Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Oct 1985

Vol. 361 No. 4

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Durkan

I should like to conclude what I was saying on the last occasion in relation to the accession of Spain and Portugal by giving a certain qualified support to this enlargement of the Community. This is because the competition that will result from the accession of these two countries has the potential to be of great benefit to Ireland. I shall illustrate this by referring to the situation which prevailed on our accession to the EC. We had confined our markets and trading to one or two areas, mainly the British who are our nearest neighbours and were our best customers and we theirs for many years. Since then our economy has developed on a much more firm basis and to greater benefit to us from the balance of payments point of view with other European countries. We have found new markets and that was mainly brought about by virtue of the increased competition which we had to face and the fact that we had to survive as a small fish in a pool with much larger fish. Generally, that competition has been beneficial to us.

In some quarters it has been suggested that the number in the Community should remain as it is and that it is not yet capable of withstanding the extra pressures of the accession of Spain and Portugal. I do not think that attitude is at all acceptable. Not so many years ago the late President de Gaulle adopted the same attitude to this country and others for quite some time, which was not of very great benefit to anybody at that time. I see no reason why we should not welcome other countries into the Community. Perhaps they will be our competitors in certain areas, but we should and will learn from them and welcome their competition.

The major problem facing the Community is unemployment. That has been with us for some time and will be with us to a larger extent as the Community becomes larger. It is easy to put forward various resolutions suiting oneself as to how the problem of unemployment might be solved, but I have felt for a long time that a great deal more consideration should be given to the problem both here at home and on the European stage. I concede that quite an amount of assistance, particularly in connection with youth unemployment, is already being given by the Community. Nonetheless, the problem is so great that it now behoves us to examine the possibility of abolishing the whole concept of unemployment. My reasons are, first, that the problem has become so large a burden that the unemployed are almost breaking under the strain of a hopeless future. It would be of benefit to the Community to fund training schemes available to everybody up to the age of 45 years.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to relate this to the Bill, I am afraid. Otherwise we will be into an extremely wide discussion on the Community, which would not be justified.

Mr. Durkan

I am referring to the fact that the accession of Spain and Portugal will exacerbate this problem and am suggesting a means that could be considered in the Community for its solution. The Minister of State at the Department is present and perhaps he might take it up at that level. Secondly, such a scheme would relieve the burden placed on the Community and the individual member countries and would be a tremendous boost to the morale of all workers and employers throughout the entire Community. In some quarters last year it was suggested that perhaps we might be better off outside the Community.

An Ceann Comhairle

That certainly is wide of the mark. We are already in.

Mr. Durkan

It is timely to mention that when we are considering expanding the Community.

Mr. Daly

That was never suggested.

Mr. Durkan

We should consider the vast benefits that have accrued to us since our accession. No doubt these benefits will continue to come our way. It is hoped that with the accession of Spain and Portugal we and they can benefit from the new enlarged Community and have a richer, more prosperous place in which to live and a more confident people living in it.

Mr. Daly

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.

Mr. Carey

This Bill deals mainly with the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community. We have a long and historic link with Spain and Portugal and we should help in the smooth accession of both these countries. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department, together with other relevant Ministers, have negotiated for a long period about the terms of this accession. It has been a long haul and the best reason for this expansion was given by the Minister when he said that negotiations opened with Portugal in October 1978 and with Spain in February 1979. He said that while there was awareness on all sides of the difficult and complex issues that would have to be resolved, by opening negotiations the Community affirmed their political support for democratic Spain and Portugal and their wish to have them as partners in the European endeavour.

We welcomed this initiative because we are part of the European Community. However, we deal with problems in regard to the Community in isolation and we look continuously for hand-outs. If we are to be part of the Community we must earn our place and show our resolve by negotiating with countries like Spain and Portugal. This has been done successfully by the Minister and one merely has to look at the long list of results from these accession negotiations to realise that they have been successful.

Portugal will have representation similar to other medium size states such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece, while Spain will be in an intermediate position between medium and large sized member states such as West Germany, France, Italy and the UK. The fact that Spain and Portugal are coming in on this basis will mean an increase in support for countries like Ireland. In the long term this must be of tremendous benefit when negotiations are taking place in the various institutions. In the European Parliament they will have an additional 60 seats for Spain and 24 for Portugal. The Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors and the social committees of the Community will be expanded. In addition, the European Investment Bank and the Scientific and Technical Committee of EURATOM will be expanded. All of these institutions are intended to bring some benefit to Ireland.

Since we joined the Community we have benefited enormously but we do not always acknowledge that. We come here and whinge and cry that we are not getting more hand-outs. The Deputies on the other side make speeches that are full of clichés in connection with this matter. They are meant only for public consumption. I do not begrudge entry to Spain or Portugal. I think it would be good for us. After all, we have the same kind of ethnic background and we have the same religious background.

As Deputy Daly pointed out, we should take advantage of all the opportunities that will be available. Instead of complaining we should look forward and do something to improve the Community. Deputy Daly spoke about tourism. Perhaps there could be some joint ventures in this area. In County Clare we are most anxious that this should happen. We have a short tourism season and perhaps there could be exchanges between Spain, Portugal and the west coast of Clare. I have no doubt that some joint ventures could be arranged. It is a matter of will and for entrepreneurs to seek out opportunities.

In the negotiations the Minister and his team have looked after the main aspects of the Irish economy. For instance, the accession period is seven years but in the agricultural sector there is an accession period of ten years for our very vulnerable products. There has been an extension of the accession period to allow our economy to adjust. The opportunities are there but we should seek them out and take advantage of them.

For the products sector, including certain of the Community's northern products, such as dairy products, beef, veal and wheat, there will be an import monitoring system called the supplementary mechanism applicable to trade. It is known in short as SMT. In all sectors in which it applies the SMT will last for ten years. The Minister and those who represented this country at negotiations have acted fairly. One would get the impression from the Fianna Fáil spokesman for fisheries that all is lost in the fishing industry. I recognise it is the Cinderella industry, that it is very small and has serious investment problems. Deputy Daly did not suggest any way for further developments but he showed that there was a possibility because of the ageing Spanish fleet. It may be that a joint venture would work in this case. Perhaps the Irish and the Spanish could get together in regard to fisheries.

I should like to recall for the benefit of Members the negotiations on fisheries and the points made at that time. The main aim of the Community was to integrate Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy over the period between accession and the expiry of the policy in its present form in 2002. While respecting the substance of the balance of arrangements between member states, this country was particularly concerned to ensure that the terms negotiated with Spain would not impede the further development of the Irish fishing industry. The final agreement on fisheries represented a positive outcome in terms of both objectives.

The main elements were as follows: (1) for the period 1985 to 1995 no Spanish vessel will be allowed inside the Irish box, which is a 50-mile zone around our coast; (2) a basic list of 300 Spanish vessels will be authorised to fish in Community waters, excluding the Irish box, until 1996 of which only 150 vessels of standard 700 HP size on the periodic list will be allowed to fish simultaneously in Community waters; (3) of the 150 vessels on the periodic list, 93 will be allowed to fish in the Irish 50 to 200 mile zone as compared with 65 under the present EC-Spain framework agreement until 1995 — after that date these vessels will be allowed entry inside 50 miles, although in practice the vessels would be fishing in a much larger sea area; (4) the Spanish authorities are committed to negotiations to secure an orderly and phased access by Spanish boats to the Irish box after 1995; (5) the above provisions with regard to access to waters will be reinforced by very tight controls, including quota limitations, as well as a strict monitoring system whereby Spanish vessels entering the present Community waters will have to notify coastal member states on entry and exit and report their catches.

The Minister has made a reasonable effort in very difficult circumstances to provide for the future of the fishing industry. It is up to us to investigate what proposals are needed for further expansion of the industry in order to take advantage of the expanded market in Spain and also to provide increased employment at home.

A Spanish company came to rescue us in Clare in the case of the Chipboard Company in Scarriff, namely, Finsa Products. This company have invested substantially in the Irish market. Joint ventures have worked extraordinarily well between the Irish company and the Spanish company in the supplying of chipboard to Britain and the USA. In recent times Finsa have exported large quantities of timber from Limerick docks to America. That is opening up further markets. It is up to us to be adventurous in our efforts to secure extra markets but if we are to judge from all the begrudging on the part of the other side in the past few days in relation to this Bill we will be left behind. It is up to us to take advantage of the opportunities that exist. The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and the Minister for Finance have provided the means to help Irish enterpreneurs to become involved in industry, whether it is allied to agriculture, fishing or tourism.

