Vol. 71 No. 13
I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the "Report on the Progress of Negotiations on Ireland's Application for Accession to the European Communities" circulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the information of Members of the Oireachtas, July 1971.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.
Senator McDonald has moved No. 20. Only one motion may be moved at a time and he is about to speak on both of them.
Could he not move the two? We are taking the two together.
No. Under Standing Orders only one motion may be moved at a time, but both motions will be under discussion.
Before getting on to the motion, I should like to place on record my personal thanks and the thanks of the joint delegation from the Oireachtas who had the opportunity of visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg last month. I think I would be voicing the sentiments of the joint delegation and of the officials when I say how deeply the delegation appreciated the very great hospitality and kindness which His Excellency, the Irish Ambassador to France, and Mrs. Kennedy extended on the occasions on which the delegations were passing through Paris on both journeys.
I should also like to thank His Excellency, Ambassador Kennan, of our EEC mission in Brussels. These people certainly made things very much easier for us and were most helpful during our entire stay. Looking at their work I think we can have every confidence that they are doing an excellent job for the country.
This motion asks "That Seanad Éireann notes the ‘Report on the Progress of Negotiations on Ireland's Application for Accession to the European Communities' circulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the information of Members of the Oireachtas, July, 1971". I welcome the opportunity to discuss these two all-important documents, the other document being "Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC", issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in April, 1970. While the motion on this subject was put down shortly after the issue by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of this excellent study, it was not possible to take it until now.
This delay has given us an opportunity of looking at this study afresh in conjunction with the report on the progress of negotiations circulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In order to set the scene a little more clearly, I should like to quote from the introduction to the Department of Agriculture document:
The study was initiated in the summer of 1967, on a recommendation of the National Agricultural Council, following the reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the European Communities. A special study group was then established comprising officers of the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance, Professor David O'Mahony of University College, Cork, and Mr. John Heavey of An Foras Talúntais.
This study outlines the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community and assesses the main implications of the policy as applied in full to Irish agriculture in an enlarged European Community, comprising the present six member states of the Community as well as Ireland, Britain, Denmark and Norway. The study also deals with the implications of membership for Irish fisheries, food prices and the country's external trade in agricultural products.
As well as outlining the Community's common organisation of markets and the trading arrangements for each of the main groups of agricultural commodities produced in Ireland, the study sets out the levels of demand and supply for these commodities in the present Community and forecasts prospective trends in the enlarged Community. This is one of the finest reports, in my opinion, ever produced and great credit is due to Mr. Heavey, Professor O'Mahony and the civil servants from the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and of Finance. When one reads this report in conjunction with the progress report from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it can be clearly seen that the report, even though now a couple of years old, forecasts events and trends extremely accurately. If the NAC, that body which had such a short life, had done nothing else but to order this report and to order this study to be undertaken, it served a useful purpose.
The then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, in part of his foreword said:
I trust that this study will stimulate further the growing interest and discussion concerning Ireland's application for membership of the EEC and the developments needed in Irish agriculture to meet, and derive the maximum advantage from, the vastly changed conditions that would face us as part of an enlarged Community.
The then Minister would surely have been disappointed because, between the time when this report was published in 1970 and today, our Government have not acted on the advice given or on the forecasts made in this document. I feel it is fair to charge the Government with criminal neglect so far as preparing Irish agriculture for eventual competition within the enlarged European Community is concerned. We have no evidence of any preparation in the agricultural sphere to encourage our farmers to produce the products which we can produce better than most of the present Six.
We have only recently been allowed to see what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been up to and we certainly welcome this line of the Minister. It is true that we have received plenty of promises of action and we have been told that information would be more readily available. This is very necessary, now that the date of our accession is probably only a little over a year away. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of co-ordination in policy and our Government have effected policy changes in part of the agricultural sector. For instance, in my opinion they have allowed milk prices to drop at the wrong time. Beef production was encouraged, but at the expense of dairying. Those two lines of production must go hand in hand, especially when all the forecasts which were available to the Government as early as September, 1970, gave a clear indication that the prospects for our milk products were improving.
On the other hand, I admit that the Beef Incentive Scheme has increased beef production by about 4 per cent. Again, this has been brought about, regrettably, at the expense of dairying. If we are to retain our position in the EEC we must enter with the highest possible output.
The Government's multitiered price for milk is wrong, mainly because it places the small farmer in a false position. It gives him a false sense of security, because at the present time this policy would lead that person to believe that he could make a living on a small holding from milk with the aid of the multitier price. This is unfair to him. If he is faced with the prospect of moving out or doing something else, then the present system is unfair because it gives him a false sense of security since he does not know what the price structure will be in ten years time.
