Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities—Community Action in the Cultural Sector: Motion.
Thursday, 30 November 1978
Seanad Eireann Debate
Mr. E. Ryan: As regards Item No. 2, there is an hour-and-a-half limit on this debate. I propose, as we agreed for previous debates of this kind, that a quarter of an hour be given to the mover of the motion, ten minutes to other speeches by Senators, and ten minutes for the mover to conclude the debate.
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on the Commission's proposals on Community Action in the Cultural Sector which was laid before the Seanad on 8 November 1978.
I welcome the Minister who is taking part in this debate. This report covers a range of products and it involves addressing an interest which the EEC has expressed in what they have chosen to categorise as products in the cultural sector.
To put the debate into perspective it is important that we get our definitions right. The Commission defined the cultural sector, unexpectedly some of us might think, as the socio-economic whole formed by persons and undertakings dedicated to the production and distribution of cultural goods and services. So, we are talking about the production and distribution of cultural goods and services. The sector covers not only cultural activities such as drama and painting, and cultural products like books and sculpture, but also persons engaged in cultural activities, such as dancers and musicians.
This is treated in the report broadly under a number of headings such as the freedom of movement of goods—I hope other speakers will elaborate on the freedom of movement of cultural goods, products or services—regulations that affect stolen goods that are categorised as cultural products, and regulations and directives that affect the movement of people. At the heart of the philosophy of the EEC is the free movement of people. The report also deals with matters affecting tax, as applied to the earnings of people providing products and services in the cultural area where sale of these goods takes place, and with directives and regulations affecting the promotion of cultural exchanges, which is what we would think about first when we think about culture. For the purposes of this debate, we are talking about the movement of goods, stolen goods regulations, the movement of people, taxation picked up along the way, and the promotion of cultural exchange.
 I will just take one or two points from each of these headings and leave it to my colleagues in the House to elaborate. In the report of the Joint Committee the opinion of the Committee is expressed at the end of each section if Senators want to relate it to the report for the purpose of the debate.
When it comes to the movement of goods some of the things mentioned as being desirable are the exempting of creative artists in the plastic arts from formalities when transporting their own works generally applied and legalised, and that systems of sureties in respect of sale of cultural goods should be improved so that the financial burden is as small as possible. One area that we might highlight here would be where this affects the movement of goods across the 32 counties. The report talks about the reduction of formalities in relation to that. The Joint Committee were quite strong in their recommendations that anything that would simplify procedures connected with the movement of cultural goods across frontiers as such had particular relevance to Ireland in the context of the 32 counties. That is just one aspect.
In connection with combating theft, one aspect the Committee thought interesting was that a card system could be useful in preventing fakes and assisting in the tracing of stolen goods. We gave some emphasis to that in our consideration.
When it comes to the movement of people the Committee referred to the work going on at the moment in relation to SEDOC where the European system for the international clearing of vacancies and applications for employment is being looked at and which covers such sectors as manufacturing, agriculture, construction and so on. That system has not yet got under way completely. We can all see advantages in it in terms of the movement of people. As countries develop there will be a tendency towards more movement. Our general feeling was that before the cultural type workers get involved there we should first see how the system, with its present categories works.
In relation to the harmonisation of tax we felt that where the earnings of artists,  including performing artists such as singers and musicians, might vary from year to year, in some years they might make a killing and in other years they might not do too well, the taxation should be evened out and the irregularity of the earnings should be taken into account. Under this heading we pointed out some of the advantages we have for writers and eminent artists who decide to live here.
The other area about which I am sure there will be some comment is the promotion of cultural exchanges. We thought that there were some very good ideas in the pipeline in this area and that we should draw the attention of the House to them. For instance, the notion of each museum in each country having a “European Room” which would provide for young people, and anybody who is interested, a ready display of some of the cultural activities, goods and outputs of other countries. Ideas such as this spurred the Joint Committee to make extra suggestions in this area. We felt that in Ireland in the case of the plastic arts as opposed to the literary arts young people could be encouraged to go as apprentices to masters or famous people in other European countries. In this way there would be a spin off and this would be paid for by the Commission. We also made the suggestion that new buildings devoted to cultural goods might have a tax deduction of from 1 to 3 per cent of the construction costs and this would involve EEC aid.
That briefly is what the EEC are about. They have this notion of the cultural sector involving the production and distribution of goods and services that can be described as cultural in the sense of plastic arts or the performing professions. The notion is covered under those headings and if the House could speak to the debate under those headings we would have a useful debate which I look forward to hearing.
Miss Harney: I am pleased to second this motion of the Joint Committee on Community Action in the Cultural Sector.  It is vital to the development and well-being of our society that we cater for the cultural needs of a highly educated and sophisticated young population. Nowadays more and more young people have a greater interest in the theatre, the cinema, in music and in the arts generally. For this reason I am happy that the Joint Commitatee requested the Houses of the Oireachtas to debate this very important communication from the Commission. I am happy that only two weeks after our request the Leader of the House has given permission to us to have this important debate.
As Senator Mulcahy said in proposing the motion, the need for this communication arose as a result of a resolution passed unanimously by the European Parliament in May 1974 calling on the Commission to put foreward proposals for action in cultural sector. The Treaty of Rome, with the exception of Article 36, which allows member states to impose restrictions on the imports, exports and on goods in transit for the protection of national interests and goods of historic value, does not refer specifically to the cultural sector. However, in the Tindemans Report emphasis was laid on the importance of culture in a European Community which contained so many different people, and so many different cultures and traditions. In that report it was said that culture could be used as a means of arousing a greater feeling of belonging and solidarity among Europeans generally.
We have been very badly served in respect of specialised training and education in particular areas of the arts. When the Joint Committee were drawing up their report they listened to submissions and I thank the Arts Council for their submissions on the Commission's communication and for coming along to the Joint Committee. They made us aware that in the area of dancing, choreography, acting, theatre, directing and film making, Ireland was very badly served in providing education for young people wanting to go into this area of the arts. I would urge the Government and those responsible for the arts to make opportunities available, particularly for young people who are  more interested in the arts now than they were before. I would like young cultural workers to have an opportunity to visit other countries and gain experience in these areas.
In section 15 of the Joint Committee's report we discussed freedom of movement of workers and we held the view that if this is to become a reality it will be necessary for workers to be informed of employment opportunities that exist in other countries. It is the intention of the Commission to operate a European system for the international clearing of vacancies and applications for employment, covering such sectors as manufacturing, agriculture, construction and so on. The Joint Committee felt that it is important that if this is to become a reality it must also be included in the cultural sector. We realise that difficulties will arise where personnel rather than technical skills are required and that we will have to look at ways to overcome these difficulties.
