what we are, who we are, our strength and our weakness and rationally do what we can. I, therefore, feel that it is still far too early to approach this problem on the basis that the great and already unified Europe is already with us. It is not. It is at this moment, and will continue to be for a considerable time, a Community of the European nations and we can only hope and do hope that the bonds and the trust between those nations will become stronger and that a greater unity will develop. That process of development seems to me to be quite compatible with what would appear to be the natural evoluation of history and economics in the same area.

I am probably saying some unpopular things. I do not want to be taken as being half-hearted about our entry but we should be very whole-hearted in our realisation that we are a State and a community with an individuality, with an interest, with perhaps an historical role, and we should be conscious of it and work out our own cultural and national destiny.

Perhaps I shall be called a Gaullist by Deputy O'Higgins or others. If a regard for our own interests, for the interests of our people and an assertion of our rights, an assertion of our national personality is perhaps a better way of putting it, if that is Gaullism then perhaps I should have to plead guilty to the charge but there are many others like me. I can see that when the British enter Europe they will have their national ideals and aspirations and desire to influence, and so will all other nations. Let us then not forget the name of Irishmen and the name of Ireland, for we go in as Ireland. Let us fulfil the destiny of Ireland and use this opportunity, and an opportunity after practically 200 years of isolation from Europe, to assert ourselves as a people, as a nation, in association with the other European nations, to assert our personality again. One of the things that was attractive to me personally and why I felt joy when the people decided as they did was that here at last was another chance of making contact, a broader contact than with the one civilisation that was interposed between us and the Continent of Europe.

So much for the principle of approach. One feels that something should be said about the mechanics of the approach. Here I should like to compliment and to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Commission. I join with everybody else in wishing him good luck and happiness in doing a most important job for the country. I know that he goes with the good wishes of the people. We on this side of the House are particularly sorry to lose him from our benches.

Dr. O'Donovan

We are sorry to lose him too.

Mr. Cooney

We can say the same.

Major de Valera

I was not presuming to speak for everybody but I am glad to hear that I can in this case.

Mr. L'Estrange

He is a jolly good fellow.

Major de Valera

Having said that, I will still talk to him tonight as Minister. There are essentially two directing organs in this Community of which we are becoming a part. There is the Council of Minister which, as Deputy FitzGerald pointed out, is really the legislature. There is the Commission, which is the Executive. I use the word "Executive" and not "Government" because Governments have assumed more than merely being executive. Governments run Parliaments, not Parliaments Governments. In the case of Europe it is different. The Council of Ministers is the Government. They are the decision-makers. The Commission implements and initiates also, of course, to some extent. In a few words one cannot describe the functions and a few words can be an inaccurate description. There are two views. There are those who feel that the Commission should be exalted and in some way brought into the position of a super Government, a Government of Europe, supported by a Parliament of Europe and that the Council of Ministers should fade out or be a Senate. The factual position is that in so far as Europe has a Government it is the Council of Ministers which is the Government. The Commission is limited in its approach and the Parliament is a very young infant and very immature. We must approach this from the evolutionary point of view. My own view is that in the foreseeable future, until such time as monetary union and certain economic integration is effected, the proper place for the power until the Parliament is developed to give a proper democratic structure, is with the Council of Ministers and the present dominance of the Council of Ministers should continue. I shall give reasons for that.

The European Parliament is a very young and undeveloped infant. The Commission has within its framework a very big task to do and is doing it well. There is plenty of scope for it. Under the umbrella of the Ministers, as they are at the moment, the Commission is in a good position to function and be an effective executive. While the national states are at their present stage the only practicable method of operation is the Council of Ministers. While frankly recommending that, our approach at this stage should take due cognisance of our national status and our local autonomy and identity and we should not be in too much of a hurry to obliterate that in the blaze of a new European conception as yet unrealised. While taking that approach in principle, applied to all the nations it requires the situation where the Council of Ministers remains the controlling body for the foreseable time.

But there is another very good, democratic reason why the Council of Ministers should at this stage of the evolution of Europe be the power. The members of that Council are Ministers in Parliaments democratically elected and responsible to their people through their Parliaments. At present you have effective democratic representation through the Ministers. Our Minister is elected by a majority of this House and therefore represents this Parliament as Foreign Minister. We who appointed him derive our authority from our people so that with the intermediate stage of the actual Parliament the Ministers are democratic representatives. It is too easy to think of them in terms of governments but when they are sitting in Europe they are at present the only effective democratic representatives there. They are responsible to their Parliaments. If a foreign minister takes a line that his Parliament does not want his Parliament can kick him out. If he takes a line that people outside do not like, at election time they can elect a government which will not have that foreign Minister, so that he is ultimately responsible to the people.

Mr. Bruton

How will you know what line he took?