I do not wish to develop this case in relation to milk production, because my colleague, Senator Butler, to whom I bow as being an expert in this field, will deal more fully with this most important subject so far as agriculture is concerned.
One of the main points made in support of our joining EEC is that we can expect to receive higher agricultural prices as members of the enlarged European Community. If we believe that, merely by joining the EEC, Irish agriculture is in for a huge bonanza because of the produce price increases, then I submit that we are in for quite a shock. There is no doubt that the increases in the price differential will very soon be whittled away. Surely our future must not be staked on short-term price increases, but rather on the ability of our farmers and of the industries serving both input industries into agriculture and the industries processing agriculture produce.
The future lies in increased production of the most profitable agricultural produce. This must invariably mean produce based on grass. The Government have done absolutely nothing to ensure that we will have this output increase. If we want to help people to achieve this we must provide, in some realistic way, the capital necessary to ensure that farmers will be able to increase their herds and cattle numbers within the next 12 months. It is no good asking people to raise capital if they have got to raise more because of price increases. We have only one year in which to do this. In a matter of weeks we must have some dynamic policies to enable the farming community to ries to this occasion.
I should now like to quote from the 1970-71 annual report of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Mr. Considine, in his address at the last annual general meeting stated:
Your Board has followed closely the course of the negotiations between the Irish Government and the EEC concerning Ireland's entry to the Community. In addition, I have paid a visit to Brussels recently, accompanied by two of our senior officials, to ascertain the likely consequences for agriculture, and more particularly for the ACC, of Common Market membership. There can be little doubt that Ireland's accession to the EEC will produce a rapid rise in agricultural earnings with consequential increases in output, especially in beef and, to a lesser extent, in dairying and sheep production. It is clear also that EEC membership will require our pig, poultry and horticultural producers to reduce costs by increasing their scale of production. In addition, higher levels of efficiency will be needed in sectors of the food processing industry. They will not do so, however, without a considerable input of capital to increase their scale and efficiency of production.... Your Board, therefore, anticipates a rapid escalation in agricultural credit requirements...
I think this certainly puts the onus on the Government to ensure that adequate capital will be available and within the next 12 months. I do not know where it is going to be got, but something will have to be done.
The Gilmore Report of 1959 placed the assets of the Irish farmers at £885 million. I am not an economist or a valuer but I think that this figure must now be £1,400 million. Even doubling up the liabilities of Irish farmers, I still think that the worth of the land of Ireland must surely be £1,200 million. It is not at all unreasonable to ask that at least the best part of £100 million should be made available with the least possible delay to enable Irish farmers to increase their capital investment before the higher prices of the EEC come into operation. This can be done.
We have 12 million acres of land and this request represents a loan of £100 per acre or less. We must also remember that the price of land will also appreciate considerably. I should imagine it will at least double shortly after our joining the Common Market.
I should like to ask the Minister if the Government are taking any tangible steps to ensure that the adequate credit will be made available to our Irish farmers. Loans outstanding to the ACC at present amount to only £28.4 million. This, I think, is not enough. I should like to compliment the ACC on their progress over the years. They are now geared as never before to do a very worthwhile job for Irish agriculture. Nevertheless, we must have a new agricultural credit Bill here to allow the ACC to extend their capital in the shortest possible time.
It is worthy to note that in some instances the ordinary commercial banks are lending to Irish farmers at a rate which is perhaps a little lower than the ACC. This, in itself, is something that one wonders at, seeing that the ACC is a semi-State organisation, designed specifically to be helpful to Irish agriculture, an organisation which has a very excellent field service to weigh up the desirability of extending credit to individual farmers.
Much has been said about the viability of the very small holders in some parts of this country, mainly the West. Ninety per cent of the income of those farmers who find themselves in the five to 15, maybe 20, acre category derives mainly from cattle. These people will not be millionaires by virtue of our joining the Common Market. Nevertheless, their position will improve somewhat rather than disimprove, because they are mainly in the lines of production that will do well under EEC conditions. In many instances those people will need to have sufficient capital available to enable them to be fully stocked before 1st January, 1972. A figure of £100 million, which I would like to see made available within the next few months to Irish agriculture, represents only £5,000 per farm. If we are to wait, as the Government seem content to wait, until we become members of the Common Market this figure will need to be greatly increased.