In section 16 of the report we dealt with the training for young cultural workers and the European Commission in its second programme to promote the exchange of young workers throughout Europe, emphasised the importance of giving young people an opportunity to study and train in the cultural sector in countries other than their own. At the moment the Commission have a pilot scheme which they are testing out in several countries. The Joint Committee were disappointed that no pilot scheme was initiated in Ireland and we would like to urge that such a scheme be started at the earliest opportunity.
In section 28 of the report we dealt with the question of finance for the arts generally. It is regrettable that here finance has been mainly left up to the State and foundations that exist in other member states are not available in Ireland. It is also regrettable that business people have been very reluctant to sponsor the arts. In the USA the arts are by and large sponsored by business interests. The Joint Committee feel it is regrettable that the present taxation system inhibits sponsorship of the arts by business interests. As far as the taxation inhibits sponsorship of the arts business people or businesses generally who sponsor the arts in any way should  be allowed offset this money against income tax payments.
The Joint Committee welcome the suggestion by the Commission that for the purpose of tax concessions the whole Community should be treated as one fiscal area. Creative artists working here already enjoy many tax concessions in advance of other member states. Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969 allows for relief of income tax in respect of certain earnings from original and creative works, that of composers, painters and sculptors. To qualify for these tax concessions the individual must be resident in the State. We feel it is important that this provision be extended to the interpreative artists who do not enjoy this concession. The Joint Committee feel it important to support the proposal that everybody in the arts sector should be allowed to spread, over a number of years, any exceptional taxable earnings arising in any one year. Some artists earn quite an amount in one year and the following year their income could fall very much below that. For the purposes of paying income tax they should be allowed spread their earnings over a number of years.
In section 36 of the report we dealt with the social aspects and social security as it applied to cultural workers. The Commission hold the view that the highest proportion of under-privileged people living in the EEC countries are to be found in the category of workers who constitute cultural workers. Something needs to be done immediately in the area of social security and social payments generally to protect cultural workers and to allow them to avail of the many social payments that are available to other sections of the community. The Commission's communication on the cultural sector advocated the extension of social security policies and social security payments to people in the cultural sector to allow them to claim for sickness, for old age pensions and so on, and to allow them and their families to have the normal social payments that every other sector of the community enjoys. This, fortunately, is not the position in Ireland where all our social security payments and all workers come under the one system and cultural workers are not  restricted as they are in other member states.
At the moment, advertisements are appearing throughout all the member states and I recently saw one in this very city looking for young people between the ages of 14 and 21 to participate in a European youth orchestra and auditions are currently being held in many cities throughout this country. I would like to urge young people to avail of these opportunities to visit member states, to join orchestras of this nature and to get involved in the many important cultural advancements that are being made by the Commission, advancements that are to the betterment of the European Community generally and will be to our benefit here in Ireland.
The Joint Committee, and the Arts Council when they spoke to us, regretted the fact that the European Community generally were not adopting a very detailed or precise programme of cultural exchange and with a few exceptions they were not prepared to give the necessary finance or the necessary energy to allowing cultural workers to interchange with one another and to visit other countries. The Joint Committee, in section 49 of our report, pointed out the importance of the national theatre in member states and particularly in Ireland where we have the largest national theatre of all the EEC member countries. We felt that it was important that people from the Irish National Theatre could visit other countries and participate in the theatre there and likewise that people from other countries could come here and gain by the tremendous advancement we have made in our theatre. We felt it important too that something like a European theatre festival could be held, perhaps not yearly as it would be expensive and time-consuming, but every couple of years, in different European centres to give young people and people generally involved in the theatre an opportunity of visiting other member states.
That, I think roughly goes through the main observations that the Joint Committee have made on the European Commission's communication on Community  action in the cultural sector. We feel that it is important that Ireland which has been very reluctant and very slow to give either time or money to the arts should improve in this area. We feel that section 12 of the Arts Act of 1973 which gives local authorities the power to finance—it gives them both the power and the necessary money if they so wish—the arts in local areas should be taken up by local authorities and that all of us, whether we be involved in business or just purely in a spectator point of view should become more involved in the arts and see to it that this very important sector of our community which has been neglected for so long should receive more attention and more time both from Government and from business. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of the Joint Committee.
Mrs. Hussey: I was happy as a member of the Joint Committee and of this particular sub-committee to be considering this report because it gives a welcome sign that there is a wider implication to the European Economic Community than mere economics. I would like to quote from Mr. Brunner's document on cultural exchange in the Community: what is important is to realise the significance of the cultural phenomenon and to recognise that the peoples of the Community are concerned with more than the production and consumption of material goods.
When we are considering that we might gain, or how we can participate in some Commission help for cultural exchanges we must remember that the Commission may look less than favourably on our interest in this matter considering how meagrely we support the arts in the first place. They might well be excused for asking if we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. I am not going to go through the report but I will concentrate on one area of it about which I know a little. Until this year I was a member of the Board of the National Theatre, the Abbey Theatre, which is not in fact the largest in the EEC but is the longest established: it is far from the largest I imagine; it is probably the smallest. It is the  longest established and it was the first national theatre in the world to be given any subvention by the State. That is a very noble tradition and one of which I think we can be proud. It is also one of the very few ways in which culturally we are identified in the minds of a great many people in Europe and further afield. For those four years when I worked with the people in the Abbey I was absolutely astonished at the ingenuity and the perseverance of the manager, the artistic director, the players and the staff in keeping two theatres going for 12 months of the year on what could be only described as a shoestring budget.
Where we are considering EEC involvement I think we must have a look at the kind of subvention which other countries give to their arts before we can start talking about exchanges. One of the things we had to cut back on in the Abbey Theatre was any attempt to send young people or staff members to Europe to learn about their art. That leads to a great deal of insularity and God knows we have enough insularity in this country already. The present artistic director of the Abbey Theatre is convinced that we very badly need an international dimension to the theatre in order to strengthen our own tradition. The only contact of any size or durability which the national theatre has had abroad has been with Britain. Britain has been extremely generous and has been extremely good at sending people to us and accepting people from us, but we are already saturated with British culture. We already have a second televisions channel which seems only to have British culture on it. We must widen the base of our cultural exchanges and our cultural influences.