I support the sentiments expressed by Deputy Daly that there must be further development. As regards the Regional Fund, my understanding is that we will get the same amount of money. If it is increased for Ireland, it will be increased for everyone. Listening to contributions from Deputies on the other side one would get the impression that the money we get from the Regional Fund will be reduced only for Ireland. I would like the Minister to explain the Regional Fund because, as far as I can understand it, the volume of money accruing to Ireland from that fund will remain the same. I do not believe we have lost anything because of the accession of Spain and Portugal and it is wrong for Deputies to give that impression.

We have not been able to use the Regional Fund properly because we do not have the necessary resources. Perhaps there is a need to expand the ways in which we can use the resources of the Regional Fund, but the State is not able to match the amount of money made available to us. For us the Regional Fund is a joint venture but we are not able to take advantage of it and that has been one of our weaknesses since we joined the EC. Nevertheless, many national primary roads have been developed and there is a good national primary road in my constituency and in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency.

In my view the EC directive on pollution control is very specific. When the planning permission application for the building of Moneypoint was discussed at a meeting of Clare County Council, a long debate took place on the building of the tall chimney stacks — 250 metres high. We asked the engineering staff to investigate fully the need for the scrubbers which the environmentalists have been campaigning about in the last few days. I am wondering at Deputy Daly's sudden conversion to scrubbers in Moneypoint, or does he want to further delay the commissioning of the Moneypoint station? The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards examined the engineering proposals for that project and were satisfied that the level of sulphur dioxide which would be emitted into the atmosphere would not have any injurious effects.

We already have monitoring stations in County Clare. It is not helpful if anybody tries to throw a scare about pollution into the people at this time. When the planning permission was being discussed that was the time to ask to have this matter investigated. As I said, that matter was investigated long before the building of these stacks started.

I commend the Minister for the very patient and detailed negotiations which took place on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. I am confident that the accession of these two countries will provide new opportunities for this country of which we should be able to take advantage. We should be debating now how we can get the best value for this economy in the future.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few comments on this legislations which will enable the EC to agree to the accession of Spain and Portugal as full members of the Community. We must look at this legislation in the context of its implementation so far as the EC is concerned, particularly as it affects the agricultural sector and its importance to our economy.

Of course we welcome the enlargement of the Community, but we must look at its implications for our agricultural policy and the agricultural policy of the EC. The Common Agricultural Policy is approximately 42 per cent of the total EC budget and the portion for Ireland must be of great relevance to this community. We must look at these two countries, especially Spain with its fast growing population, as other outlets for our agricultural products. We must also look at the accession of these countries from the point of view of third country agreements and how it has affected the Common Agricultural Policy.

It has become fashionable to knock the Common Agricultural Policy. It has been said that it is a waste of Community resources, that it is over-expensive, that it discriminates in favour of farmers, that it pushes up food prices across the counter and that it creates obscene food surpluses. We have heard all these criticisms mainly from ill-informed sources and, perhaps, vested interests and I have no doubt that, since the Community are now being enlarged to include Spain and Portugal, we will hear even more about that in the future.

In my opinion and in the opinion of this party, the reality is totally different. This has been one of the major successes of the Community. It is the only truly integrated Community policy and in many ways it is a cornerstone of the Community. It has given us security of supply. It has given Europe valuable international trade. It has given us price stability and spectacular gains in farm productivity and, above all, it has raised the standard of living of our farmers to a level comparable to that of other sectors.

Despite these successes we all know that the Common Agricultural Policy is not perfect. We in Fianna Fáil recognise the need for a review of the CAP. It is both timely and necessary. It is important that the review takes place now when the Community are being enlarged. Such a review must take into account the basic principles upon which the CAP was formulated. It is appropriate to examine the origins and the development of the CAP, to examine the problems, to highlight the achievements, to spell out the real cost, to examine the future food needs of Europe and the world and to see how the CAP can contribute to the stability and development of this country and our European partners both old and new.

The CAP which was negotiated in the late fifties was drawn up at a time when argriculture, forestry and fishing played a very significant role in the economies of the original six member states. At that time these activities absorbed over 20 per cent of the workforce and contrubuted about 11 per cent of GNP. By the mid-seventies their importance in the original six had diminished, accounting for about 10 per cent of total employment and about 5 per cent of GNP. When we joined the Community in 1973 the importance of farming as a source of employment was already diminishing.

In the fifties, however, agriculture was a very significant sector. It was also a problem sector. There was still a large population on the land although the flight of labour from the land was well under way. Incomes were low and there was a wide disparity of farm structures. National Government policies were many and were sometimes restrictive of trade. The widespread application of technology to food production in the early fifties effectively wiped out the problem of post-war shortages. Government concern was now concentrated on supporting farmers' incomes and helping them to adapt to new economic structures. At that time Governments in western Europe agreed that the family farm should be preserved as the basis of production. This was the central theme of many reports published at that time which laid down a number of objectives for future agricultural policy which eventually found expression in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome.

We should remind ourselves when discussing this Bill, of Article 39 of the Treaty and what it defines in so far as the CAP is concerned. It was designed to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, particularly labour, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture, to stabilise markets, to guarantee supplies, and to ensure the delivery of supplies to consumers at reasonable prices.

In working out the CAP and the methods of its application, account should be taken of the distinctive nature of the agricultural industry which results from the social structure of agriculture and from natural disparities between various agricultural regions. We should also look at the need to effect the appropriate adjustments gradually and the fact that in the member states agriculture constitutes a sector closely linked with the economy as a whole. In the context of enlargement, the CAP will play a vital role. To achieve the objectives the policy must be operated on the basis of three principles. These should be pointed out to the incoming members of the Community. The principles are that there must be a single market, there must be Community preference, and there must be financial solidarity.

It is interesting to note in these early deliberations the relevance of farm policy, to our present day problems. The Stresa Conference of July 1958 discussed many of the issues facing agriculture, issues which were to be taken into account in drawing up the CAP and many of which are still relevant today. The resolution coming from that conference almost 30 years ago might be regarded as a manifesto by those concerned to preserve the family farm in Europe today. The main points of the resolution were that agriculture should be considered as an integral part of the economy and an essential factor in social life, and that efforts should be made to raise productivity to promote the application of a price policy which avoids over production while allowing farmers to remain or become competitive.

The resolution also said that at the same time a policy of aid to disadvantaged regions or farms would make the necessary adaptations possible and that the elimination of aids contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Rome should be considered to be essential. An account should be found and we should look at the situation that arises between the production and market outlets taking possible trade into account so that specialisation will conform to the economic structure and national conditions of production within the Community. Given the importance of the family structure of European farming — and I hope that will remain — and the unanimous wish to safeguard this character every effort should be made to raise the economic and competitive capacity of such enterprises. The founding fathers had a deep understanding that the creation of the CAP would be of far wider significance than the well-being of those who live on the land. They recognised that it was essential to the Community ideal that hostile national policies be brought together into a coherent policy for agriculture to provide the required insurance for the social, economic and political stability of Europe's people. Surely these principles have at least as much relevance today and maybe far more relevance.

The CAP must be viewed in the same context of its vital role in the deeper fundamental objectives of European unity. Within the enlargement of the Community we are moving closer and closer to European unity in the agricultural sphere. The CAP was established at a time of great monetary and economic stability both within and beyond the Community. This is no longer the case today and the situation has changed a great deal. We have general economic recession which seems clearly beyond the ability of any of our individual governments to resolve. The Community too, has financial problems. With Spain and Portugal joining, competition will become more intense for outlets in the world markets. Regional disparities in income remain. A painful medicine was administered to Europe's farmers in the form of a super-levy in 1984. Perhaps to some extent this was forecast by certain experts within Europe. Our productive capacity seemed unlimited and demand was stagnating with ever-increasing competition on world markets. Now uses for agricultural products in the fields of biotechnology, industry and energy, though promising, are still at the initial stages of development.

The public have now become preoccupied with the budgetary cost of agriculture. This is wrong for reasons I will outline later. It must be said that perhaps we and many of Europe's farm leaders have failed to inform the consumer about the true nature of agricultural expenditure. We in this country and in this party welcome the opportunity of this debate. I welcome also the opportunity of discussing certain aspects of the Community which relate to its enlargement. My colleague, Deputy Daly, has outlined the fishery aspects. The debate on the agricultural policy in the context of the enlargement possibly could be twofold: (1) the cost of the CAP which many hold to be excessive and (2) the question of surpluses which the same critics often consider unacceptable. One could say that the decisions on these issues are essentially matters for political choice. In the context of the enlargement and in considering any alterations in such a complex subject as the CAP fundamental issues must be faced.

