Fianna Fáil, when they wish to ascertain details of Government proposals, have to rely on statements made to law schools, university debating societies and news bulletins. We have to rely on this type of informed hint, statements from the Press, radio statements, or statements to university debating societies either here or in America. We deserve more. The Minister might take us into his confidence in areas such as those I have been dealing with. If he did so he might find that we had something to contribute. We might have an element of judgment which may be lacking in the Government. We would not be so naïve as to accept statements, which the Minister has accepted on the last occasion, that the British Government are not insisting on the principle of juste retour. In fact, we might be able to advance the national interest of the country. As long as this Government insist on doing it their own way, which is their privilege and one which they have been using, the results may not be to the advantage of this country. It would be better to have consultation with the Opposition through the channels of communication which are available to them.
It is equally our privilege to criticise what is being done and the difference between the intention and the achievement and between the commitment and performance. We are only interested in performance. I say that in relation to the regional policy of the EEC. I hope that by the time there is another debate in this connection we will have seen a significant change in the pattern. We are now again in "limbo" in relation to the regional policy. Within the last week we heard suggestions that the size of the fund would be restricted in proportion to the restrictions of the areas which would benefit. Perhaps the Minister would disclose whether there is any truth in these suggestions about the restriction of the areas. We would welcome his disclosures. Is there any suggestion about the restriction of the areas and, in conjunction with that, restriction on the size of the fund? This latter would not be to the advantage of this country. These suggestions are typical of the rumours we hear, but we have no way of checking on them unless the Minister tells us whether there is any truth in them. If we are given information too late we can do nothing to assist in promoting the national interest. I hope the Minister will tell us of the position in so far as he knows it so that the proposals now being considered may be examined to the best advantage of the country.
In particular I would like the Minister to tell us the response he got from his visits to the European Parliament. We are interested in knowing the arguments the Minister presented. The Minister has given us three pages of his arguments. These arguments were prepared by others in advance. We would be much more interested in seeing even one half-page of the response to the three pages of argument. We are interested in performance and not just intention.
In regard to regional policy, we had thought that one of the matters contained in it would be that a certain proportion of the fund would be retained by the Commission, in accordance with their earlier intentions— although this was not separately referred to in any Community document—for application in border areas where two countries could jointly promote a programme for development under the aegis of the European Community. We clearly welcomed that proposal. I received in this regard an indication from Commissioner Thomson on visits to Brussels. His thinking was in that direction. There does not now seem to be any evidence of the implementation of such thinking. I would be glad to hear from the Minister or from any other source, that such intention was to be implemented.
The Minister should be able to achieve something very significant for us now if such proposals were to emerge, particularly having regard to the discussions which will take place next week in regard to the Council of Ireland. As I said some months ago, even if a cross-Border council did not exist here, one might have to consider the necessity of establishing such a council for the purpose of implementing the regional policy of the EEC as it was presented initially. This might be necessary between any two countries such as France and Germany, France and Italy, Germany and Holland or elsewhere. The fact that discussions are taking place with a view to establishing the council is even more significant. We may have an advantage over other countries who may not have such an institution for applying programmes to the benefit of both sides of a territorial boundary.
It is particularly important that the deprived areas along our Border should be given special consideration. Those of us who have spent a few weeks in Monaghan recently have been struck by the fact that it is very much in a backwater by virtue of the existence of the Border beside it, apart altogether from the political attitudes there. We have all spent some time on the other side of the Border and realise that because of the Border the whole area is an economic backwater. There may be other similar areas but I do not want to overstate the position now. Wherever such an area exists, whether on the Irish scene or otherwise, there are obvious disadvantages.
The experience of the last 50 years here has resulted in disadvantages to the areas on both sides of the political divide. It is obvious that the proposals of the regional policy must pay special attention to that area. Even if this meant that the rest of this country were in some way to shed some of its entitlement, all of us in this House would be quite ready and willing to say that, if such were to be the price of a greater allocation for these Border areas on either side, we would be ready and willing to concede some portion of our entitlement, although I do not think such a position should arise. These Border areas have been cut off in many ways and they should be allowed to develop a normal and effective economic environment as soon as possible. One of the areas where difficulties may occur is that dealing with the question of effective road networks through the area, and the whole question of access to the houses in that area, wherever they may be. There are so many obvious areas where the regions on both sides of the Border could come in for special consideration that I do not think I need to spell them out at this stage.
In that connection also let me say that we here at the moment have a great responsibility to the rest of the country in the North of Ireland to ensure that we will in so far as possible represent their interests as effectively as possible in the institutions of the European Community. It must be clear to them that that part of the country is very under-represented in the European Parliament although I might say, under-represented though it is, the representative they have, Mr. Rafton Pounder, is certainly doing as much as any one man could do to represent the interests of Northern Ireland in the Parliament but when one considers that this portion of the country has ten to the one from that end it can be seen that, first, we have an obligation wherever possible to advance the interests of the whole country, I might even say to advance the interests in particular of that part of the country even though, in a crunch situation, it might be at the expense of the short-term interests of this part. That is something our representatives in the European Parliament, the Minister or anyone of us, would be very glad to do so that it can be seen that we who are so much better represented both numerically and otherwise will face up to this responsibility in a generous and effective way.
