The Bill before the House gives us an opportunity to discuss the enlargement of the Community and the developing situation within the Community generally and its future prospects. First, in principle we agree with enlargement of the Community but we are critical of the manner in which the negotiations have been handled by the Government, especially in relation to one or two major issues. We acknowledge fully the benefits of membership and the whole economic benefit which will come from an enlarged Community. However, it is essential that we recognise the problems which need to be examined more fully and those against which we need to be protected more fully.
We would hope to see in the enlarged Community a greater recognition of the need to tackle some of the major outstanding problems that affect every area of the Community at this time, especially unemployment. We cannot accept the unemployment situation within the European Community at present. Millions of people are unemployed and there does not appear to be the necessary commitment within the Community to tackle and resolve that huge problem which is creating enormous problems for our economy. I wish the spirit within the Community to be strengthened to deal with these major economical and social problems at Community level. Following on the decision to enlarge the Community a new drive should be created to resolve these problems in areas where at present the Community do not appear determined enough to tackle them effectively.
The secrecy surrounding the enlargement negotiations has led to fears and anxieties in many sectors of the economy here. The discussion today would certainly have been more useful a year ago. I am not satisfied that the full implications of enlargement for our economy have been put before us. Many of the problems which we will face from next January could have been minimised if they had been anticipated and if we had had more useful documentation and discussion. The Government have done very little by way of research into the implications of enlargement and the possible damage to some of our existing industries. Statements and restatements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs gloss over the subject without giving any detailed information on the possible ill effects on agriculture, regional development and tourism, apart from the fisheries question where it appears that development will be put back by 15 to 20 years. The Government should have come forward at a much earlier stage with clear documentation on the implications.
Although there is a possibility of damage to some existing industries, there may be opportunities in other areas. The developmental potential of our tourist industry must be considered in terms of a closer involvement with Spain and Portugal. I have not heard any references in the Minister's speech about the prospects of getting involved in tourism ventures with Spain and Portugal. Enlargement may direct some tourist business coming here towards Spain and Portugal. We must bear in mind the expertise they have in this area and examine the prospect of closer links in order to expand our tourism potential. These are matters we should have had an opportunity to discuss in more detail. This debate is useful but an earlier opportunity would have been more welcome.
It is not necessary for me to tell the House that the enlargement of the Community will have a most detrimental effect on the fishing industry, which is in an almost hopeless situation. We in Fianna Fáil have sought assurances from the Government over the past two years. This time last year we discussed the damage which would be done to the industry in an enlarged Community. We had a framework agreement which was entered into to ensure that there would be a phased reduction in Spanish fishing activity in the Irish fishing areas. The success of that agreement was demonstrated by a reduction of about 50 per cent in Spanish fishing activity over a two-year period from the signing of the agreement. We believe the enlargement negotiations were mishandled by the Government and the prospect of future development and expansion of our fishing industry have been put in jeopardy.
While certain limited restrictions have been negotiated, effectively under the new arrangement there will be a brake on expansion and development within the industry and a variety of species which we would have the potential to exploit will remain to be exploited by the Spanish fleet. The prospects for expanding our fishing industry in the traditional species are limited because the stock situation has led to controls and quotas. The prospect of an increase in activity in relation to herring and mackerel is almost nil. The quota for mackerel this year is fished out and it is likely within the next few days that licensing for mackerel in the northwest will terminate. That will jeopardise the jobs not only of those directly involved in the fishing industry but the 1,500 or 2,000 jobs in the processing industry. Already the stock situation is limiting and controlling the expansion and development of the fleet. Any alternative prospect would be in exploiting to the maximum the 200-mile economic zone and developing into new species in new fishing grounds where we have not been involved previously. I refer to blue whiting and horse mackerel, two species in regard to which there has been very little activity but where the prospects are fairly substantial. Because of Spanish fishing efforts the development of those two species by the Irish fleet will be minimised.
Since Spain applied for membership of the EC there have been flagrant violations of our fishing regulations by Spanish ships. In the past few months a huge number of Spanish boats have been prosecuted and some cases are at present before the courts. This activity has been stepped up because of the application and the fact that Spain will be joining the Community on 1 January. Already they know there is huge potential in the economic zone to the south-west and west of Ireland which has been unexploited up to now and where they have prospects of getting fish, a scarce commodity in Spain at present. Due to this we have a huge influx of Spanish boats violating our laws on a daily basis. These illegal activities are likely to increase substantially and cause untold damage to our fish stocks which are scarce even now.
Anybody familiar with the Spanish fleet will know the damage they can do. They have over-fished most of their own grounds and now they have been given an opportunity to fish in other waters. So that we can estimate the possible damage they can do to our fish stocks I will refer to the size of their fishing fleet. The Spanish have 17,500 vessels with a capacity of 75,000 tonnes. Our equivalent is 1,600 vessels with a capacity of 3,600 tonnes. The Spanish fleet will represent 75 per cent of the entire EC fleet. As I have said, this huge fleet has already over-fished the waters they have been using and will now expand their activities to our waters.