What type of agriculture does Europe need in the future? Must we distinguish two types of agriculture in Europe in the future, namely, one that is economically viable and perhaps one that is socially necessary? In the context of the enlargement, economically viable agriculture includes farms with high productivity which are able to achieve such high yields that they can be competitive with the most efficient in the world and those farms which by virtue of their size and capitalisation are closer to industrial undertakings than family holdings. Socially necessary agriculture should not be understood solely as that part of agriculture which requires aid. Rather it embraces the social role of agriculture with regard to protecting the environment, providing a rural interest, providing local supplies and checking the flight from the land, thus ensuring a balance in the nation's population.

It is timely to reflect on the choice for future policy strategy. Europe's farmers are faced already with different choices, the adaptation of farm enterprises to enforced limitations on output, shortage of capital and few alternative employment opportunities. These are questions which must be faced. I am aware that, during the negotiations leading to the accession of Spain and Portugal, some aspects of these questions were considered but I wonder if they were gone into in sufficient detail. I ask the question because the destiny of farmers both here and in the Community generally depends on the choices that will be made in terms of Europe's policies mechanisms from the options open to them.

Do we adopt the CAP to preserve our traditional producers on family farms while penalising the factory type production that has been responsible for creating the problems of surpluses and which represents a distortion of the original philosophy of the CAP, or should we slash farm aid and thereby accelerate the flight from the land, leaving the industry in the hands of relatively few but large scale and efficient operators? These questions are at the very core of decisions on future policy. They must govern mechanisms or instruments of policy implementation and not be governed by such mechanisms or instruments. European security and the solidarity of its peoples are the interests that must take precedence over mere accounting or bookkeeping considerations. The CAP has served Europe well. While its operational instruments are complex, there is an essential coherence in its major economic and social objectives. Prudent political decisions on the future direction of the policy can stem only from an analysis of progress towards those objectives and of how they will be influenced by future trends.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am reluctant to interrupt the Deputy but I must ask him to relate his remarks to the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Community.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I am making my remarks in the context of the enlargement of the Community in so far as this enlargement affects agriculture. I am considering the question also from the point of view of the vast markets we can achieve in the future for our agricultural products. I am keeping in mind also suggestions that there may be changes necessary in the CAP in order to achieve what we wish to achieve in an enlarged Community.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no wish to put the Deputy off his line of thought but we cannot have a general discussion on EC activity. The Deputy's remarks must relate to the accession of Spain and Portugal and to the effect that their entry will have on the market.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): And on the existing member states.

An Ceann Comhairle

Exactly.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I am glad of your guidance. In the context of this Bill it is appropriate to examine the achievements of the CAP in the hope that future decisions in an enlarged Community will not represent a departure from the basic principles on which that policy is built. We are all aware that agricultural production has increased substantially and to a greater extent than would have been the case at the level of separate national economies. Based on growth value added at market price, the volume of agricultural output has increased on average by between 1.5 and 2 per cent annually in the past 20 years. The growth in the related food industry in the same period has been between 3 and 4 per cent annually.

When we talk of the enlargement of the Community it is important to ensure that the concept of the CAP is maintained. Security of supply has been attained for most products. In contrast to a large part of the Globe, the Community have no difficulty in regard to the availability of food for their people. It is no accident that the CAP covers more than 90 per cent of Europe's agricultural produce. However, in recent years that degree of self-sufficiency has been subject to variation which in some cases was significant. Therefore, we must not assume a continuous annual increase in the volume of output of any product. Europe's international trade has benefited and I trust that, in the enlarged Community, this trade will benefit further.

Trade in food stuffs has been expanding for a number of years. There has been an acceleration in this area recently and exports of food products have more than doubled since 1972. The direct impact on employment by way of additional jobs in transport, marketing and services has been considerable. Price stability has been achieved. This is very relevant in the context of an enlarged Community. In particular there has been price stability in sectors in which proper organisation of the market was possible. Thanks to the single market new barriers resulted from monetary disorders and there has been financial solidarity in market management. The effect has had a wider economic impact. For many years the Common Agricultural Policy has helped to curb inflation and prices received by farmers in general have risen considerably, more slowly than consumer food prices and less still than those of certain services and manufacturers. Productivity gains have been striking. Over the past decade the value of the Community's agricultural output rose by 18 per cent in real terms, while at the same time the volume of labour was reduced by 31 per cent. This gain in productivity was far greater than in any other branch of Europe's economy. The equivalent increase in industrial output was only about nine per cent in real terms, while the industrial labour force declined also by only nine per cent.

In the context of the Common Agricultural Policy the standard of living of many farmers has risen but disparities in farm income still remain, both between and within member states. In some cases these disparities have tended to increase. In the latest year for which we have records — 1980-81 — the range between the average income of the 25 per cent richest farmers and that of the 25 per cent poorer farmers in the Community is in the region of from 1 to 20, which is very significant. It is significant in the aspect of the enlargement of the Community and how an enlarged Community will affect the Common Agricultural Policy. That policy has established and maintained an extraordinary balance between conflicting interests, both internally and externally. Let us not forget the important political achievements which that policy represents and I hope will continue to represent in the future. It is the only full integrated Community policy and politically, economically and socially is a cornerstone of Europe and I hope will be a cornerstone in an enlarged Community. Its implications for European integration are enormous. Despite many adverse circumstances down the years it has certainly retained its vitality. We strongly support the view that it would not be possible to design a policy economically, socially and politically acceptable to all which was not fundamentally the same as the existing policy for agriculture.

Surely in an enlarged Community it would be sheer folly, if not absolutely dangerous for the future of Europe, to depart from the basic principles of a policy which is so obviously beneficial to the very fabric of the Community. There are many misconceptions with regard to the Community and the vital role which the CAP has to play in the future of Europe, in greater coherence within the Community.

We realise, of course, that Community resources clearly must be allocated in the most effective manner possible. Nevertheless, that should not involve calling into question the only policy in operation in the Community — the Common Agricultural Policy. However desirable the implications of new policies within the enlarged Community to promote economic activity and employment, such steps to strengthen economic integration should not be taken at the expense of the Common Agricultural Policy. We must also remember that the CAP as a means of organising the agricultural markets is the only integrated Community policy. It is only to be expected, therefore, that it would take up a substantial part of Community finances.

The amount of the Community budget devoted to CAP would decrease if the other common policies were implemented. Regional policy represents only a small part of that budget, although there are so many regional disparities in the Community. Energy policy represents only a tiny part, despite the fact that Europe depends on imported energy for more than half of its needs. The Community's expenditure on its farmers under the CAP guarantees its independence in food supplies, keeps farmers on the land at a time of high unemployment and contributes to maintaining the development industries upstream. The budget viewed as an accounting instrument therefore certainly has no meaning. What really matters are the social and economic factors that lie beneath. In no way should the budget be used to revise the CAP. That budget is merely the implementation of the Community's regulations covering agriculture. Any revision should be the result only of fundamental decisions about that policy.

In this debate we should also refer to the value of the Community's farm output which grew by about 18 per cent in real terms between 1973 and 1982. This was double the productivity gains achieved in the industrial sector. It was a tremendous achievement in many respects, a technological feat. It is true to say that approximately 20 per cent of Europe's farmers produce 80 per cent of farm throughput. This is a very significant figure and must be emphasised in the context of the enlargement of the Community. If we are to have a policy within an enlarged Community at the expense of the family farm, the real aims and ideals of the Treaty of Rome would be totally lost. Further, the production methods as envisaged already bear little relation to the natural conditions in which the Common Agricultural Policy would operate. Intensive, large scale factory farming methods are used which have created some difficult surpluses threatening to nullify the original aim of the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore we must look to traditional producers and ensure that they will not be paying penalties for surpluses which are being produced in Europe by the type of factory operations I have described. The Community are not limited to supplying only their own needs. No agreement has been signed preventing the Community from exporting. There must be an agreement to require fair competition. Critics of the policy should not forget that the Community's agri-foodstuffs deficit is large and constantly increasing.