I should like to mention, in particular, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta and Erin Foods. While those industries are not very important in terms of percentages — for instance in Leinster the output to those two ventures from Irish farms is something in the region of 4 per cent and we could expect an income of approximately 2 per cent from them — their progress over the past few years is a cause of worry to many people at the present time. I should like to know when it will be possible for us to see the Arthur Little reports on those two companies. I find it very perturbing that, when farmers contract to grow vegetables for Erin Foods, half of such produce is left on the farmer's hands, as happened during the last two or three years. Any company who, year after year, find themselves paying compensation to the farming community, rather than accepting delivery of the produce for which they contracted, cannot be expected to survive for very long. If they cannot survive in present conditions they certainly have no hope of surviving under EEC conditions. What is being done at present to bring about an improvement in the working of those companies?
There is a great deal of employment given by the four sugar factories and the factories of Erin Foods and a great number of people in those industries are gainfully employed in the transport sector of the industries. The ancillary industries attached to those groups of companies are very important indeed. We should not lose sight of that fact. Yet when we mention those companies to the Minister he says he has no responsibility for the running of them. It is high time, since they are semi-State companies, that somebody took an interest in their welfare. It should be someone's responsibility to see that not only the farmers get a fair crack of the whip when dealing with those companies but that the security of employment of the workers in them should be safeguarded by those companies continuing to operate in a profitable way. At their present rate of progress, even without the possibility of going into the EEC, it is most unlikely that they will continue for much longer.
Another aspect in our preparation for entry into Europe would appear to be regional development. While some progress has been made in this field, in that we now have our country divided up into three or four different types of regions, I doubt if this will have any bearing at all on what is required in the EEC. This is a matter on which the Government have remained silent. We had a member of the Council of the EEC at a seminar in Galway recently and he spoke on the importance of regionalisation and regional development in the EEC. He was quoted as saying that the responsibility for a policy in this regard cannot be laid at the feet of the present European Communities; it is a responsibility of individual governments. He also emphasised that plans in this regard should be available in Brussels the day after the signing of the agreement. If the Government are working on this topic, they are doing so in a very silent way. I think they must have the best secret service in the world. We should be given an assurance that the Government are taking action in this regard and we should be told exactly what is going on.
The debate on these two very important documents opens up a very wide field of debate. I know that there are other Members of the House who wish to speak so, in conclusion, I should like to say that I am surprised to find that many of our socialists are anti-EEC. The basis of socialism, I feel, is internationalism while the basis of imperialism is isolationism. British and Irish socialists should realise that European socialists have played their full part in building up their communities and see no contradiction in socialism and Europeanism. That may seem a little complicated, but when we were in the European Parliament — even though we had read about the construction of that Parliament—it was quite evident that the grouping system of the actual format of the Parliament itself was extremely important. I found, from listening to the debates, that the socialist group had done a tremendous amount of the work and made quite lively and interesting contributions to the debates. One of the debates was on beer and another was on animal health. I do not know their particular brand of socialism but it was a very interesting experience for us. People in this country who claim to be socialists seem to be completely opposed to the concept of our going into Europe.
I welcome the opportunity given to us of joining the EEC. I think it holds a bright future for people who are prepared to work for themselves and for their country. We cannot live in isolation and I am convinced when we become full partners in a proposed Common Market of 250 million people a good future must be ensured for us.
There must also be a future for small Irish manufacturing industries, because if these people are able to produce quality products with good design, there must be a good market throughout Europe for these articles as prestige articles. In Germany I saw a small number of Irish commodities selling at very high prices. This market, therefore, must improve. We are being welcomed into Europe by very many different groups in the EEC for different reasons. I am confident that Ireland has a place in the greater Europe and that we will prosper when we eventually join.
As a creamery manager and a member of the Creamery Managers' Association I will speak mainly on milk and milk products in the dairying industry.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on producing the book we are now discussion: "Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC." This gave me a foundation knowledge of what we could expect when we become members of the EEC, and I am very glad to be able to say that I learned something from it. I should be glad if another publication would be issued in order to bring the figures up to date. The figures mentioned were quoted in 1969 or 1970: now that prices have risen since then, the comparison that we could make is very difficult. I should be glad if the Minister and his Department would have a look at the book and bring it up to date.
The two main items in the part dealing with dairying and milk products are the transitional period and the target price. They are very important and I shall speak a little about them.