The young actors and the young designers are missing out on the kind of cultural exposure they should be getting. A very poignant case happened recently where a young Abbey person was invited to the very prestigious Marcel Marceau school in Paris to take up a place there; it was a great honour to be offered it. They all felt he would have to refuse simply because there was no money. But, at the last moment, by  scraping and saving and by the Arts Council stepping in with some of their meagre funds he was, in fact, able to take up that place. That is one example. At the moment they have a very, very prestigious man from Japan who is called the Japanese national treasure, in the Abbey directing some Noh plays by Yeats. It is cripplingly expensive for the Abbey to do this even though the Japanese foundation is sharing that cost.
We will really have to consider carefully how we can go to Europe cap in hand enthusiastically join in a fund which might exist for cultural exchanges before we could put some of our own house in order. Anybody who studies the excellent Arts Council Report will see how very badly we fare per head of population. We know that 47p per head of population is given to the arts in Ireland and in Northern Ireland it is 78p; in England it is 89p; in Scotland it is £1.14; in Wales it is £1.41; in Holland it is £7.20; in West Germany it is £6. As a matter of interest Norway with a population of four million gives £1½ million to the theatre alone in subsidies from the State. Sweden, with a population twice ours, gives £30 million a year to the theatre alone. It gives, in fact, a great deal more generally to the arts. I do not really think that our young people are showing a vast interest in theatre and the art. It was not our experience in the Abbey and I would not blame them for staying at home and watching television or going down to the pool hall because we simply cannot give the kind of artistic satisfaction or creativity that they deserve to get.
As a member of the sub-committee I was very pleased to be discussing this far-reaching report but it does have implications for our own attitude to the arts. One thing I would like to touch on—Senator Mulcahy and myself often have debates on it—is that we must also look upon cultural exchanges as a way of preserving our Irish language, of putting it there on show in Europe, of being proud that it is a very strong part of the cultural tradition of Europe and we must make sure that instead of being submerged in the welter of different culture influences in Europe, the Irish language comes out very strongly as part of that  culture. Finally, I think we cannot go cap in hand to Europe until we put our own house in order first.
Mr. Lambert: I am very glad that this report has been brought so quickly to the House. There are vast implications in the call for Community action in the cultural sector and I welcome this discussion as a preliminary incursion into an area which has been treated up to now as the Cinderella of political objectives. Some years ago UNESCO noted that cultural policy should be integrated into general planning and now that we are at last debating this call it is imperative that we re-think the whole relationship between the State and the arts. This call is most timely as we approach the budget period so that it can be brought into the appropriations for 1979.
I was very happy to read that in considering the Commission's communication the Joint Committee received considerable assistance from our Arts Council and I can vouch for the fact that the recent joint meeting between Art Councils, north and south, has already laid the groundwork for the Commission's call for co-operation between cultural institutes inside the Community as regards activities and programmes. It is obvious that cultural projects can be mounted with a sharing of costs and can have a broader impact throughout Ireland. Of course, as many Senators agree, this should be extended to other countries in the way the Community Youth Orchestra and also the European Community's Choir have been going on for a long time.
The lack of any reference to the Cultural Committee of our Department of Foreign Affairs which is currently responsible for the promotion of arts outside Ireland is disappointing and this is my reason for advocating that the drawing together of all strands of State provisions should happen to ensure a more cohesive effort and a sustained response from the total expenditure on the arts.
In the setting up of the RTE 2 Programme Council I must compliment those involved for inviting a nominee from the Arts Council of Northern  Ireland. The person appointed is Mr. T. P. Flanagan, President of the Ulster Academy, who is not only a foremost painter but has a wide knowledge of broadcasting and teaching. His advice and experience should benefit those arranging potential programmes and I hope that the outcome will be the promotion of more cultural exposure which will entertain and educate millions of Irish viewers more beneficially.
I am glad the report draws attention to the position of artists. However, I must comment that one minute's walk from here, within division bell time, we had the annual exhibition of the students of the National College of Art last June. To me this is one of the most stimulating experiences, to see how young Irish students have broken through the barrier of gerontocracy and are expressing themselves in artistic creations which depict the times we are living in, whether we like them or not. They were as good as anything I have seen elsewhere in Europe. The only thing was that members of the college did express disappointment to me at the lack of attendance of Members of the Oireachtas. The future of our artists in Ireland is fairly hopeless unless the groundswell of talents which are waiting to be channelled into the whole stream of cultural planning and development is recognised by those in authority.
In reference to the freedom of movement of cultural workers, it will be very difficult to define “cultural worker”. How does one draw the distinction between arts, crafts and design? The phrase “cultural worker” must not be used as a refuge for layabouts or those who want to use it to avoid employment otherwise.
Section (f) of this report on the harmonisation of taxation needs urgent attention and, as Senator Harney has argued, subsidies from Government and local authorities are necessarily limited and the future of culture depends substantially on foundations and patronage and consequently on the taxation system applicable to such. Two weeks ago we had a visit from Roger Kennedy, the Vice-President of the Ford Foundation and by courtesy of the Arts Council some business people had the opportunity  of hearing him talk about the amount of support which the arts get from business and private patronage in the US because of the tax incentives offered by the American Government. These should be examined in detail but in the meantime it is compelling that we in this country support the Commission's recommendations on the elimination of tax barriers to develop cultural foundations and patronage in Europe. The whole question of covenants for the purpose of helping voluntary organisations to exploit the full potential should be extended and not just restricted to research and education. This will not be as costly as it would seem at first sight because although the Government may lose a certain amount of tax in one area in another they will be saving an expenditure and the amount of voluntary work and effort that will be harnessed free in support of people's contributions will be a substantial if unquantifiable bonus.
The reference to the imposition of VAT as between new and secondhand work is puzzling and indeed the whole VAT system has even proved puzzling to the members of the Committee on the VAT Amendment Bill, never mind the ordinary citizen who finds the administration of the VAT system is as bewildering and complicated as the EMS. The removal of VAT on sales of original works of art by artists or their agents would bring a substantial upsurge in artistic activity and increase the level of employment in the cultural sector which has been neglected in recent programmes for job creation. I emphasise that original creations by artists should be zero-rated because of their uniqueness. Multiple prints and reproductions can come under another category. On the question of copyright and related rights, as a collector I have only recently begun to realise that I own the works in my collection but I do not own the copyright and I do not necessarily have the reproduction rights without the artist's permission. A practical example of this is Art, History and Appreciation. On the front cover is a picture by Vasarely which I happen to own but inside the cover it is acknowledged as being reproduced by kind permission  of the artist. This is another law which should be harmonised so that patrons when they buy a work of art could pay an additional fee to cover the copyright of the unique work which they are purchasing. The question of whether the copyright lapses on the death of the artist needs clarifying. On another point I cannot personally see how the system of re-sale rights would work. What would happen in an auction for instance if the work de-values? Would the artist compensate the original patron?
