First, I should like to refer to a matter that has been mentioned already, that is, the length of time that has elapsed since developments in the European Communities have been the subject of discussion in the House. We have before us now five reports in respect of 1975 and 1976. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed regret that a discussion of this kind has not taken place for more than two years and he indicated that in future the problem may be solved by reason of the reports coinciding with the office of each presidency. However, I do not accept that as a solution. As there are approximately three reports each year, the introduction of the precedent suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary would mean simply that the next debate would not take place for another two years, when instead of having five reports before us we would have four. It is not possible to have so many reports dealt with adequately at the same time. In saying that, I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister's situation, having regard to his obligation to travel abroad frequently. However, discussion of these reports enable the Dáil and, consequently, the people, to understand what is taking place in Europe. The absence of such debates is creating an even greater gap in terms of understanding developments within the Community.
Before dealing with the contents of the reports, I should like to draw attention to the absence in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech of any reference to the impact on our situation of the company law proposals. We must adopt and apply regulations as they come to us by way of the various directives agreed by the Council of Ministers. According to the recent bulletin of the CFI, the first directive in regard to company law is the only one to be implemented so far in Ireland. The second directive has been agreed by the Council of Ministers and is awaiting implementation while Directives Nos. 3 to 8 are at the proposal stage. It is noted that the fourth directive, which would be radical for Ireland, might be passed by the end of 1977. I am drawing attention to this matter here lest there be people in industry and business who may not be aware of these developments. The second directive sets out regulations to govern the minimum size of capital required in respect of a public company. It outlines rules aimed at ensuring the maintenance of such capital and includes regulations also for establishing minimum capital for a public company to the extent of 25,000 units of account. It provides also that 25 per cent of capital must be paid up fully.
It should be noted that the first directive included the requirement to publish accounts but that in our case this has been postponed so far as private companies are concerned. It should be noted by private companies that this requirement might have to be implemented by the end of this year and that this would have a significant impact on the many private companies employing numbers of people.
The reports before us deal with the period from the first six months of 1975, in other words the report of August, 1975, to January, 1977. The first half of the 1975 report relates to the period during which Ireland held the presidency. In that respect I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the initiative and drive he applied to his work during that period. There were some commendable innovations during those six months and the Minister made a serious effort to have Community structures put into operation. One of the innovations was the decision to have parliamentary questions answered in the European Parliament. The Minister's presidency, too, represented a period during which the first meeting of the European Council took place and there was also the signing of the Lomé Convention. In addition it was during that period that Britain's membership of the Community was renegotiated. It is fair comment to say that that renegotiation to some extent represented a weakening of the European situation in that it was found necessary to change the terms of membership of an existing member in order to keep that member within the Community.
Another move that was initiated during that period was the bringing forward of a date for direct elections. Unlike the Governments of other members of the Community, our Government did not consult with the Opposition in regard to the setting-up of constituencies. Consultation in that connection would have been good. We should be able to approach this whole question on a more agreeable basis. It would have been best to have some form of independent commission.
In relation to direct elections, I note that the British Government agreed that proportional representation should be used in Northern Ireland. This was a step forward since it should ensure representation of both sides of the divided community there. I am puzzled by a report that the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. William Whitelaw, has opted against proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. If the report is correct, one wonders if Mr. Whitelaw has lost interest in the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland or if this is a question of the danger of the principle of proportional representation being accepted by the Conservative Party could affect their home situation. It is unfortunate that this should be the view of Mr. Whitelaw, a prominent member of the Conservative Party.
It is necessary to emphasise that the question of direct elections faces us with the problems of eventual European rule and direction. This is why debates of this kind should take place at six-monthly intervals and not every two years. We must ensure that our people have an understanding of the changes that will be involved. We must be prepared for an effective Parliament with the degrees of sovereignty which the direct elections will give. This will involve our acceptance of the fact that the major partners in Europe, through their size and the proportion of seats they will hold, will be able to direct us. I am sure that everybody in Ireland appreciates what one may describe as the apparent irrelevance of the 16 seats allocated to us and the three seats which will be held by representatives of the Northern Ireland area—19 seats in all for Ireland.
I welcome the reference in one of the reports to the setting-up of a committee to propose measures to deal with the taking of hostages. I have not been able to find any follow-up to that and I should like to know if there has been any further development. We have introduced legislation here but I should like to know what has been done by other European countries.
There is reference in the report to the question of movement of persons and I should like to know how this affects the movement of doctors among the member states of the EEC.
On the question of energy policy, I note that the proposals in the earlier reports were to the effect that by 1985 consumption would be 15 per cent below that of 1973 and that by 1985 it was intended to reduce Community dependence on imported energy to 40 per cent of the amount for 1973. I should like to know what progress has been made on this. The Eighth Report contains a very skimpy reference to energy. In Chapter 16 the Ninth and final Report which we are dealing with goes into more practical detail and I should like to spell out what the programme involves.