As we know, the transitional period is the time during which our prices are brought in line with the prices prevailing in the Common Market countries. In the Dáil, the Taoiseach gave the following figures for milk prices here: 1965, 10.2 pence; 1966, 10.8 pence; 1967, 11.3 pence; 1968, 11.4 pence, and in 1969, 11.4 pence. In answer to a question asked by Deputy Creed, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stated that 11.55 pence was paid for the average gallon of milk, of 3.5 per cent butter fat, in 1970. There is no encouragement here for the production of milk in Ireland. In 1967, the average price paid was 11.3 pence; in 1970, it was 11.55 pence, an increase of .25 pence on a gallon of milk over a period of four years.
I do not think that any other section of the community would accept a 2 per cent increase on their products. This is what the farmers have to accept, and I think the Government failed in regard to the fixing of milk prices. Admittedly, there is an increase in the production of milk, but why should the farmers be penalised for producing that extra milk? We have a multitier system of payment which may have been thought a good one at the time by the Government. However, to me as a creamery manager and a person involved in the intake of milk as well as with the manufacturing of milk, it was a very bad move. Efficiency was penalised. This has been mentioned by many economists and by many leaders of farming organisations. When the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is looking again at the price structure, the first move he should make is to remove the multitier price system.
There may be some reasons for the two-tier price system. There may be an amount of social element in this but, as soon as we become members of the EEC, that goes. A substantial rise in the price of milk must take place when the Minister looks at the structural price of milk during the coming seasons. Another reason will be that the price at the transitional period will be based on the price that will be paid when we enter the EEC in January, 1973. Please God, we will enter it in 1973. I am a poor European and I see what the fruits of our membership will be.
I should like to ask the Minister another question about the price structure within the EEC. On 27th July, in the Dáil, Deputy Creed asked a question and was given a reply by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He asked about the price of milk in the member countries of the EEC and the answer given was: Belgium, 15.9 pence, milk Class H, with 3.3 per cent butter fat, producer price ex-farm. That is the same as 17.9 pence on 3.7 per cent butter fat. I calculated all of them at 3.7 per cent butter fat so that we would be able to see the real differences in prices and the reason for those differences in prices. The reason for the large differences in prices is vital to us. In each of the six member states of the EEC, Belgium is now 17.9 at 3.7; France only pays 14.8; Germany, 18.6; Italy, 21.8; the Netherlands, 17.9; and Luxembourg, 18.7. Our price, as already stated, was 11.55. Therefore, on our entry, irrespective of our price structure, France pays only 14.8 per cent. I should like to know the reasons for this. In Italy there can be an average price paid of 21.8 pence, and in France of 14.8 pence. This is a difference of 7 new pence a gallon. There must be some great reasons for the difference between 14.8 and 21.8. To me it is necessary to know it, so that we will be preparing ourselves now in order to get the maximum when we enter the EEC.
We should get an approximate increase of 2 to 2½ new pence a gallon at the beginning of the new season, about March, or even now, to encourage the farmers to go into milk production. The factories would be ready and would know exactly what they would expect and would be able to measure their season.
I should also like to make the suggestion that an increase should be given for milk produced in the off-season. The overheads of the concerns, such as the factories and creameries, are much the same over the 12-month period. Workmen are laid off in November and are taken on again in March. If we could avoid this, there would be a substantial increase in milk production during the off season. It would give increased employment and guarantee full-time employment and would reduce the price of the product.
On entry into the EEC the farmer or producer will have the right to sell milk wherever he wishes. There are subsidies to help farmers to set up production boards. The more enterprising farmers will come together and form those boards. Within the Dairy Disposal Board area there are farmers agitating to take over the creameries and to form co-operative societies. This is right.
The Dairy Disposal Boards were set up for a purpose and they have served that purpose. Now it is time for the farmers and the Government and the Department to have another look at the situation. If production boards are established within those areas, the more wealthy farmers will sell their milk to whoever will give them the highest price. They will sell to the large, efficient concerns and the small producers will have to sell their milk to the smaller creameries, especially creameries within the Dairy Disposal Board structure. These small producers will find it difficult to exist under these conditions. They will either cease production or will form their own production groups, sell to the larger groups and then sell to the creameries. They are being penalised and now is the time to remedy this, before a chaotic position develops.
The farmers in those areas should be encouraged to work together. The Department should be asked to hand over the Dairy Disposal Board creameries to the co-ops, at a reasonable price. This is already taking place in Cork and Tipperary, but it is too slow. These matters must be finalised soon. There are areas in County Clare and County Kerry which should be investigated by the Department. There are subsidies needed in those areas for group organisation to allow milk to be sold at the proper price.