In the context of the enlarged community we must also look at the demand for food in developing countries, a matter which I know is very close to the heart of the Minister of State. It is estimated that developing countries will require 16.7 million tonnes of milk and dairy products. That is roughly equivalent to the Community surplus of milk per year, which was 11 million tonnes per year by 1980. The net import trade in 1990 is forecast by the FAO at 67.3 million tonnes of cereals. That would be about the Community's maximum surplus for export, which is forecast at around 33 million tonnes a year by 1990.

The stabilising of the Common Agricultural Policy has been fundamental within the Community. It must play a vital role in an enlarged Community. A strong and viable agricultural policy will benefit this country. The Minister must ensure when the CAP is reviewed within the larger Community that the ideals of those who laid the foundations of this policy are retained.

It is important that the Community should play a more active part in the fight against hunger throughout the world by supplying developing countries at preferential rates and on a regular basis with the agricultural products available in the EC. We must also consider extending food aid to include new products such as sugar and new milk-based products for direct use. We could do this by helping developing countries to establish a diversified agricultural system designed to meet their needs.

All these matters must be considered within the Community. Distinction must be made between food aid and the distribution outside the market of foodstuffs solely for the benefit of victims of hunger. This latter aspect is becoming more important. What should the Community's role be in the face of this tragedy? Should we establish a special Community fund solely for this purpose, or should we play a part in setting up an international foodbank?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy a very wide field but I do not see how he could possibly relate this subject to the entry of two new nations. This is something separate.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I will be guided by the Chair. I was talking in terms of what an enlarged Community should do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy could make that argument if the Community were never enlarged. It cannot be reasonably related to the subject under debate.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): The fabric of Europe's agriculture is complex, a finely balanced biological, economic and human network. The basic principles of the Common Agriculture Policy are consistent with and in the best interest of that balance. An essential component of the network is the family farm which, we hold, must be maintained to safeguard the very future of European democracy.

I was pleased to hear our EC Commissioner, Mr. Peter Sutherland, give an assurance last week in Cork that he would oppose any attempt to remove the support mechanisms inherent in the Common Agriculture Policy. I totally support and applaud his statement but he may find himself out of step with his colleagues. It might take all his persuasive powers and those of our Ministers to maintain the CAP in its present form within an enlarged Community. The larger the Community become the greater the problems will be for the budget.

There are many other matters affecting agriculture but I will not deal with them now. I will have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the Green Paper dealing with a review of the CAP.

We must ensure that in the enlarged Community the ideals and the aims of the Treaty of Rome will be supported and sustained. Their relevance is as important now as then. Let us hope that in the enlarged Community we will move towards greater European co-operation, bringing a better future for members.

Mr. McCartin

Does the Deputy welcome the advent of 50 million more people into the EC?

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion across the table. Deputy Noonan made his contribution. Deputy McCartin may now make his and he may refer to Deputy Noonan's points if he is relevant.

Mr. McCartin

A debate here should be an exchange of views on the subject for discussion. In the last hour I listened to a fine recital, the first half of which was very well read, about the CAP. The Deputy's statement contained all the old myths and cliches as well as some evergreen truths about the CAP. It drew many wrong conclusions which did not seem to be related in any way to what we are discussing. The hope was expressed that nothing would change as a result of the enlargement of the Community by 50 million people. It is not sufficient to say that, because it would be wrong for us to assume that there will not be changes.

According to the Minister's statement this Bill is a formality which is necessary because of our laws and Constitution. Let us not delude ourselves that by this piece of legislation we are opening the door for Spain and Portugal, that it is within our power either to bring them in or keep them out. We represent 3 million people in a community of 220 million. Individually as a nation we are as important as any other State, and collectively we are just as important as any other group of 3 million people in the Community, and naturally we have to move along with the tide.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): But we have an input.

Mr. McCartin

Of course, and we must not sit whingeing and grumbling. I listened this morning to two contributions from the opposite side, but neither made any reference to the EC enlargement in any constructive way. Both speakers expressed fears that for some reason or another our position is being threatened, that we are extremely vulnerable and that we are afraid. I do not see any reason why we should be afraid of the consequences of EC enlargement.

It is not within our power to prevent this development. From the moment of our accession we knew that this was a very likely development. If the Opposition were in Government today they would be introducing the same piece of legislation as a result of the same negotiations. Of course, we will have adverse as well as favourable results from the EC enlargement. It is the same in families. If a family has another member born into it, the others can huff and puff and be jealous, as some children do when a family is enlarged, but they have to live with it, and they can eventually convert the advent of the new family member to the benefit of the rest.

I am almost sickened by the negative approach of Opposition speakers who do not seem to be able to relate the problems of enlargement to the existing Community. All they can say is that the CAP must not be changed. Making false claims will not make the CAP perfect. We heard about increased productivity. The CAP has brought us many benefits, but it has not kept our small farmers on the land and, in its present form, it will not succeed in keeping small farmers on the land.

Even the Opposition, when they made their plans for agriculture, suggested that 3,000 people annually were leaving the land. With 120,000 farmers left on the land that is a high proportion. It means there has been a rapid reduction in the number of people on the land. Deputies spoke of increased productivity. The relative productivity of European agriculture in terms of labour units has declined in the past 20 years. We must recognise, side by side with agriculture, that employment in manufacturing industry has declined. Therefore, the relative productivity of the agricultural community has declined marginally in recent years in Europe.

EC membership has been put forward as a magnificent international trading opportunity. The truth is that our international trade in agriculture is the dumping of our surplus, because we do not produce any agricultural commodity which we can sell competitively in the world. That is another serious problem which we must appreciate. Enlargement or no enlargement this recital is false.

Incomes have varied between States and in sectors in agriculture as widely as one to 27 — between smaller farmers in the southern region of the Community and the bigger dairy farmers in the north. Even in two countries with similar climates and similar agricultural products, Ireland and Holland, including value added per labour unit engaged, the comparison is 4,000 units in Ireland as against 17,000 in Holland. They are the problems that the CAP has not resolved. Anybody who says that Community preferences are a panacea for the future happiness and stability and welfare of the rural community in Ireland is very foolish.

Deputy Noonan said that 80 per cent of production was achieved by 20 per cent, but 80 per cent of the money is going to 20 per cent who need subsidisation. The subject of family farming could be a big debate. For instance, many people in my constituency in Sligo Leitrim and in Connemara would regard the 100 cow farm in Limerick as a family farm which should be suppressed.

All these handy cliches will now provide a reasonable solution. We must accept that the CAP has not brought uniform benefits to those engaged on the land here, has not stabilised the numbers employed and has not given a secure standard of living to all engaged in farming. The suggestion in the Treaty that this could be done is nonsense without reference to all the various sectors and the differences in capability of individuals. Any policy that would guarantee reasonable incomes for everybody in an industry is foolish.

I welcome sincerely the decision to let Spain and Portugal into the Community. I welcome that decision, first, for the very good reason that it has been advocated throughout Europe for many years past and they are countries that have developed their democratic systems fairly rapidly. They have had their civil difficulties in the not so distant past. They are not as economically developed as are some of their Northern neighbours. We recognise that we cannot guarantee the stability of democracy anywhere, whether that be in the north or south of Europe, America, Asia or elsewhere. It was generally recognised that new democracies require assistance, greater communication and trade links with their neighbours. It is for such development that we want Spain and Portugal to join the EC. My confidence in their democratic systems has increased in recent years. I have watched them progress from the establishment of their structures of government, the holding of successive elections, which have been held peacefully and successfully, leading to changes of leadership and government. One gets the impression that those democracies are fairly safe and secure. They will be more so within a united Europe. It is true to maintain that Europe will be safer, more secure with Spain and Portugal as members of the EC. With 12 members we shall have half of the OECD countries, a tremendously influential economic bloc in the world, which will control something like 40 per cent of world trade, representing 40 per cent more people than in the USA. It will be an economic bloc which can have a tremendous influence in the world. There is to be considered the political power of the Council of Ministers sitting in political co-operation which will be significantly stronger and more influential when Spain and Portugal are admitted.

There is the other problem, that we proceeded to finalise our negotiations before having developed the types of structures appropriate to a Community as long in existence as is this one. That is one reservation I had. Over the past year I was fairly seriously concerned that the day would arrive when Spain and Portugal would be admitted, when the member states of the Community would increase from ten to 12 before we had arrived at clear understandings of how we should pursue the whole process of future decision-making. In this respect it appears we are not making much progress at present. Indeed, in the eyes of ordinary people the question seems to be whether the European Parliament should be given more power, whether the veto should remain as an instrument for protecting the rights and needs of individual member states. I regret very much that progress has not been made in that area. It would appear that our people, through their elected representatives on both sides of this House, do not seem to have developed a realisation of the importance of creating, within the EC, structures of government that will work. We do not have those at present. We have a European Parliament, somewhat like our local authorities, comprised of people who sit there and talk about many things over which they have no control or influence. The one way in which to make that Parliament more responsible would be to give it authority to make effective decisions or to participate therein.