Major de Valera

Sin ceist eile. Do not confuse us with that for the moment. The essential point is that he is democratically responsible and is a democratic representative on the Council while members of the Commission are not.

I am in a somewhat embarrassing situation because no matter what way I turn, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs here, I shall risk a confrontation. I hope he will understand that I am trying to be completely objective without any reference to personalities. A commissioner is appointed for a fixed term. There is a balance between the two which is almost like the balance between an elected Minister and the head of a Civil Service Department. Both have their place and their responsibility; both have a very important function to fulfil, but my point is that in the present situation and with the evolution of Europe in the foreseeable future it appears to me important that the Council of Ministers should retain their present powers and prerogatives. For a number of years a balance has been achieved and the Commission is doing laudable work. For that reason my answers to Deputy O'Higgins's queries seem to vary somewhat from his approach. Ultimately, perhaps, there is more agreement in view.

It is always dangerous to take two instances like that. It is like arguing here as to the relative merits of an elected representative and permanent officials. These arguments are always misconceived because both have their own proper functions and both are necessary. In the same way, with the structure of Europe emerging, I do not want to minimise the importance of the Commission.

That logically brings us to the question of Parliament. What is a European Parliament to be? At present it is a very young infant without very much effective power. It is hoped that it will develop. But how can it develop? Deputy FitzGerald asked how would we send our representatives : will we have direct elections? This, so far, has been a question for each individual country. For us it seems that, immediately, our representatives will be delegated representatives from this House and the Seanad. In that sense they will have no more democratic sanction behind them than the Minister who sits on the Council of Ministers and they will be joining an institution that will have considerably less power. Whether we can quickly get to the stage where Deputies will be elected separately for Europe by the whole country is another matter. This is not likely to happen very quickly. The European Parliament is unlikely to play a role which can match in force either the Commission or the Council of Ministers for some considerable time ahead. One might ask in this debate —or perhaps a future debate might be a more appropriate one in which to go into details — how can democratically elected parliaments work. This will be a question for the European Parliament. Quite obviously, every bit of legislation, even certain major legislation, cannot come the whole way through the European Parliament and one can look at the experiences in the United States, say, for guidance on what the likelihood would be, when one looks at Congress in the United States. We here have stayed too long with the old idea that we leave everything to be debated here in the House. It was all right in the days when governments and parliaments dealt with such broad things as peace and war, taxation, perhaps some major matter of a social interest or a matter to control some abuse. In those days legislation was reasonably simple. Each Bill came in as a unit in itself which could be considered in itself and in those circumstances the individual Deputy could make himself reasonably well informed as to the content and purport of the measure and could contribute worthwhile comment to the making of that legislation. He would have been further backed by the fact that in those days each bit of legislation was separate and the people outside were conscious of it, interested in it and there were reactions back on the Deputy who had discussed it.

That was the position in the early days of the State and, indeed, up to the outbreak of the last war but in modern times social theories have changed. A Minister could get up in this House and say—he was much abused for it at the time and perhaps misquoted—but he could say in the context of the time that it was not the accepted function—I put in the word "accepted" in order to safeguard myself from misquoting him—of Government to find work for anyone. He was much abused for that. It was quoted extensively by people who were progressively minded. The fact is that that was the philosophic approach in regard to function of government in the days anterior to the time he made that remark.

Nowadays and since the war everything is subject to legislation. Taxation legislation has become very complex. There is legislation dealing with every branch of life—housing, local government, industry, labour relations —everything. There is a mass of legislation, some of it statutory, by Act, some of it by rules and orders. It is a physical impossibility for any single Deputy in any parliament to grasp and to understand the content of such legislation. It is not that modern Deputies are deficient. The explanation why this Parliament as a debating house and as a Parliament is so frequently ineffective when it comes to a great deal of legislation, why so few Deputies take part in important debates, is that it is an impossibility to grasp the whole picture. Even Ministers themselves coming in here, having gone over the ground and benefited by the stupendous staff work that has been carried out before a Bill is produced, have been known to have had to refer back for queries on the legislation that they are putting through the House.

I am saying this about parliaments as a whole. This would be a problem in the Parliament of Europe also. It is a mistake to think that the modern parliament and the parliament of the future will be a group of people who get together and stand up in public, as we are doing now, and who will off the cuff discuss and decide legislation. That type of institution now can only talk. Invariably the decisions must be dictated by the government or whoever has introduced the legislation. That is a problem for all parliaments and we will have to come back to this in our own case sometime. In the European case, the real work of this Parliament will not be achieved by the process of public debate. It will be achieved by committees, commissions and groups devoting themselves to problems. Possibly, in the long-term some powers of initiation may be developed there, and powers of comment and supervision, but in the Europe of the future the executive, whether it is the Council of Ministers or the Commission or the two together, will be the deciding force. It is futile to think that a Parliament conceived on traditional and old-fashioned lines will be the deciding organ in any real sense of the word.