The report states:
At its meeting on 21 December, 1976 the Council approved this Community work programme for 1977 and called on the Commission to submit relevant proposals and documentation as soon as possible so that the time limits could be met.
The programme is as follows:
First half of 1977
(a) rational use of energy and energy savings
(b) protection and promotion of energy investments
(c) energy pricing
(d) promotion of the use of coal in electrical power stations
(e) aid for stockpiling of coal
(f) oil refining policy including
—the problem of surplus refining capacity and of adapting capacities to the structure of demand and
—the problem of protecting refineries against products imported from non-member countries
(g) security stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products including
—the problem of multilateral agreements concerning stocks held on the territory of a member State on behalf of undertakings established in other member States and
—the problem of financing security stocks
Second half of 1977
(h) examination of national programmes and Community objectives
(i) nuclear fuel supply and the nuclear fuel cycle, including the problem of radioactive waste
(j) technological projects of interest to the Community in the hydrocarbons sector, i.e., distribution of support for Community projects (third round) with reference to the application of Regulation 3056/76²
(k) hydrocarbons exploration
(l) coal gasification.
I should like to know what progress we have made in endeavouring to implement a national energy reduction policy. The energy problem arose in 1973 and so far as one can see from reading the Reports it was not until December of last year that the Council approved a programme. All of us must be aware, as has been said by President Carter, that a major problem in relation to energy and energy conservation is facing the world.
Mention was made last week by a Deputy of the election of Senator Yeats as Vice-President and of the failure to elect him as President of the Council of Europe. The Deputy in question was right to criticise the action of some of the Members of our Parliament in Europe who voted against Senator Yeats. One does not want to make comparisions between people, but there can be no question in anybody's mind that, as a candidate for that position, Senator Yeats must have surpassed any other candidate in the field. Deputy Thornley said in his experience when we go abroad we are Irish. It is very unfortunate to find that the Fine Gael members of the European Parliament did not support the Irish candidate in this instance. Deputies representing this Parliament in Europe must make an effort to be a good deal more mature and to think less of internal party politics within this State when they are in Europe.
It is quite obvious that in Ireland agriculture is the main beneficiary from the European Communities. It is also quite obvious that problems are beginning to arise in this area because of the fact that farm prices of essential commodities are escalating to the consumer. A couple of days ago the Government had no alternative—especially in view of the fact that this may be an election year—but to announce subsides to try to deal with increasing costs of some essential foodstuffs. So far as I can gather, the Government have not yet clarified who exactly will pay for these additional subsidies and how much they will amount to. People are asking: are these subsidies an additional charge on the Irish taxpayers? Leaving that aside, there is no doubt membership of the Community has been and is of considerable benefit to our agricultural sector.
Reference has been made in this debate to the question of the social funds and how the money provided for AnCO is being used. The Government need to examine how the grants for retraining are being used. There is an absence of a planned approach to this problem on the part of the Government. Retraining grants should not be looked on as an easy way to keep redundant people off the unemployment queue. They should be geared towards the possibility of providing employment. We need from the Government more evidence of a planned programme for the use of retraining funds in conjunction with IDA projects and in conjunction with possibilities of employment. It has been suggested and it is believed that some of the AnCO funds are being used to retrain people in duplication or in areas where there is no prospect of employment.
One of the areas next in line to benefit, if I may put it that way, from the European Communities is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The Department and the Minister are very fortunate to be getting so many millions of pounds on loan at a low rate of interest to re-equip and expand our telephone system. If we have not got a good telephone system in a few years time, it will not be the fault of the European Investment Bank or the European Community.
Our membership has been of great benefit to us but so far as one can gauge the situation, there has not been progress in the efforts to redress the discrepancy between rich and poor within the community. It may take some considerable time, but this is an area in which we should be able to contribute by way of criticism and proposal. To some extent, the problem may lie in the absence of a greater effort in recent years on the part of less developed EEC members such as ourselves and Italy to avail of funds for development. It may also lie in the failure of some members to cope with and control the cost of living and inflation, notable examples being ourselves and Britain. In this area we appear to be among the weaker members of the Community.
I should like to sound a note of warning in connection with our own general attitude towards the European Communities. It relates perhaps, to some degree, to the absence of debate, to the failure by the Minister to arrange to have debates on these reports at regular intervals. Whatever the reason may be, our general attitude in Ireland tends to be to evaluate our membership of the European Communities from the point of view of how much we can benefit from it. Like a citizen of any State whose personal contribution to society is an obligation in addition to the benefits he receives from that society, our aim as a member of the EEC must be to contribute to the idea and the ideals of Europe in addition to benefiting from membership.