On the other hand there is the problem of the European Council which is not a democratic institution; nobody could deny that Ministers are elected or selected in the normal way in which governments operate. That is all right at national level. But, when, say, our Minister for Finance or for Agriculture is transplanted into a European situation, sitting with the representatives of ten other countries wheeling and dealing, bargaining and vetoing, behind closed doors, not open to public scrutiny by way of participation in the taking of important decisions and negotiations — it must be said that is not the way in which to develop a Community of states which we hope will become eventually a Federal Europe in which we can hand over to Europe institutions the decisions that can most appropriately be taken at that level. For example, we do not want any decision that can be taken in, say, Carrick-on-Shannon or Castlebar, to taken away from there. Neither do we want any decisions that can most effectively be taken in, say, London or Dublin, to be taken from them. On the other hand, there are decisions to be taken which will affect us. We can decide to pursue participation in or the taking of such decisions through democratic means, or through the more ineffective, slow and cumbersome means obtaining at present.

Regardless of the occasional stateman-like utterances of various leaders and Ministers this country seems to have chosen the more murky or obscure path. We do not appear to have come to appreciate the importance of effective decision-making instruments at European level. It appears we are so jealous of our national position, our imagined national autonomy, we are afraid to concede any of it to larger, international institutions. We seem to think we can be masters of our own destiny. Anybody who had any illusions about that should have taken note a few Sundays ago when the Americans gave the wink to the heads of other states, invited them to Washington, sat down behind closed doors, took decisions which immediately affected our house mortgage payments, the value of our savings, the price of our lifestock and cereals on world markets, our inflationary problems. All of these things were affected by decisions of heads of five states sitting behind closed doors — without the attendance of the press — after which they said what they wanted us to believe. But we cannot deny that they took decisions which affected us. The EC was not represented there. Therefore we did not have a say. Individual European states attended. I believe they should not have attended. We should have been loud in our protest to our colleagues. At least we should have sent the President of the EC Commission——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy would appear to be straying a little wide of the mark.

Mr. McCartin

I am not contending that we should have delayed the accession of Spain and Portugal until such matters were straightened out. We should have straightened out such matter before those two countries were due for admission. I am accusing our leadership of failing to recognise the opportunities open to them, of failing to see beyond our small boundaries, failing to recognise where the real, long term interests of our people lie.

The whole process of decision-taking will be enormously complicated by the accession of two other states. For example, if ten member states found it so hard it is only natural that 12 will find it that much more difficult. There is no conceivable important decision we could propose taking that will not affect the vital interest of one or other of those states, or a large portion of one or other of them. This will be seen by shortsighted politicians — who temporarily occupy the ministerial offices of Finance or Agriculture — as political threats to themselves, Ministers who may well impose their veto in an effort to win favour in a region, constituency or in a state of the Community. We should have got rid of the idea of one state being able to hold up decisions. We who can least afford to do so, support the idea of our Government being able to veto decisions.

There was a very sensible point in the draft Treaty which proposed that the Commission would submit proposals for decisions already decided on by Parliament to the Council but that if any country has a vital national interest it should be put in writing and the decision delayed. That is fair enough. Just imagine if this country had the Dáil representatives of the Twenty-six Counties and that the agreement of all was required to get decisions. If that was the case we would never get decisions on anything and we will not get decisions in Europe while this foolish idea exists that a veto can facilitate the interests of member states. As long as we believe that, no progress will be made in Europe. It is a fallacy; it is as if ten people were driving a car, all of them having a brake at their feet and none being able to go forward because everyone could stop the car and not even nine could make it go. We are assuming that three million people can stop the whole decision-making process of 300 million people. If we extend that, we are assuming that 3.5 million people can tell 320 million people that they cannot go one step further without the agreement of the minority. That is nonsense. If we put the short term interests of three million people before the development plans of 300 million people it is bound to be a recipe for stagnation. We who have most to gain have also most to lose.

There is one point in the accession of Spain and Portugal which is not generally recognised, the vulnerability of individual states in Europe as far as unemployment and economic problems are concerned. The economic problems of the Community are serious and are highlighted by the fact that there are so many unemployed. The question always is if we can have a reflationary programme and if we can create employment. When Spain and Portugal join the Community we will increase the number of people on the land of Europe by something like 35 per cent. The idea that a Common Agricultural Policy can be designed to retain those people on the land and to give them acceptable standards of living is nonsense. We will not solve the agricultural problem or unemployment by insisting that all the people on the land in Spain and Portugal, as well as many in Greece and Italy and some in this country who cannot make a living should not stay on the land. We must accept that they will have lower standards of living, low productivity and subsidisation from the State. However, that is not the answer to unemployment. If that were applied to steel, textiles and other industries what sort of chaos would there be? Our economic development would be retarded by 20 years and we would have the standard of living which we had 30 years ago. The solution must be a single market with freedom of access by every manufacturer and provider of services to every part of the Community.

The United States are not really affected by what goes on in the rest of the world. They only trade something like 10 per cent of all that they produce. In Japan the figure is a little higher but even in the Federal Republic of Germany it is 25 per cent or so. In France it is higher still; in Ireland it is 60 per cent and in Belgium it is even higher. We have more to gain by genuine open markets than anybody else and we cannot have genuine open markets if we do not have common economic policies. We will not have those policies as long as our present decision making process exists. The biggest concern I have in regard to the enlargement of the Community is the accession of two more members before we have streamlined our own system of Government.

I spoke before about the negative approach. We heard one long speech this morning about fisheries which is attached by a very fine thread to the accession of Spain and Portugal. The whole question of fishing was discussed in depth with the advent of Spain to the Community. There could not have been more consternation in the court of Queen Elizabeth when the Armada set sail than there seems to be among the members of Fianna Fáil when they heard that Spain proposes to take her fleet into the waters of the European Community. Of course there is obvious competition but we sell fish to Spain at the moment and the balance is in their favour. The same applies to Portugal. We can set about putting that right but where is our plan for the development of our own fisheries?

When we joined the Community the waters around our coast were richer in fish than they are now but we were not able to conserve them, catch them, protect or process them. Neither did we have a development plan on the drawing board or before this House for development of those fisheries. When we joined the Community we got considerable assistance. In 1983 we got two-thirds of all the money spent on fisheries. I do not have up-to-date figures but we have got tremendous assistance from the Community for the protection of our fisheries. We have also the strength of the Community behind us in regard to conservation as well as generous grants from FEOGA. We also receive export aids and we have doubled our catch. While I know there is a greater potential in this industry, no other industry can claim to have increased production by 100 per cent over the last ten years, although I am subject to correction on that figure. I accept that there are risks and that we should have made more progress but we should acknowledge the progress which we have made and if our obligation as a member of the Community forces us to concede a little more than we are happy to concede, the privilege of being a member has also given us immense advantages which we would not otherwise have made. We should stress the positive elements and not give the impression that there is no gain as far as our membership is concerned.

The political power of the European Community will increase as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal. This is welcome because those who have political, economic and military clout are listened to and the Community of 12 will have immense economic and political clout. If we get our decision-making structures in order we can develop our currency and contribute immensely to peace in the world by taking initiatives. We will have closer relationships with Latin-America and some of the North African countries and if we develop our resources we can help to solve the problems of fledgling democracies through our food aid programmes. Twelve countries working together can achieve the results which 12 individual countries in Europe could never hope to achieve. We can sit on the fence and whinge or participate and I do not accept that we have any reason to be nervous of the enlargement of the Community as Opposition Members would have us believe. They have moaned and groaned throughout this debate without even the courtesy of a welcoming word to 50 million new inhabitants of the Community.