I compliment our Joint Committee for the work they have done in highlighting the need for Community action in the cultural sector and for bringing to the attention of all politicians the importance which our cultural development warrants. I hope the Government will hear the call and that positive action will be taken in our forthcoming budget.
Ruairí Brugha: Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mar bhall de Pharlaimint na hEorpa fáilte a chur roimh an diospóireacht seo agus a rá chomh láidir agus is féidir gur pobal daoine, pobal náisiúin atá san Eoraip. Níl sé ina sórt comhsheilbh eachnamíochta amháin.
I welcome this excellent report from the Joint Committee and the call from the Commission of the European Community to accelerate practical proposals for co-operation in the European cultural area. I would also like to point to the tardiness on the part of the Commission itself in so far not providing an adequate report for the Council. While speaking of that I would also like to mention, as was mentioned here by an tAire Oideachais, the failure of the Council of Ministers for Education to meet this week. I wonder—this is a matter of concern for Europe and not for ourselves—what is causing the inertia in this area.
I think it is important to emphasise in particular in the coming year the greater interest that will be developed here in the European Community. As one Senator said, it is not just an economic community. The Community itself, apart from the other European nations that are not members of the Community, is a part of the family of Europe and in this cultural sphere all European nations  have made and can make significant contributions to our sense of being European.
All that is of the cultural sphere, music, song, artistic creation, works of art and all that has been mentioned by the other speakers, need to be sustained and cherished because these are the things of the spirit that create an awareness in us of our common heritage. I say that because I feel there is a special need for a joint approach by the Commission of the Community together with the members of the Council of Europe who are not members of the Commission to act on behalf of the nations of Europe in, for example, the matter of films, especially television films, in the joint enterprise of providing for all the member states a greater output that will reflect the common heritage of the European nations. I say this particularly because of the great mass of mainly entertainment—some good and some not so good—films coming from the United States which is to be seen in all Community homes. We, as a European community together with the other nations of Europe should be making an effort to match this output in order to sustain our own sense of identity.
A number of points mentioned need stressing. There should be provision for exchange of students as is envisaged through the coming European Foundation. Earlier Senator Hussey mentioned that we should not be going with our caps in hand; I do not see us doing that. I agree with the criticism of the failure to give sufficient support either at public or private level to the arts but at the same time as one of the members of the Community I see no reason why the young people who are interested in this area, who are growing up in this country, should not get whatever advantage can be got through exchange facilities and through support from the Community in this area.
Finally, I would suggest that now that we have a second TV channel it could usefully be used to some extent to expand the knowledge and understanding of Europe that exists throughout the country in cultural, social and economic terms. I feel that we could do more to  provide entertainment and other films being produced in Europe. This would be something to which our second channel could be usefully directed.
I am very glad that this debate has taken place and I will conclude by spelling out a few things said better in this content by others than by myself. I am referring to a report from the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, of which I am a member, which is coming before the Parliament in a fortnight's time. It says that the culture of our continent, in its richness and diversity, constitutes an essential element of European identity and helps to make a reality of the building of Europe for the citizens of its member states and that the European cultural heritage must be adequately safeguarded, properly exploited and carefully fostered.
The report is indeed an excellent one in its own way. It says: “The Commission defines the cultural sector as the socio-economic whole formed by persons and undertakings dedicated to the production and distribution of cultural goods and services.” It proceeds to give a list of the various things: we get them on pages 3 and 4, such things as freedom of trade in cultural goods, combating thefts of cultural goods, freedom of movement and establishment for cultural workers, and so on. On the next page it mentions, among other things, the preservation of the architectural heritage by the promotion of specialist training for restorers and so on. All these things are excellent but I could not help wondering when I came as far as that line—“the preservation of the architectural heritage”—why no reference was made to the preservation of our linguistic heritage.
In the Tindemans Report it is stated that stress was laid on culture as a means of arousing a greater feeling of belonging and solidarity among Europeans. As far as we are concerned, in this island of ours, I do not think anything could give us a greater sense of solidarity and oneness with Europe than  a deep study of our language and the sources from which our language came.
It is an extraordinary fact that as far as the European Economic Community is concerned we have more close ties with all that area than we had with any other part of the world down through the centuries. The Celts, from whom we sprang more or less, are first to be found north of the Alps near the source of the Danube and the Rhine two thousand years before the birth of Our Lord and we have an unbroken tradition back as far as that time. The Celts established their empire—a loose federation more linguistic than political—from our own island here as far east as Galatia in Asia Minor. They could not stand up to the might of the Roman Empire but these people arrived at a certain stage. Our Celtic brethren in Gaul were completely defeated by Julius Ceasar by the year 50 BC. All we have left now of the Celtic languages are Irish, our own language and Scots Gaelic on the one side—these would represent the Q Celts, as they are called—and on the other side we have the Bretons in France and the Welsh in Britain—they would, of course, be the P Celts. Unfortunately, Cornish which was a P Celtic language and Manx which was a Q Celtic language have now disappeared. Cornish, one of the original Celtic languages disappeared when Julius Ceasar triumphed over Verüngetorex at the end of the Gallic wars.
The point I want to make is that we have an unbroken tradition right along with all of Europe through that channel. We are the only State that is a sovereign state in any of the Celtic areas where languages are still spoken. That is a thing we should remember and we should make a point of bringing that to the notice of the Europeans. I know it has an extraordinary effect on Europeans when they find that you come from this island; there seems to be a rapport straight away and we should concentrate on promoting our linguistic heritage and the knowledge that goes with it. I refer to the music, the songs, the poetry, the dances and so on. There is a great demand for our traditional musicians all over Europe where they are highly respected.
 I am associated with several groups of musicians who have performed in Europe where they are given a tremendous reception. People like our music because we have a corpus of magnificient music which was handed down to us through the centuries. We have an extraordinary heritage of song. In the area of step dancing and figure dancing, our standards compare favourably with the standards of national groups anywhere in the world. These are things we should exploit in Europe to further cement the links that already exist between us and the other nations in the European Economic Community.
Somebody mentioned RTE 2. Unfortunately there is grave disappointment with RTE 2 since it came on the air. We hoped that it would do some of the things that some Senators suggested it should do. First of all, we should bring back to ourselves the beauty, wealth and richness of our culture before we bring it back to the Europeans. We have a living language. A thing of life is of far more value than something that is dead, something that can only be admired as a static object. We hope that as time goes on RTE 2 will do something for the nation's upliftment and promote our standards, values, language and the best things in our heritage.
I hope that all concerned will note the suggestions I have made in regard to bringing to the notice of the other nations of Europe and the EEC the richness and wealth of our native culture and the value of its contribution to European culture.