This brings me to the question of where we go from here and how we present our positions and attitudes in the European Parliament. It brings me in particular to the European Progressive Democrats which this party jointly formed with the Gaullist group in France. I was privileged, with Senator Lenihan, to conduct the negotiations that finally gave rise to the establishment of this group in Paris some months ago. Having regard to the discussions that we had, we were naturally very satisfied that the French and ourselves had many areas of common interest, that we had, apart from the traditional and historic associations which were very strong between our two countries, in the economic areas, whether one talks in terms of the common agricultural policy, the regional policy and many other areas and the structures of our societies and the attitudes of our people, much in common. We were naturally a little disappointed, though not greatly surprised, to see some of the cynical reaction at that time to the establishment of that group on the basis, almost, that one could hardly expect anything significant from Fianna Fáil at this time, that the best one could expect would be that we would tie ourselves to what was being presented as a reactionary, hidebound and restricting factor in the European Community, namely, the French representatives in the Parliament. Experience has taught everybody that the opposite has proved to be the case. It is interesting now to look at the same columnists and the same commentators who, rather prematurely, laughed at the suggestions and laughed at what the leader of the socialist group very inappropriately and very foolishly, might I say, called a mad marriage. They now have had reason to change their view of the effectiveness of this group and of the manner in which it can promote the interests of this country in the European Parliament.
I was privileged to have been involved in the establishment of the group. Everything which it has achieved since has proved that our decision then was the right one and what it will achieve in future will prove it even more. Even the Minister may acknowledge that this grouping in the Parliament has acted in the interests of this country and that it has acted positively and effectively and efficiently in the interests of this country in so many ways. May I quote some examples? They have been most diligent in presenting amendments to, in particular, the major issue coming before this House in this connection, the regional policy, both in their own right as a group and as individual members of the group, as rapporteurs of the committees of the Parliament. When the regional fund was discussed and the Delmotte Report on the regional fund came before the Parliament, 16 of the 33 amendments that were put down were presented by the members of the European Progressive Democrat group in their own right or as rapporteurs of committees of the Parliament. This is an indication of the teamwork and the effectiveness of the team work. At that time, I remember in one of those connections the Labour Party representatives in the Parliament voted against the amendments being taken individually and suggested and agreed with the proposal that they be referred back to the committee itself for full consideration.
I raised this question in this House at the time, if it was in the interests of this nation that these proposals should have been rejected in that sense and transferred back in bulk, as they had been presented individually. I asked the Minister—and I am sure he will recall this; I cannot immediately refer to the record but it is on the record—if he would take steps to ensure that our representatives in the European Parliament would act at all times in accordance with the interests of this country. The reply I got from the Minister on that occasion—and here I suppose I may have to get the record if the Minister does not accept what I say—was that it was not the function of the Government to direct our representatives in the European Parliament—the representatives of the Government Party—as to how they should vote or as to how they should, in fact, promote the interests of this country.
I want to say to the Minister that I totally reject that statement. I did then and I do now. I do so particularly now in the light of what has happened since with the Fine Gael representatives in the Parliament. I said then to the Minister that we in Fianna Fáil would ensure that it was certainly our function to consult with our representatives in that Parliament to ensure that nothing they said or did in that Parliament would not be in accordance with our views in the party at large and certainly would not be in accordance with the national interests. I am quite certain that our representatives—there is one of them in the House, Deputy Tom Nolan— recognise that we have confidence in them for the reason that we consult together in this area when these matters are coming up, that nothing they do could be against our wishes and if it did happen that it was against our wishes they would accept that we would certainly very soon tell them that they had better change their tune and promote the interests of the party and the country. That, I feel confident, cannot happen, will not happen, with the Fianna Fáil representatives in the European Progressive Democrats group because of the consultation that we have in advance and because of the understanding that they have that they are not there just to express an ad hoc or a personal view on any occasion; they are there as representatives of this party, representatives of this country's interests.
I say to the Minister that the representatives of the Fine Gael and Labour interests of this Coalition Government in the European Parliament must be subject to the same regulations and the same discipline. We do not want this Government to speak, not just with two tongues, but with three tongues, the Minister promoting one element of foreign policy at home, the Labour Party representatives in the European Parliament taking another view and the Fine Gael Party representatives taking a third view. This may be democracy in practice in one sense, if one looks at it that way, that everyone has the right to express a view. It is not the reality of a political exercise, particularly the political exercise that derives from our involvement in the EEC. I found it inexplicable that our Fine Gael colleagues in the European Parliament should have taken the attitude they took on the amendment which was recently presented to the Parliament to abolish the veto in the Council of Ministers with regard to the list of areas to benefit; I accept the qualifications.
When this matter was brought to the notice of the public, it was not, as suggested by the Fine Gael group, in their reply, brought to their notice by Fianna Fáil or the Fianna Fáil representatives in the European Parliament. In fact, it was presented, in the first instance, by an organ that could hardly be described as an agency of Fianna Fáil opinion, namely, the political correspondent of the Sunday Independent. Even Deputies opposite will hardly recognise that as the official newspaper of Fianna Fáil.