I do not visualise the possibility of the entire Spanish fishing fleet working off our shores but they could deploy, say, 500 vessels to fish in our area. Those ships are powered by engines displacing 700 h.p. Our equivalent would be 20 h.p. at maximum, usually 15 or 16 h.p.
I do not think the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Minister for Fisheries whose participation in the Spanish accession negotiations was only occasional, realise the full danger the Spaniards represent to our fishing industry. If they did they would have sought a much tighter agreement for our fishermen in the accession negotiations. Our position now vis-à-vis the Spanish fleet spells danger for our fishermen and for the jobs we have in fish processing. We all appreciate the difficulties leading up to the negotiations for Spanish accession. We were told that a common fisheries policy would be the cornerstone of our fishing industry for the next 20 years.
Before the ink was dry on the accession agreement we knew of the prospects of a huge Spanish fleet capable of depleting all our stocks in the north west in a short time. There was no recognition in the EC of the damage this would do to our industry and there was no recognition by our Government of the serious problems our fishermen were facing. We should have looked for a far better deal which would enable us to develop and to expand our fishing industry so that we would be able to exploit our resources. That is now being left for others to do, with enormous loss of jobs and revenue to the State. I do not think this has come home to the Government.
I appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Fisheries, even at this stage, to go back to the EC to seek further protection and safeguards for our fishing industry. At least we should negotiate for extra quotas which would help to sustain our industry.
Not only are we confronted by that huge Spanish fishing fleet but we are sandwiched between the Spanish and the Norwegians which spells a far worse future for our fishermen and those engaged in the processing sector. We have been told of possible expansion of our fish exports in the enlarged Community. The Minister spoke about these prospects which he said must not be missed. It is well known that the Spanish have 106 joint venture agreements tied up, 20 of them involving fish supplies to the west coast of Africa and to the US. They are able to supply 200,000 tonnes of white fish to these markets, the equivalent of our total catch. Instead of talking about improved export opportunities for the Irish industry we should face the reality of the Spanish joint venture agreements which provide for the supply of white fish equivalent to our catch in a full year.
Therefore, our opportunities to expand our exports are slim indeed. Side by side with that we must realise that the Spanish fleet are in need of modernisation and restructuring and huge injections of capital will be needed to do that. Many of their vessels are obsolete and cannot fish effectively. Therefore, the Spanish will be making enormous demands on EC resources. This will be to the detriment of our fishery development plans. The Minister has told us that Spain will have access to certain EC funds from the date of accession. Therefore, our access to the Regional Fund for the provision of money to develop our harbours and infrastructure will be smaller, because member states' entitlements will be shared out and reduced on a percentage basis. That is totally unacceptable. While recognising that the Spanish fleet has a capacity problem, a restructuring and modernisation problem that must be funded and dealt with in addition to our own, any such funding would have to be met by way of increased subvention to the FEOGA fund or into the structural or regional development fund. It is not acceptable that the Community is being enlarged because of the decision to reduce in percentage terms the share out of the present funds for regional and structural aid. This will entail a totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable situation from the point of view of our industry and Spanish industry.
There will be need for huge capital injections to modernise the Spanish fleet. There will also be a need for huge capital investment here to modernise our fleet, rendering them capable of competing with the Spanish trawlers that will now be coming here because of our Government's negotiations. That will not be done if one is talking about a resharing of the limited funds existing. That can be done only by a commitment running hand in hand with enlargement of the Community. There must be a commitment to augment the funds, the financial resources, available to strengthen the structural, social, regional development and guidance funds to enable the necessary developments to take place. That would mean there would be a modern Community fleet, one capable of competing in the ever-changing situation, of exploiting available resources which can be done if carefully managed, protected and conserved.
In the previous discussions in relation to enlargement negotiations we on this side of the House sought a 20-year transitional term. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with the arrangement negotiated by the Government. The Government have missed out entirely on the opportunities obtaining in the course of those enlargement negotiations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not recognise fully the problems of our industry and the opportunities available to it had those negotiations been properly managed. The position in which we now find ourselves means that there will be untold damage done to our fishing fleet; its future prospects of development being hampered. During our term of Presidency of the Council we were out-manoeuvred, at a time when our Government were afforded an ideal opportunity to deal with that situation. They were out-manoeuvred by the Italians who sorted out their wine problems during our Presidency term. We missed an opportunity to adopt a hard line on our fisheries negotiations, ensuring that the Community recognised our problems and dealt with them effectively. We missed out also on the detailed negotiations which took place afterwards. The result, from our fisheries point of view, has been a major disappointment and has undermined the confidence of our fishing industry.