Mr. McCartin: We are speaking in a general way about Community action in the cultural sector and that restricts the subject. I should like to draw attention to a few aspects of our culture which are not being sufficiently considered at present. It is easy for us to stand up and quote the provisions made by richer countries for the development of cultural activities and the preservation of works of art. It is easy to make that kind of argument here and just leave it at that. It attracts a certain amount of attention from the media, but in the end it does not convince anybody.
 We must be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to give whatever is necessary to preserve our culture and at the same time make it available for the enjoyment and appreciation of our neighbours in the EEC.
I was particularly interested in what Senator Cranitch said because I believe this is one area of our past that we have neglected. It is mentioned here in this report. I do not want to talk about Wood Quay because it has been sufficiently discussed. In many areas there is evidence of our past which is unexplored and unidentified—places where information is available and has not been properly sought. Tourists have been passing places which could be of great interest, particularly to our Celtic cousins in Europe and Britain. There are places of historic interest throughout the countryside; places like the old fort near my home which was the seat of the old Celtic God Crom Cruagh. Visitors pass it; land reclamation officers skirt around it now and again; farmers propose putting reservoirs in it. Yet nobody knows what it means. Scholars have not noted its existence or come to any conclusions about the secrets it may hold, if carefully excavated and documented.
There are many other areas of interest. There is another old fort in Roscommon, which is not far from my home. Travellers pass it because it has not been drawn to anybody's attention. Farmers in the process of improving their land and erecting buildings bulldoze over forts every day. Not so long ago forts were protected by a ring of trees and the fear that the little people who lived in them might seek revenge. No longer will superstition protect the forts throughout rural Ireland. We have an obligation to identify, protect and learn from them not only for ourselves but for the benefit of tourists who come to us from all over the world. In this area little has been identified.
We have not many great buildings in our towns, but we have a number of more recent ones. At the moment we should be looking at some of our better public buildings. Some of our old courthouses and churches should be protected and preserved. A wealth of  knowledge can be gained from exploring underground in other areas before it is destroyed.
Amateur theatre is not noticed very much in rural Ireland. In the West there is a world of activity every year between Christmas and Easter. In many little halls in rural areas works of art are produced. I have seen many fine productions of amateur drama, which is widely appreciated. I doubt that one would find more people participating in and enjoying amateur theatre in insignificant halls and community centres anywhere else in the world. Some amateur groups have achieved high standards.
A few years ago I went to the amateur drama festival in Athlone and there I saw a play from my own village, “The Honey Spike”, by Brian MacMahon. As the evening drew to a close, I thought it a shame that it should be seen by so few. The props were packed and put away, and that was the end of it—something that was so well written, produced and interpreted by a group of amateur players. We have not appreciated the voluntary work that is done in amateur theatre, particularly the voluntary work of the clergy in rural Ireland who have directed and produced plays and educated the people in their areas.
The main point I should like to make is that all this activity ceases before the tourist season starts. While we make efforts to sell our angling facilities, which are an important asset, we do not make any effort to attract tourists to our cultural activities. I have seen American tourists walking the streets of towns in the West unaware that they could visit the local community centre and view the artistic scene of our past. We have not tried to sell our culture and artistic knowledge to our European neighbours. Language is certainly a barrier in this respect. Nevertheless, with increased travel and increased knowledge of two or more languages many visitors from continental countries could enjoy and appreciate our cultural activities.
It is too much to suggest that the European Community must raise finance to make it easier for us. It is fair to say that we should all make an honest effort to promote our cultural activities for the benefit of our neighbours in  Europe who would come to appreciate us all the more if they realised we had so much to offer.
Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Tunney): Is maith liom an deis seo a bheith again ar mo chéad turas go dtí an Teach seo labhairt ar ócáid atá chomh taithneamhach agus chomh tábhachtach leis an gné atá anseo romhainn inniu. Is cúmha liom go bhfuil teora ama ann agus dá bhrí sin go bhfuil trioblóidí orm fhéin agus ar chainteoirí eile. Chomh fada is a bhaineann sé liom fhéin, déanfaidh mé iarracht gan aon ath-rá a dhéanamh ar na tagairt atá déanta cheana ag cainteoirí eile ar ghnéithe a bhaineas go dlú leis an gceist seo.
Whether it is in deference to the cultured approach of the Cathaoirleach or to the approach of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I am happy that the debate, if one can call it that, has been allowed move into areas which are technically a little removed from what cold Standing Orders might ordain. But it is right that that should be done in the interest of that which is being sought and pursued in the report of the Joint Committee, to whom we are all indebted. I am in agreement with practically everything which the Joint Committee have put before us. Normally, I am a strict disciplinarian, but had I been a member of that Committee I would have taken it upon myself to move beyond the constraints which the report would have placed on us and, being guided by the spirit of Tindeman, of the heads at Summit meetings, and to consider the belated recognition by them of the omission from the Treaty of Rome of any positive reference to culture, not referring to the bits and pieces of the cultural scene but to the spirit of culture. This is the spirit which more than anything else draws people to each other and serves the need of solidarity which the leaders require and which they know to be essential if this union of which we are part is to continue as we all would wish.
No union is complete unless it embodies all the interests and pursuits of the normal being. We know that there is nothing older than the interest of man in the pursuit and treatment of the development  of mental and moral powers or values leading to an enlightenment, understanding and a better knowledge and appreciation of intellectual aesthetic and spiritual matters. Because of that I take, with your indulgence, a Chathaoirleach, the licence which you have allowed to others in treating so briefly of this matter.
I agree entirely with the attitude of the last speaker and his regrets that we should—as one might be inclined to do, having regard to the technicalities of the Community and the perpetual references to GNP, EMS, rationalisation, formulisation and all that jargon, all of which is very essential—forget that there are other things in life of equal importance. I accept the point he makes regarding the amateur theatre in Ireland. When the legislation was passing through the Dáil I made a special plea that our Arts Council would give to that movement the recognition which it deserves. Unfortunately, the Government of the day did not see that as being appropriate. I agree with him that we cannot count when making the annual budgetary provisions the contribution which Ireland has made to this great movement. It is right to refer however to the recognition we have given in other areas, how we have been ahead of Europe in the matter of the consideration we have given to artists, which is already provided for in our legislation and where the exhortation is in the report that other countries should follow suit. We might also refer to the provision which we have made in our social welfare legislation for the workers and for the artists, where we are again ahead of other European countries.
Senator Hussey accepts that we were the first European nation to accept the need for funding a national theatre. If, because of our resources, we do not compare in that category with others, regard should be had for the other contributions which we have made and in which we are ahead of other European countries.