One therefore wonders what will be the role of the European Parliament. For the moment it will be too remote to exercise any pressure on local public opinion. It will be too deficient in power to exercise any compulsive pressure on either the Commission or the Council of Ministers. Therefore, I may be forced to take what some would conceive to be a pessimistic view of the possibilities of the role of the European Parliament in the immediate future. These are matters that have to be considered in the question of our going into Europe. I am talking about the immediate position. What the European Parliament may evolve as is another day's work.

What I really want to say at the end of all these words is simply this: I believe that our policy here should be to continue the policy that it is the Council of Ministers that is the ultimate legislating and deciding organ. That we should take that stand in common with France. Call it Gaullist if you like but it is highly important for a country such as we are that that should be our attitude.

Furthermore, I think that we have more representation there than we would achieve in any other way through our Foreign Minister. He is more our democratic representative than anybody we send out to this Parliament. I believe it is an illusion to think that a European Parliament will immediately exert authority that would compensate for the removing of power from the Council of Ministers as it is. That is not to say that I would not hope to see the Parliament of Europe developing but let it be developed in a modern context, in a modern way, and not simply try to impose something that was a concept, without alteration, that was developed a few hundred years ago. Keep the idea but let the practice conform to the facts of the situation.

The modern commission is serving its purpose very well and the development of Europe with a Council of Ministers and the Commission can be catered for in that way and when the time comes will pave the way in the course of natural evolution for such super government as will evolve out of this. Let us be wary of making blueprints now without either surveying the ground completely or making allowances for bringing bricks and other material on to the ground for the building programme.

Let us be Europeans. Let us go in wholeheartedly and take all the opportunities that are there. Let us go in and use our potential as Irishmen in other associations like this did in the past. It will not be the first time that Irish statement and Irish people went into association, went into the Council of Nations, asserted themselves and had effect. We have this opportunity again but that will be achieved by being conscious of ourselves, conscious of our national personality, not on the basis of throwing it completely over. I commented on Deputy O'Higgins's use of the word "Gaullist". Perhaps I might fit in within his definition but I would like in doing that to have it interpreted in the broad way in which I defined it. Again, I would like to say good luck to the Minister who will now be the Commissioner.

Mr. Bruton

I would like to join with other Members of the House in wishing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, every success in his new post which will undoubtedly be a very difficult one. It will be different from the type of activity he has been used to as a member of the Cabinet because I am sure the Commission works in a very different way to the Government in this country. I hope he will find his way around very quickly and that he will be a very effective member not only on behalf of Ireland but on behalf of the whole of Europe. Once he is there he is a representative of the whole Community.

I agree with Deputy de Valera that this is a very momentous piece of legislation. As he pointed out, the referendum enabled us to do what we are doing today but this piece of legislation is a substantative Bill. It is the Bill whereby this Parliament brings us into Europe. It is a very welcome development that we are going into Europe. I have always believed our greatest national problem was that we were an inward-looking people. Many of the difficulties that occur at present in the North of Ireland stem from this fact. We are so concerned about the relatively small differences which exist between different peoples on this island that we have magnified them out of all proportion and this magnification of miniscule differences has created all the bloodshed and hardship that is now occurring in the North of Ireland.

I believe that as members of the European Community the people of Ireland, North and South, of every religion, will see there are other cultures in the world. They will, for economic reasons, have to come into contact with those cultures and in that process they will become less obsessed with the basically petty differences which divide people in this country. I believe that going into Europe is a very positive contribution towards the unification of the people of Ireland. It is the unification of the people which counts, not territorial unity. What we are doing today is a vital contribution towards that development.

It is fair to say that we must proceed on a pragmatic basis towards unity in Europe. I think there were attempts in the Davin Young Committee to achieve a degree of co-ordination in a foreign affairs policy among the members of the Community some years ago but this failed. I believe it failed because it was premature. You cannot have a common foreign policy unless you have a basic common interest in the economic and political matters which go to make up a common foreign policy. If we try to go too fast in this direction we will only prejudice development in more mundane spheres by creating divisions which will emerge as a result of trying to go too fast.

I believe a common foreign policy is the last stage along the development towards a European community and that it is only after we have achieved a degree of common interest in economic and social development that we can really talk about a common foreign policy in any realistic sense. I hope the Government will adopt that attitude in regard to this matter.

I am rather unhappy about the way in which this Bill is framed. It is vital that there be a substantial democratic voice in decision-making in Europe. I have always felt that one of the defects of European decision-making to date has been this lack of a democratic voice. The Council of Ministers are certainly responsible to Parliament and their Cabinet but they go there and they have to make a deal. The practice has been that they have to remain in the room in which the negotiations are taking place until agreement is reached. Obviously, if a crucial issue arises they cannot refer back and consult the Irish people, the Irish Parliament or even their own Parliament.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26th October, 1972.