There has been a lot of crying about the Regional and the Social Funds. Ireland has done reasonably well out of those policies. While all the emphasis is on the Common Agricultural Policy — the truth is it is a much bigger proportion of European spending than the 40 per cent mentioned by Deputy Noonan; it is nearer 65 per cent — if some of that money were transferred from agriculture to the regional fund and if the same rules operated with regard to spending that money, our gain would be considerably greater than what it is at present. We enjoy something like 6 per cent of the Regional Fund and over 10 per cent of the Social Fund. We get only about 3 per cent of guaranteed spending but we get a considerably higher proportion, around 11 per cent, in respect of the structural side of agricultural spending. This leads me to conclude that the remote and disadvantaged regions of the Community such as the west of Ireland have nothing to lose if more money is spent on the structural side of agriculture as well as in the regional and social funds.

It is all very fine to demand continual and increased expenditure, but the prospect of an increased budget for the EC in the short term is very remote. We will have to get the institutional question settled. We will have to see how the new Community of 12 progresses and we will have to start negotiations all over again. In my opinion, that will take a number of years and if anyone in a remote and disadvantaged area of Ireland expects that there will be an increase in the short term in spending by the EC they will be disappointed. We are doing about as well as we can expect. What we have to do is to get the money to the places and the people who are entitled to it under the regulations. We will have to use the money in such a way so as to reduce our need.

In the past many of the transfers of cash that came to us because of our membership of the community were used to fuel inflation. That money did not solve our agricultural problems. By fuelling inflation the agricultural margins were reduced. The money was not invested to make us more competitive or to improve our infrastructure. We wasted the opportunity at that time. However, the money is still coming in and it will continue to come at the present rate. We cannot expect great increases but we can expect a readjustment of policies.

Half of the farmers of Ireland live in the west and they get about 25 per cent of all of the aid given to agriculture. On behalf of those whom I represent I would welcome some changes in this area. It could only be to their advantage. We got a fairly clear guarantee in a statement made by the Council of Ministers on 30 March 1985 that there will be no reduction in the amount of regional aid to Ireland as a result of the entry of Spain and Portugal. While in nominal percentage terms we will get a smaller percentage, in actual volume terms we have a fairly firm guarantee that we will not be any worse off.

Of course, there will be other effects. We should say to the young people of this country that the possibilities for them within a Europe of 12 are considerably greater than in a Europe of Ten. All the time we are widening the markets in which we can compete; all the time we are creating a wider area within a most civilised and affluent part of the world within which they may travel, offer their services or engage in work and manufacturing; all the time we are enlarging a Community whose citizens will want to see other parts of the Community.

Under improved European legislation we can more easily enjoy the benefits of joint ventures. Perhaps we could join with a Spanish company that has too many ships and involve them in processing facilities. We can enjoy the benefit of their market for cereals and dairy products. We should be sending the message to that part of Europe that we produce the highest quality dairy and livestock products. There are immense opportunities waiting for us. Our area of operations has been extended and this is something that should be welcomed by every civilised citizen here.

Naturally we will have to face competition in some areas. We cannot expect to be treated as the pet child of the European Community any longer. We recognised when Greece became a member that that privileged position was lost to us. We will have to share with areas such as Portugal and parts of Spain whatever regional funds and assistance are available from the richer countries. We have developed economically to about the same stage as Spain. In the years ahead we should watch and see if we can make greater economic progress than they make. It is the only other country in the EC whose gross domestic product per capita is about equal to ours. This is an area in which we can compete as the years go on.

With all my heart I welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal into the Community. In the 15th century and the 16th century the citizens of Ireland were the only people who could go into the kingdom of Spain and enjoy equal rights as citizens of that country. From 1 January next they will be able to do so again.

Mr. J. Leonard

The previous speaker said we were not very enthusiastic about this matter. It is not a matter of enthusiasm but of examining the facts closely to see how the accession of the new members will affect us. It is only natural that we should do that. It has always been the ambition to enlarge the Community and thus increase the purchasing power of our products. We must examine the effects upon us so far as fisheries, agriculture and tourism are concerned. Our spokesman on fisheries and agriculture outlined some of the problems as they saw them and also some of the defects in the negotiations on fisheries.

The most commonly used word in the EC at the moment is "surpluses". There is talk about a surplus of milk, milk products and of grain and there is also talk that in future there will be a surplus of meat. The accession of Spain will increase the utilised agricultural area of the present Community by 40 per cent and it will increase the agricultural labour force by 25 per cent. The number of holdings will increase by 32 per cent and there will be a 14 per cent increase in the number of consumers. We must realise that countries such as Spain and Portugal have low purchasing power.

I attended meetings of the Council of Europe for many years and the Spanish delegations made very good contributions. They were a very fine group of politicians, very intelligent and articulate. As politicians they have a great deal to contribute to the Community.

In my view, the problem in the Community is that we do not have policies like the Common Agricultural Policy. We do not have a common fisheries policy or a common forestry policy. The party in the EC with which Fianna Fáil are associated are pressing for a common forestry policy. When the Common Agricultural Policy was negotiated in the late fifties agriculture and fisheries played a more important part in the economy than they do at present. When there were only six in the EC 20 per cent of the workforce contributed 10 per cent of the GDP in the CAP alone. By the mid seventies that figure had droped by 50 per cent in total employment in agriculture and by 5 per cent in the GDP contribution.

This brings us to the effect the superlevies and the present restrictions leave on us. Deputy Noonan spoke very strongly about that. Most of the food surpluses in the EC are caused by the importation of food from non-Community countries. Increasing the size of the Community will not affect that. In 1981 to 1982, 18 per cent of livestock products were produced from food purchased outside the Community. West Germany bought 13 milion tonnes of non-Community food to produce 56 million tonnes of livestock produce. Holland imported 13.4 million tonnes to produce 26 million tonnes of produce, while in Ireland we produced 9 million tonnes but only imported .9 million tonnes of non-Community food.

This is where the problem lies. As long as we continue to import such a large volume of food into the Community we will have a very serious problem. Remedying this problem should be a priority for the Community. This year we will have a grain surplus, yet massive amounts of food are being imported into the Community for factory farms and we cannot compete. It is time to take a close look at the Common Agricultural Policy. Countries like Ireland should not have to suffer because other EC countries import from non-Community countries.

We must examine the Regional Fund and how it works. This fund was set up with the prime purpose of helping the most seriously disadvantaged areas. Spain and Portugal will expect to gain much from this fund, as we did when we joined. We believed that certain areas, especially the Border regions and the West, would benefit greatly and would get a new lease of life. We have to admit that we have done well out of this fund, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Social Fund. The European Social Fund has made a great impact on this country, as any member of a health board can verify. We got money for our regional colleges and various institutions from the Community, but we are still disappointed about the quota and non-quota sections of the Regional Fund. More practical work should have been done.

A number of EC-aided studies have been carried out but there was poor follow-up in many cases and many of those studies involved a great deal of duplication. In my region, there was an Erne catchment EC study funded by the two sovereign Governments and the EC at a cost in excess of £100,000. There was a study by the EC and the North-Eastern Development Organisation, also costing in the region of £100,000, and a third study carried out by the Social and Economic Committee of the EC. We were glad of the opportunity to bring these representatives around the area to see the black spots which needed attention, especially in the Border region. Those three studies cost approximately £300,000, and if one were to read the three reports one would think that a great part of them was written by the same person because most of the phraseology and the wording of certain passages were identical. Such studies should make a strong impact if they are to develop confidence in the areas.

A number of things have happened recently which make one wonder how the EC are operating. I heard that one of our largest co-operatives were linking with an American concern. They wanted to pool their knowledge in advanced dairy technology, product innovation, and so on. The American company had 250 production lines — 50 different brands of butter, 180 different types of cheeses with turkey and other mixtures, and so on. This meant the company were by passing the EC. I wonder if some of these large concerns see a greater opportunity to sell their products outside the EC rather than within.

I do not know how Spain and Portugal will be affected by this but at present there is pressure in the Community to formulate a common forestry policy. 1985 was to be the year to concentrate on the development of forestry. We have belatedly realised the potential of forestry. A positive approach is needed urgently. There has been grant aid to the extent of 80 per cent of the cost of planting plus guidance from the foresters in the Department of Forestry. Timber production in the EC before the accession of Spain and Portugal was 82 million cubic meters per year. We imported timber and timber-based products at a rate of 126 million cubic metres per year. That gives an indication of the potential market in Europe for a product that we can supply, when so many other products are in surplus. There should be a real examination of the marginal land with a view to utilising its potential for timber production having regard to the fact that we are importing so much. About 5½ per cent of all industrial workers are involved in wood using industries. That is on a par with those engaged in the car and textile industries. We could use all this marginal land to produce timber. It is estimated that there will be an 8 per cent shortfall in world supply by the year 2000 and a 32 per cent shortfall by the year 2025. We could produce this product. At present we are only self-sufficient by 50 per cent of our timber needs. The EC by the end of the century will have imported 100 million cubic metres of saw log and wood pulp, costing approximately £10,000 million per year. In the UK alone 90 per cent of their requirements costs £4.5 billion and they will supply only a tenth of their needs by the end of the century. We should examine what we can do to fulfil that need fairly quickly.