I should like to say, too, how attracted I was to the point made by Senator Ruairí Brugha. Here I am mindful of the fact that I am not here to respond to or comment on points made by  other speakers. Nevertheless, I give to myself the right either to confirm the expressions of other speakers or to attempt to dislodge from their minds anything they might have said. The point I make is that it would be entirely wrong of us to accept in the matter of European culture that the Commission have any monopoly of what is Europe. In the true spirit of culture and the enlightenment which is ours, we must at least be magnaminous and accept that we are only a part of it.
While I can appreciate that it should be our concern that we in that unit would contribute and we as a team would co-operate and integrate, we must simultaneously be aware that our attachment culturally might be to the Nordic and central European countries, countries referred to by Senator Cranitch with which we have long associations dating back many centuries. We must accept the need that exists for our co-operation and integration with them in the same fashion as we would with the members of the European Economic Community. It is very important that we now make it known that the man in the street in Ireland and in the Economic Community, is not as familiar with the operation of that Community as we would like him to be. On the other hand, he accepts that the Community has power over him and is a type of European Government. Because of that, he will be taking a lead from it and he is anxious that we assist him in interpreting what the Community is doing on his behalf.
Perhaps the tragedy of today and of the times in which we live is that the normal being feels a certain powerlessness in respect of the institutions at home and abroad which exercise so much control over him, over which he himself has so little control and of which he has so little understanding. It is our function to enlighten him. I would, as I have on other platforms, mention that in our thinking about culture we cannot think exclusively of the owners of the artifacts, whether they be individuals or whether it be the State. We cannot think exclusively of the artist or of the cultural worker. We must think all the while of what the whole culture is in aid of. Surely if it is in  aid of anything it is in aid of benefiting the community and all the people of Europe, indeed, all the people of the world. We must be forever concerned about how we diffuse this, not by any means reducing it to the lowest common denominator but rather making the fruits of this exercise available to the people and avoiding the traditional approach of making it appear that culture is an elitist thing and only the preserve of a few.
In the areas to which Senator McCartin and other Senators referred there is an obligation on us to remove the barriers that have existed for so long and to remove the attitude that would seem to have obtained that all was not welcome. In that lies a great responsibility on all parliamentarians, at home and abroad, to make it known. Their approach should always be to examine any project which comes before them in respect of culture on that basis.
An Cathaoirleach: Ar 4 p.m. bhí sé socraithe go dtiocfadh an tSeanadóir Mulcahy isteach chun freagra a thabhairt ach chonaic mé go raibh cúpla duine ag iarraidh labhairt fosta. Brathann sé ar an dTeach anois.
Mr. E. Ryan: In view of the fact that there is no other business and there is so much interest in this motion, perhaps we could defer allowing Senator Mulcahy coming in until 4.20, which would give everybody an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Tunney: There was a reference to cultural workers and the desirability of their having freedom of movement, that freedom which is in the true spirit of all things cultural. We are not doing justice to the worker, whether he be an artist, a dramatist, an author, a sculptor, or an actor. We should make it appear that it is for his sake only that we are interested and that we are anxious that he should enjoy this freedom and this protection. We should simultaneously make the  point that the mobility which we envisage, while being beneficial for the present, also brings with it an enrichment to the area into which the worker has moved. That is a matter which did not get the significance in the report which it should have obtained. We are not solely concerned with freedom of movement. Everybody in this part of the world accepts today that that freedom goes without question but the important aspect of it in the cultural field is the contribution which his movement makes to the destination, wherever it is.
I agree that there should be greater exchange than at present. The European Foundation will give us an opportunity to continue in the tradition of the past and in particular of the more recent past. I was happy myself to have been associated with two relatively minor movements of young Irish artists to the Continent. One was the movement of young actors and actresses who went to Brussels in 1974 to take part in a drama festival established for European capital cities. Nora Lever took charge of the group selected from different schools who worked on and performed very well. “The Importance of Being Earnest” and received much acclaim in Brussels. The year before last a group from the convent school in Finglas took part in a choral festival in Belgium and succeeded in making quite an impression on their Belgian colleagues and others. I see no reason why, even in the absence of any exhortation from the Community—I say this mindful of the fact that there is an implied commitment that the necessary resources will be made available—we should not continue the good work which as been established. I apologise if I have trespassed on the kindness of the Chair in the matter of extra time which has been given to me. I might remind the Chair that I have been accustomed to operating in areas in which I had no such limitations. I hope that, on the occasion of my second visit, I will be more amenable to the time factors which obtain in this House.
Mr. Jago: Just a few words on the lines that Senator Hussey was speaking  on in connection with the professional threatre in Ireland. We should review how we are financing theatre and drama. Most of the speakers who referred to the theatre are Dublin-based and I wish to say a few words as a country boy outside looking into Dublin.
The arts have been financed in several ways. For example, the Cork Youth Orchestra was started by private sponsorship. That is how it got off the ground. Today, it is getting a subvention from the local authority. Local authorities have the right to support art. The Irish Ballet Company started from the Cork Ballet Group and is now supported by the Arts Council. It is doing its job in that the rest of Ireland is able to see ballet as produced by the Irish Ballet Company.
In Cork we can have one week's opera per year and that is only because of an association with the Dublin Grand Opera Company who are subsidised by the Arts Council. They come to Cork but we have to give them a guarantee to come. As well as that, we have to bring in the symphony orchestra. As far as I know, the symphony orchestra is financed in the budget of RTE, but we have to pay the symphony orchestra to come to Cork. We could not have one week's grand opera except for private sponsorship which we have to arrange in Cork.
It has been said that we were the first to have a national theatre. The question at the moment is, is it actually, through our financial structure, able to operate as a national theatre? They are short of funds. They are relying on the Arts Council to ensure the funds. If the Cork Opera House wishes the Abbey Theatre to come to Cork they have to give a guarantee to the Abbey Theatre. On the present finance of the Cork Opera House Company they cannot always afford the guarantee and thereby take advantage of the national theatre. The same applies to the Gate Theatre. The Dublin Drama Festival is subsidised in Dublin. If we wish to get one of the plays to come to Cork afterwards we have to give a guarantee to get them to come down. Therefore at this moment the future of the Cork Opera House is in the balance because, it was said up to now,  all the production companies could be subsidised but the actual building in which they operate could not. Whether this is being changed we do not know. But, at the moment, we are relying on the good offices of Cork Corporation and the Arts Council to keep the only professional theatre outside Dublin in the 26 counties operating.