I mentioned earlier the proposed restrictions on the Regional Fund which will be detrimental to regional development. We have all been disappointed at the lack of progress in regional development since we joined the Community. The major benefit which many of us thought would accrue as a result of our membership would be that for the first time we would have available to us more policy options and funds in relation to regional development to deal with the regional imbalances that obtained. It is now common knowledge that most people interested in regional development have lost such interest and rely more on our Government to deal with those problems than anything done at Community level. That is a mistake because the Community must be made to recognise that there are regional disparities within the Community that must be dealt with effectively. The prospect of a reduction in funds for regional aid in the whole area of infrastructural development in isolated west coast areas, fish landing places and so on, is a further disappointment.
I should like to impress on the Minister now the necessity to have another look at the decision to reduce resources from the Regional Fund in percentage terms because of enlargement. The problems being encountered in the regions today are as great as when we first joined the Community. There has been such little development in a regional sense one would question to what extent our membership of the Community has been of benefit to us. There has been such little evidence of benefit from the Community in a regional sense that local authorities have been forced to erect signs on roads indicating that their building or repair is being funded by the Regional Fund, a most unsatisfactory position.
Much of the regional infrastructural development which would create the climate for further investment and employment has not been undertaken, which could have been done had the Regional Fund been operated successfully. Are there any funds available from the Regional Fund for harbour development, especially the smaller harbours and landing places? Our fishing industry and the economic activity of these regions has been hampered by lack of development of such landing places in small harbours and estuaries. For example, the potential of the Shannon estuary has not been exploited. The Minister might let us know whether the Government have applied for funds from the Regional Fund to carry out the type of development essential in estuarial areas such as the Shannon. We are all aware that millions of pounds are needed even to render such harbours and landing places safe. We cannot expect our fisheries, tourism or any other industry to develop in isolated harbours and landing places unless such development is undertaken. I could list dozens of such harbours and landing places around the country, from Clogherhead to Burtonport, which are awaiting funding. The Regional Fund should be funding development in these regions to ensure that effective work is undertaken. Regional development is necessary to ensure that as many people as possible are maintained in these regions, working there, exploiting fully the opportunities available there if only the services and infrastructure are provided to enable this be done.
There was no indication from the Minister in the course of his remarks that there would be any commitment on the part of the Government, or indeed on the part of the Community, to match enlargement with the revenue so urgently required to tackle these problems. Unless such substantial increased funding is forthcoming one can foresee enlargement of the Community hampering rather than aiding development in such areas.
There are a number of other issues to which I should like to refer which are very important in relation to the enlargement of the Community but I will just mention one, the lack of action at Community level in the whole area of pollution control and elimination as far as possible. Community funds should be available to enable important development work to be undertaken which would minimise the risk of pollution here. I am not satisfied that emissions from Moneypoint which will begin fairly soon when the station uses coal will be sufficiently controlled to minimise the risk of pollution in the immediate and long term future.
Has any application been made for funds, or has an examination been made of the total national requirement to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and to instal the necessary equipment to control emissions from stations like Moneypoint? We have seen the enormous damage done on the Continent to the environment and to state forestry plantations. In Germany it is estimated that 50 per cent of state forestry is damaged because of pollution. If the situation is allowed to continue, further serious damage will be caused to forestry plantations all over Europe as well as in Ireland.
The Minister for Energy and the Government must recognise that, while the levels of pollution from our industries may be so small as to be regarded as insignificant, nevertheless that does not absolve us from our responsibilities. No matter how small these emissions are, we must minimise them further. We must eliminate pollution as far as possible and get the full backing of the EC in that campaign. Funds may be available from the EC to control pollution emissions here and I should like to ask the Minister if any evaluation has been done in regard to this country and where we stand in relation to the terms of the directives on air pollution at Community level.
What efforts have been made here to cost our requirements and what applications, if any, have been made to the European Community for funds to enable us to do that? Indeed, has this even been considered here? The Minister will be aware that the general public are concerned about environmental issues, that concern will grow in the coming years and we have a responsibility, especially in relation to stations like Moneypoint, to ensure that every precaution is taken and that the Community fully support us in the installation of necessary equipment to control emisions.
The enlargement of the Community gives us an opportunity to reawaken a consciousness and commitment to face up to and tackle the major economic and social problems which exist throughout Europe at present. I welcome the enlargement of the Community, even though I realise that there are disadvantages which I highlighted here in a previous speech. There are ill effects in some areas and the Government should make a statement on the full implications for every sector of the economy and also, of course, mention the opportunities which will be available in the enlarged Community. Community enlargement is desirable and will benefit Europe generally. However, a commitment to enlarge the Community must be matched by a commitment to fund the enlarged Community to enable them to tackle and resolve the major problems.
We cannot allow a situation to continue to develop where more and more people are unemployed and where there are regional disparities within the Community. We are all part of the Community and it must take care of every section, especially the regions. We are not satisfied that that commitment is there and there is no evidence in practical terms to prove that it is. I hope that the enlarged Community will bring prosperity and development throughout the Community and that the Government, even at this late stage, can make some effort to minimise the damage which will be done to the fishing industry through the enlarged Community.