Since our entry to the EC there has been so much change that there should be a close examination at national level in regard to how we have fared so far and as to our future prospects. The EC must be restructured in the light of recent problems which occurred as a result of the milk levy. We in Connacht and Ulster were deeply concerned at the approach of the EC and at the national approach to the quota system. The small producer geared mainly to milk production should have been recognised. The quota system should have operated proportionately. That was one of the weaknesses in it.

I appreciate the benefits of our participation in the EC although many structures need to be changed and we hope there will be continuing benefits for this country.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am delighted to be involved in this debate. It is important that the EC are giving an opportunity to Spain and Portugal to become members. We have strong historical connections with the Iberian Peninsula, particularly with Spain, and now there is an opportunity for us to acknowledge those. We must also use this opportunity to ensure that Ireland is guaranteed preservation within the full meaning of the EC. Since we became members in 1973 we have not made full use of our membership. Recently I had the privilege of spending a week in Europe with the European Democratic Alliance, visiting European institutions and meeting various people from Commissioner Sutherland to other people in the Commission, members of the European Parliament and members of the European Investment Bank and I have no fears for the future of Europe. Europe is so powerful as a political grouping and as a financial organisation that the future of Europe is guaranteed. A small financial decision at any time by the Council of Ministers to change the VAT rates one way or the other can guarantee a large amount of money for use of the members, particularly the less well off states.

Spain and Portugal are coming into the Community to benefit as we all did. We have not garnered all the financial opportunities available in Europe. There has been pressure on the world economy over the last few years and it is obvious that financial pressure will be put on the financial resources of Europe. If we had moved sooner after joining the EEC we could have stabilised our economic position and got more from the Community. There were many programmes for development when the first Coalition Government concluded the negotiations in 1973 which could have been enshrined in the European mechanism and which would have been available for financial support over the years so that now when there is need for them to boost our economy they could be brought forward.

My main worry in relation to the entry of Spain and Portugal is the possible major threat to our national resources, particularly our maritime resources. We know that Spain has a tremendous professional fleet and we know the number of times they entered our waters. They are constantly fishing close to the Irish coast. We know the number of times our naval vessels and the Department of Communications and the Department of Defence have had to encounter and report those people within Europe. It seems that it is not possible to take very severe action against them. This could be a threat to our fishing resources. Before Ireland accepts the entry of Spain and Portugal we should ensure that the Irish fishing industry and fishing fleet will be protected in the years ahead. The entry of two nations into Europe gives a major opportunity to our Government and to various Government Departments to renegotiate various programmes and assistance that has been available and which could be available to us.

There is also an opportunity for our Government and the various Departments to negotiate the quota system whether it is in beet, milk, intervention beef or whatever else. As we agree to new membership, the fact that we are a full member very committed to Europeanisation and the development of the EC presents a major opportunity for our Government to renegotiate our position and ensure that the maximum advantage is available to the people of this island as we make our contribution in Europe and as we try to survive in our difficult economic climate.

In the dairy industry we have now a quota system and we have seen only this week that we are in a serious situation. We have gone over the quota already with two months left in the year. What does this mean for Irish dairy farmers? What does it mean for the small dairy farmer in the west who has not reached full development potential? Due to the situation and the location that he finds himself in, the quality of his land, the small, fragmented farms, the need for more land to be made available to him and the need for finance at a low rate, what future is there for him? We know that the EC are having second thoughts about a programme for compulsorily getting people to give up milk production. That has been changed to a more voluntary situation and shortly a system will be offered to dairy farmers, particularly the smaller ones, whereby they can voluntarily make their exit from the dairy industry here and throughout Europe at some short term financial reward for them. What does that mean for their families and their future? What does it mean for a small, developing country like Ireland?

Europe has acknowledged since the early seventies the disadvantaged situation that our country is in. We have been treated for regional aid as a full entity, a full island, a full nation. No other country or member state has been treated in that fashion. That is solid recognition of the situation we are in here as a disadvantaged nation. I do not think that over the years, particularly in the early years since we became a full member of the Community, we have made full use of that situation. If money being borrowed from the European Investment Bank reaches something in the region of £250 million, there is a direct grant into the Exchequer in the region of £15 million to £16 million. That was well utilised by our Government in the early eighties when various projects under semi-State bodies and local authorities were put forward, for example Bord Telecom Éireann, Irish Steel and the Moneypoint electrification plant in Limerick.

All of those were put forward and we got a great deal of money out of them which heped to generate economic activity locally and throughout the country. However, we have seen over the past year or two that these programmes for development have not been put forward and international European money that could be available here at a low rate has not been utilised to the maximum. That is sad. We saw in October 1982 the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Lenihan, negotiating a loan from the European Investment Bank of £100 million at 5 per cent to Irish farmers when the Government, the farmers and the commentators recognised a need for capital input into Irish agriculture to give it a boost, to stabilise the problems it had, to help it come out of its difficulties and to help to preserve economic growth. With the change of Government in November 1982, and particularly as a result of the budget in 1983, the opportunity was lost to Irish farming.

What has happened over the past two years? We see farms going into receivership. For the first time ever the ACC are appointing receivers to farms. That is totally new and ridiculous as regards financial management of firm assets. Had that loan been available at that time when the only risk was that the international monetary transfer had to be guaranteed by the State which was a total risk of maybe 1, 2 or 3 per cent on the total borrowing, we could have got a total capital grant into the State of something in the region of £10 million or £12 million which would offset that risk. That was good economics and good financial management and we failed to utilise that important opportunity. We have failed consistently over the years to utilise the major programmes for development that are available to this country.

Let me go back to when we joined the EC. We have been acknowledged over the years as being primarily an agricultural country. We have built up an industrial base over the past 30 years. We have been dependent on the high technology industries over the past ten or 12 years. Now, due to the world recession, the high technology industries are not guaranteeing the income or giving the jobs that we expected. When you get over-saturation of the marketplace, world competition and development of technology on a world status, then Ireland, a small, open economy with a small consumer number and small consumer demand, is put in an invidious and difficult position. We failed to acknowledge that major programmes for development and financial assistance were available from Europe in the early days after joining the Community.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I do not want to interrupt the speaker but, on a point of order, the points made by Deputy Treacy might be valid in another context. I fail to see their connection with a Bill dealing with the enlargement of the EC.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are on Second Stage. There are matters in the Bill and matters that Deputies might consider should be in the Bill. A Second Stage debate is fairly general. Passing references can be made to other aspects, but only passing references.'

Mr. N. Treacy

I am disappointed at the Minister's interruption, but I hope he is not in a European cul-de-sac representing this country or that we have to look straight down a narrow tunnel and not visualise the opportunities that are available within the Community. This entry of two nations into an enlarged Community provides this country, an existing member state, with an opportunity to (1) reaffirm our position and (2) renegotiate certain situations. I am trying to illustrate that as a result of these two countries coming before us for full membership of the Community, these are opportunities we should utilise. It is incumbent on me as a member of this House representing a section of this country, a deprived section of this island, the western section, the disadvantaged section, to pinpoint on behalf of the people I represent and of the country to this Government and to the Minister, who is very much involved in Europe — let me say that we commend him for his efforts — that we do not want him to operate in a cul-de-sac that would not guarantee opportunities in as far as they are not being made available to us because we are not putting forward the programmes.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am very interested in that subject if I can hear a constructive comment as to how we can benefit from it.

Mr. N. Treacy

We have been recognised over the years as basically an agricultural country. We joined Europe to make our contribution to agriculture and particularly to utilise the CAP which has been the bedrock of the success of the EC. Agriculture, its resources and its products as a contribution to world and European food has ensured that the finances generated can be diverted and utilised to improve industry and infrastructure and to create regional and social aid. On going into Europe in 1973 we did not utilise at that time, and still have not done so, the amount of aid that was available under the marketing sector of the CAP particularly under Council Regulation No. 355/77.