The question of interchange in the EEC is something that has to come. The Arts Council are having discussions with the Welsh and Scottish Councils to see if they can finance their companies to come to Ireland, and we do the reverse, so that we can keep a variation of programmes through the year. If our artists come only before the Irish public and have not the opportunity to go abroad, they will become over-exposed and will not be able to carry out their career in Ireland. I am very glad that this has come before us and that I have been able to ventilate some views from outside Dublin.
Mrs. Cassidy: I will try to be as brief as possible to ensure that everybody gets a chance to speak. When culture appears on the Order Paper, I usually fold my tent like the Arabs and silently steal away. But having read the report of the Joint Committee I am disappointed at the lack of progress in cultural exchange between the member states. We have a youth orchestra and we are being encouraged to expand our museums to include European rooms. That does not sound like progress to me. It sounds more like desperation.
We have geographic and historic links with the United States and Britain which mean that we are particularly susceptible to the influence of the synthetic culture of the United States and to the British “chips with everything” culture. I had hoped that our membership of the European Community would lead us towards the richness of the European cultural heritage. I had even entertained a hope that our membership would result in a plan to restore the Irish language as part  of a shared Celtic heritage. I commend the vigorous activities of the Minister in this regard, because one cannot treat a language as a mere cultural symbol. Language is a means of communication and any scheme to restore or revive it must be based upon a sound economic structure where people are encouraged to use it as an ordinary means of communication in their work and leisure as part of a thriving community.
Culture is, of course, a matter of individual definition. We do not have a regular cultural sabbath when we go to a fleadh ceoil or a football match. It is what ordinary people do in their lives at work or in their leisure activities. One of the most important and corrosive cultural influences is that of television. If we were honest we would have to admit that Kojak is as important a cultural influence as Trom agus Éadrom.
We are not as aware, in our everyday lives, of the work of our young artists and writers as they are in other countries of the Community. But then, patronage of the arts must come from the top, must be led by the nation's political leaders. It must not be left—though we are very grateful for it—to the efforts of private individuals. One way in which we could make a valuable contribution to the general level of cultural activity in the Community would be by the provision, by means of a Film Bill, of the necessary structure to foster the growth of an indigenous film industry. We have the best actors in the world. When I was growing up, they left Ireland in their thirties to get work because they could not work here. I read recently that they are now leaving Ireland in their twenties. Our film directors, although the best in the world, are now in the position of pioneers in this country. The film is an international medium but in the work of film-makers like Fellini or Bergman, which has a universal appeal, the traditional cultural heritage comes right through their work.
I would have liked to have time when I was talking about a national film industry to speak on censorship. In so far as film censorship is tolerable it should operate within very clearly defined limits. The censor must be guided by what the film-maker has in mind. It is very easy to see if one reads the papers  what most of the film-makers have in mind. It is very difficult to see a film that would be suitable for family viewing or suitable for the discerning filmgoer. The censor cannot apply the same standards to pornography as he does to work that comes from a gifted director. I compliment the amount of work that the Joint Committee have put into this report.
Mr. Donnelly: I appreciate the thought of the Leader of the House and the fact that the House has agreed to extend the debate. I will confine my remarks to just one or two points. We had many references to European culture and European tradition in the debate. They are relevant because they are the foundation on which rests most of what we are trying to cultivate and foster. It is also healthy to look at the whole campus.
There are aspects of the European tradition which do not commend themselves to people who look at Europe from the outside. Many other countries, particularly the Third World, will see other aspects of the European tradition. They will know that two world wars originated in Europe in this century. The history of religious persecution and prejudice which manifests itself around the world can very often trace its roots back to Europe. Racialism, which continues to manifest itself in an appalling way around the world, can also trace its roots back to Europe. I make these points really because of the shortness of the time. I emphasise this point, I acknowledge what has been said about our tradition and our cultural tradition.
It is important to look at the whole picture and to realise that the development, and a progressive attitude to the development of European culture, can assist not only the citizens of the European Community but will go a long way to improving the reputation and the influence for good of Europe, and also the Community within the greater Europe, in the Third World area and throughout the world. A lively cultural appreciation can assist the overall Community identity and promote a better understanding and willingness to deal with other complex and more mundane problems with a  level of goodwill and understanding which might not otherwise exist. I have no doubt that artistic culture and, indeed, spiritual development is the perfect antedote to rising materialism, which is the foundation and the basis for most of the political and social evils of the world today. In the recent historical context of Europe it would be true to say that if Hitler had had more success and perhaps more encouragement with his water colours, the history of Europe might have been considerably different than it was.
I would like to deal with some aspects of the problem in relation to Ireland. The exchange of cultural workers is something which is to be welcomed and promoted for two reasons: it assists the individual who benefits from the exchange and it also aids and assists in the host countries.
There is a popular story which is attributed to the late F.J. McCormick. He was introduced to a young apprentice actor in the Abbey and is reputed to have shaken his hand and said: “Young man, you have a great deal to learn from me and I have a great deal to learn from you.” That is the essence of cultural exchange and because of the benefits which apply both to the individual and the host country it is something which requires total support from the individual member states and the Community itself.
Mr. Donnelly: In relation to the lack of support for the arts in Ireland, it is only fair to make reference to the Irish Theatre Company, the Dublin Theatre Fesival and the Olympia Theatre, all of which have received support to some degree. This report falls very far short. I agree with what Senators have said in this regard. May I just express the hope that this debate may assist in bringing forward the fact that there is tremendous public approval for support by the State and local authorities, as well as individual members of the community, for the arts. The pressure on time which we have here today is perhaps the best example which we could have of that point.
Dr. Whitaker: I would go further than the Tindemans Report and stress that it is not only between countries but within them that knowledge of cultural background and links with the outside world can promote a sense of understanding and community transcending political differences. I have experienced this in contacts with Unionist friends in Northern Ireland. A shared interest in archaeology, the origins of place names and so on has promoted a great feeling of good fellowship and also of interest in the Irish heritage. There are deficiencies in our own knowledge of this heritage. Happily, they are actively being remedied by a very fine series of films on RTE at present and there is also, I hope, soon to return to Dublin, the exhibition of treasures of early Irish art now in circulation in the United States. I hope that, after a period here for us to refresh our knowledge, that sort of exhibition might go on circuit in the capitals of the EEC subject to appropriate security precautions.
I, like the Joint Committee, am disappointed at the absence of a precise programme of cultural exchanges but, I am more concerned at the absence of any funding proposals on a Community basis. Apparently it is only the EEC Youth Orchestra at present that is funded by the Community. They seem to be relying on foundations, patronage and tax incentives to do the rest. That is important as far as it goes, but I would put forward the suggestion that there is need for some kind of central arts council in the EEC to promote exchanges, the making of films and so on, which would bring us all together with a greater understanding of our cultural inheritance.
The Joint Committee mentioned drama as one forte which we have. They put forward the idea of a European theatre festival. Let us not forget we are strong in at least two other things, in folklore, oral and material, and in folk music. We have the richest body of oral tradition in Europe and we have in our folk songs, some of which come to us from as far back as the 13th century, music that was acknowledged by Berlioz as a source of musical inspiration for decades.
Mr. Mulcahy: When I was asked in the Joint Committee if we wanted this report to be debated in the Seanad I had some misgivings because I did not know where it was going to begin or where it was going to end. Obviously nobody wanted to end it from the way things were going. It extended over a very wide range. I now acknowledge that I was wrong and my colleagues in the Joint Committee were right and that it was worth bringing it to the House because, obviously, it provided some inspiration for people to range over a wide area all of which was relevant.
At the same time, the EEC, in promoting cultural goods and services, must work through some instruments. They have to work through channels, budgets, foundations or whatever. We have to see this effort by the EEC as the first step in bringing about a promotion of cultural services and goods. It is up to us to respond to this and to make other suggestions. The House today has made a number of suggestions about this. Senator Whitaker mentioned the idea of a European central arts council and he mentioned that money was needed. What we would like to see is an enlargement of the budget on this matter but, because the goods and services cover such a wide area, it tends not to fall into any Minister's portfolio in a neat way. I hope the Minister will bring back with him to his colleagues some ideas about this. Maybe we might encourage the Ministers for Education to take a lead on this and maybe if they met it would help. In that regard, the Irish cycle is coming up in terms of the presidency of the EEC and it would seem a good idea for Irish Ministers to put these things on the agenda as they will have, not necessarily full control, but a big influence in framing the agendas in the EEC in 1979. That could show itself in terms of funds made available and any new institutions. Recently I had the pleasure of visiting Hasselt in Belgium where they have a folk village. I got this feeling, that the House mentioned of belonging to the European scene and sharing ideas of that kind. I remember in Shannon in 1960, when the notion of Bunratty village was started, there was a certain amount of cynicism expressed about it.  It is great to see the same sort of thing happening in other places, to see the way they do it and to know that, once again, Ireland in its own way, as it did in the case of the Abbey Theatre, took the initiative in funding a cultural activity of that kind.
There are some technical aspects to the report which I think we should not ignore. It mentions performing rights and copyright. This country has not yet ratified the convention on this. We have signed it and are about to ratify it. It is very important that artists rights, when their products are being promoted or distributed in neighbouring countries, should be protected. It is very good to see this happening. Unfortunately, in our consideration of this report, the report of Irish Actors Equity did not reach us in time to be included in our findings. They made a number of interesting suggestions. They have some fear about the free movement of performers, particularly in relation to the variety type of performer as opposed to those concerned with sculpture, the classic arts or orchestras. We must keep that point in mind. They are also worried about impresarios operating for private gain who might be flooding the market with people where there is not a demand. They ask, for instance, what guarantee have we that the free movement of performers will increase the overall demand across Europe? That must be stimulated. We would hope the EEC would find ways of stimulating that.
One of the suggestions we made in our report was that it would be very helpful if we had a European theatre festival. I was thinking, as the debate went on, would it not be very good if we had a European amateur theatre festival which would be supported by the EEC and would circulate from country to country each year and allow each country to see the best of other countries' amateur performers. RTE 2 was mentioned and the fact that it was not doing what people would like in the cultural area. We are getting more Kojak and so on. An old hobbyhorse of mine is that we should have a long wave radio station operating out of Ireland.  This would be very useful in getting into Europe in a richer and more powerful way some of the things that we have to offer. Senator Cassidy had the idea of promoting film making. I often ask myself what would we have done without “Mise Éire”. Any time that there is Irish music and culture up comes the background music of “Miss Éire”. That was an initiative by a group like Gael Linn. There is room for development there. I was glad that the Minister, while not making a commitment, indicated there might be something there in the future. I hope by that he means that he will follow it up and try to persuade his colleagues to make funds available for the promotion of cultural exchange in one form or another depending on how it is seen by the Government of the time.
It is interesting to recall, in relation to what Senator Cassidy said about people leaving the country, that Europe provided a haven for our better writers at one stage. I am thinking of Joyce and others who were not able to find a place at home but were able to develop abroad. Maybe the fact that we continue to call the Community the European Economic Community is, in some way, taking from its real potential for the development of a total Community in every sense. Perhaps we should start calling it the European Community and leave the word “economic” out of it.
Ba mháith liom a rá go raibh áthas orm gur tháinig Senator Donnelly agus gur chaith sé isteach sa cluiche go bhfuil taobh eile ann: nach bhfuil gach rud i gceart i ngach aon cúinne san Eoraip. Arís agus arís eile caithfimid a thuiscint gur fhágadar, tré rúdaí éagsúla cosúil le reiligiún agus ní eile, fadbhbanna timpeall an domhain. Le déanaí chonaic mé go raibh scannánn ag teacht amach ag cur síos ar an bhfear sin Hitler agus ag cur síos ar chinnireacht agus mar sin de i slí, b'fhéidir, nach dtaispeánann do gach éinne an saghas duine a bhí ann agus na rúdaí a thárla as an pholasaí a bhí i gceist.
Is mór an rud é nach bhfuil an Eoraip anois cosúil leis an rud adúirt Julius Caesar, omnia gallia in tres partes divisa est. It is a duo-decem “divisa est” anois. Tá na tíortha eile san Eoraip ag coimeád a súile oscailte ag féachaint ar  cad tá ag titim amach agus go mbeidh daonlathas saor sláintiúil.
Mr. Mulcahy: Mar chríoch, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach éinne sa Teach a chuidigh leis an díospóireacht seo. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil freisin leis na daoine éagsúla a bhí ag obair liom ar an gCoiste chun an tuarascáil seo a chur le chéile. Tá súil agam go dtaispeánann an rún seo go bhfuil áit do thuarascáil mar  seo a thagann ó Coiste idirpháirtíoch agus go bhfuil an Seanad ann chun é a phlé. Sin é ceann dena fáthanna go bhfuil an Seanad ann agus go bhfuil an Joint EEC Legislation Committee curtha ar bun. Ba mhaith liom freisin mo bhuíochas a ghabháil don Aire as ucht gur tháinig sé agus gur thóg sé páirt san díospóireacht seo.
|Last Updated: 14/09/2010 14:30:04||Page of 6|