There is major aid for livestock marketing and for the processing sector, and we have never in our 12 years membership of the EC put forward any programme to avail of aid under that regulation. This is an opportunity now, as we accept and are prepared to accept the expansion of Europe, to put forward a programme for aid under this Council regulation. Over the years, particularly over the past 30 years, agriculture has had a major transformation and a leap forward. We can go back to the early sixties, to the days of the old livestock fairs and the difficulty they created in the market place, in the urban areas and for farmers. In the sixties and early seventies we had the starting up of the livestock marts and major aid was available under that regulation for expansion and the development of livestock marts and livestock marketing. Government Departments, in particular the Department of Agriculture, had been insisting constantly that livestock marts be up to European standards. In many instances those operating the marts were prosecuted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from Spain and Portugal.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am talking about agriculture and the CAP.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A passing reference will be in order.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Department has been insisting constantly that our livestock marketing units be brought into line with European standards but neither the Department nor successive Governments made application under Regulation 355/77 for the aid that is available readily. There is an amount of money available to increase marketing potential and marketing ability by way of the livestock marketing sector, a sector that has been developed without any Government aid. As we accept the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community we must utilise the CAP and the regulation to which I have referred. We have now an outstanding opportunity to put a major programme before the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The Minister must ensure that aid is made available to expand our marketing ability and to improve our economic development. Many jobs could be created in the construction industry by way of a major spin-off of our utilising the CAP to the maximum advantage.

I trust also that this opportunity will be availed of by the Government to ensure that more regional aid will be made available to Ireland. In the west, which is a disadvantaged area, we have been the victims of many difficulties down through the years. Infrastructure, the topography of the area and so on have created many difficulties for the farmers and for the people of the west generally. This summer the Shannon rose to astronomical proportions and destroyed much of the fodder, grazing and forage that was available for livestock. The Government must utilise the enlargement of the Community as a means of obtaining special aid to provide immediate assistance for the west and in particular they must put to the Community a programme for regional development which would ensure that financial assistance is availabe on at least a 50-50 basis. Special aid to the extent of between 75 and 85 per cent is available for the west but it should be possible to obtain a 90 per cent grant aid by way of a special programme for regional development for the west. This would ensure the draining of the Shannon and the bringing into productivity of thousands of acres of land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is embarking on a debate on the River Shannon.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am talking about regional development.

Mr. Wilson

The first six miles of the Shannon are being excluded by the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are other parts of the Shannon excluded also. Would Deputy Treacy please relate his remarks to the Bill?

Mr. N. Treacy

It would be difficult to discuss European matters without urging the Minister to seek this assistance for regional development. The Office of Public Works are about to lay off 200 people in the west.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again I must ask the Deputy to adhere to what is in the Bill.

Mr. N. Treacy

A proper programme for regional aid would ensure that both the Shannon and the Dunkellin rivers are drained and that the whole west of Ireland is treated as a separate region. I am talking about the 12 western counties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should be talking about what is in the Bill.

Mr. N. Treacy

This opportunity must not be lost. Europe is becoming a very large development area and it looks as if there will not be much opportunity for further expansion of the European territory. Therefore, an opportunity of the kind being offered to us now will not be available again for many years. That is why I am pressing the Government to utilise that opportunity to the maximum. The difficulties we have encountered can be renegotiated to ensure that as a member state contributing to the development of Europe we in turn can extract the maximum benefits from Europe. So far we have not exploited the potential of Europe to the full.

Mr. Wilson

I should begin by disqualifying myself to speak to this Bill in so far as Portugal is concerned. I know a certain amount about Spain, going back over many years from the time when I was a student in that country, but I know nothing about Portugal. Consequently, most of my remarks will be addressed to the accession of Spain.

I join with our spokesman on Foreign Affairs in welcoming the Bill and in welcoming also the attitude of Members on all sides to the accession of Spain and Portugal. The national character in Spain is Don Quixote de La Mancha. We speak of a friendship with Spain, a rapport with that country, which very often arises from common values and so on but it is important to keep in mind that wherever Don Quixote went Sancho Panza went also to bring Don Quixote back to earth and to the practicalities. I might say that my colleague from East Galway was playing the role of Sancho Panza when he came under criticism a few moments ago when relating the accession of Spain and Portugal to the reality of the social and regional scene in Ireland.

It is well to realise that the motivation for joining from the Spanish point of view was as much political as economic. In our case, apart from the political effect of making some dent on our insularity, our motivation was mainly economic when in the early seventies we conducted a very successful campaign in which we were backed by Fine Gael. The result was an overwhelming vote for joining the Community. However, we must bear in mind that Senior Gonzales is only the second leader of a democratic Government in Spain since the demise of General Franco. Democracy in Spain has its problems. The rest of Europe has been busily studying Spain for many decades but it is a country that the rest of Europe has not understood fully. We should think of that country as being very closely linked with Africa, as well as of its strong cultural and ethnic links with the rest of Europe.

I am not now dealing with the question of NATO, although a passing reference to that problem as far as we are concerned should also be made, but Spain's joining of the European Community is, from the Spanish point of view, a help towards firming down the new democratic regime in that country. We know that a couple of attempts have been made to subvert that democracy and should advert to the fact that the King, Juan Carlos, deserves the support and appreciation of all democrats in Europe because of his action on those occasions when the new democracy was in danger. The passing from the regime of the UCD to the socialist regime was a difficult and dangerous transition. That Felipe Gonzales and his Government have succeeded in making that transition and in attempting to firm democracy in a place where people tend to see black and white and find it very difficult to see grey or any shading in between deserves the support of the democratic countries which constitute the EC. I am sure that in that climate and atmosphere Spain will prosper politically.

The economics, of course, are also important. I would support fully the inputs of the various speakers in the House who called attention to the areas in economic development in this country which may come under pressure as a result of the joining by Spain and Portugal. We know that the wine problem is a great one. I had evidence of that from my own eyes in areas of Spain which I knew many years ago, where a huge effort was made to increase the production of olive oil. That, too, is an area which will make demands on the Common Agricultural Policy. I know that certain lines have been laid down with regard to those developments.

The wine industry will probably affect France, Italy and to a certain extent Germany and Greece to a small extent, of the countries already in the Community. The Spanish wine business will impact heavily on Europe and deservedly so, let me say, because of the quality of the Spanish wines which have never been fully appreciated in the wine industry throughout the world, particularly in the Rioja region of Spain, the wines coming from there being of a higher quality than many of the brands that are household names throughout the world.

The first point that I wanted to make was the political importance of Spain becoming a member and how important it is that the existing members of the Community be seen to sustain that democracy. Many Spaniards regard that really as the prime motivation, the prime objective of their joining the European Community. It is well to remember that anarchism, which died out at the end of the 19th century in most of the regions in which it had taken root, right up to comparativley recently — and I am sure even still — has a very great number of adherents in Spain. That will give you an idea of the difficulties that Felipe Gonzales has in ruling a country where such strong and positive political views are held, even on the extreme left, which is characterised by anarchism.

When I was Minister for Education, I made several attempts to address the problems of ignorance in the European Community. It would be interesting if a television camera were taken into our streets for a vox pop of Spain and Portugal. Due to the development of the tourism industry in Spain, many more people now know something about Spain than used to. However, it would be interesting to find out how many know the name of the Prime Minister of Spain, or the names of any members of its government; Spain's GNP; the per-capita earnings of the ordinary Spanish citizen. I give these not as of the most important but as a few examples off the top of my head. I got general agreement from the Ministers of Education in the Community that there was a need for education in our schools about the Community itself, the individual countries comprising it. The then Minister for Education in France was very much in support of my proposals with regard to a libro de Europa— a book of Europe in which each country would be described — inhabitants, physical characteristisc, gross national product, main industries, cultural and historical background, etc. Most of the Ministers at that time agreed with me that there was a very frightening ignorance of such details in the Community generally.

We remember, when the EC began originally with the Six, that the drive for cohesion and expansion was conducted at the educational and cultural levels. However, once the Community got underway, all those things were cast aside and there has been a heavy concentration only on the economics of the Community. As a result, in my opinion the Community has been faltering because the roots of that identification have not been nourished as they should by education in our schools. We now have 12 countries in the Community. There should be a book, perhaps loose-leaved, and as the statistics changed from year to year our students could have those changes inserted. That is still something to which we could address ourselves.

The Spanish language is being taught in some of our schools but in my view not in enough. The same is quite true of other European Community languages. There is a need to push ahead with a scheme which I began in the Department of Education to have a strong oral content, in our education and in our examinations for modern languages.

Debate adjourned.