I suggest to the farmers to examine their industries. The dairy industry is being taken over by foreigners. The NFA and the ICMSA are fighting against this, and it should be stopped immediately. An investment by farmers in any industry is an investment to obtain profits and the farmers are not getting back those profits. If the farmers realised the position they would invest in their own industry.
They should be encouraged by big investments by the Government in the agricultural industry, especially the dairying industry. This will encourage the farmers to invest. We are slow to move from one type of investment to another and more data on the subject should be available. This data is available but the message is not getting across. RTE have a programme every two weeks on agriculture. This is not enough. It amounts to about 26 hours in a year. We must do more than that for the farmers.
Publications are not enough, because farmers do not read these Government publications. Ecomomic instructors must be trained to get the message across to the farmers, especially to those living in the western counties. Door to door meetings with the farmers, discussing the problem with them — that is what is necessary. I saw on television recently where there are agriculturalists, "B. Ags." and the like on the dole. Here is an opportunity for the further training of those people as economic instructors to be sent to areas where they are needed. Dr. Mansholt has recommended this and, though his ideas may be a bit far-fetched and for the long-term, what he has said and written has much good in it.
I should like to speak on the problems that will arise if we do not join the EEC. In 1970 we sold 32,336 tons of butter to Great Britain and the Six Counties. What will happen to that butter if we do not enter the EEC? Our price is not the price that would prevail if we and Britain were members of the EEC. It would be substantially higher; but, even at the price we obtained in 1970, we were doing well. We would not get one-third of that price if we were not a member of the EEC. There would be an embargo on our products entering England. Even though there may be a scarcity of those products a levy would be placed on them. What would happen if the Twenty-six Counties did not become a member of the EEC and the Six Counties did? What type of trade could we have in our own island? We would have difficulties in exporting products to the Six Counties.
The Senator's time is up.
I am very sorry; I was just starting. I have more to say and hope I get the opportunity of speaking again.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on both motions before the House. We have the interesting situation that they are both documents which are part of a programme leading up to a White Paper which sets out Ireland's position regarding entry to the EEC in the light of the terms finally negotiated. At present we are debating the White Paper on Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC published as far back as April, 1970. In that time we have seen some changes in the agricultural situation in Europe and Ireland which means that we will have to look at some of the things in that White Paper in a rather different light than when they originally appeared. Part of the context in which we have to look at that White Paper lies in the developments which took place and were reported on in July, 1971, in the progress report on the negotiations. Since then we have had the announcements made following a further negotiating meeting. We are essentially involved in part of a transitional process. I should like to draw attention to some of the important things that have happened in the course of this transition and also to point to some of the things which I think will happen in the future, or things I should like to see happening, arising from trends in this White Paper and in the progress report.
One of the interesting things about the White Paper on Irish Agriculture and Fisheries is at the time the paper was published one of the main concerns, and certainly the agricultural matter that succeeded in capturing the popular imagination, was this idea that farming in the EEC was an artificial process which in some areas of production was producing massive surpluses. This idea of the butter mountain was in everybody's mind at that time. In what seems a relatively short time, for reasons not really related in any close way to planning procedures, the butter mountain has to a large extent disappeared. We are now talking about agricultural production in a much more normal context.
To put on record the situation from the latest information I have available, it was dealt with in a very interesting way by a Mr. B. Kearney dealing with the impact of EEC membership on dairying, cattle and sheep production in Ireland in a Foras Talúntais publication on farm and food research. He pointed out in that article that in February, 1971, the EEC butter surplus, that is tons of butter in stock, was 66,700 tons; and that compared at the corresponding time in 1970, when this White Paper was being prepared, with a stock of 306,600 tons. That change came about by a decline in milk production and an increase in the consumption of milk and dairy products in the EEC. It is interesting to see that change in a year which alters the prospects for our farmers on entering EEC in an even more favourable way.
At the time the White Paper on Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC appeared people were trying to build up the Mansholt Plan as some kind of dictator's bogey which would shape with a mailed fist the future of rural life in Ireland. I do not know how that picture of Mansholt grew up. I would like to remind the House and put on record that at that time it was made quite clear on page 130 of the booklet "Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC" what the principles of implementation proposed in the Mansholt Plan were:
(1) the programme must be acceptable to farmers who must participate in its implementation on an entirely voluntary basis;
(2) the measures may have to be modified and adapted to meet the different conditions in different regions;
(3) while the programme is devised as a Community one, its implementation must be largely decentralised and be the responsibility of member States.
(4) the Community will have to contribute to financing the programme.
We read in the progress report on the negotiations how these Mansholt proposals are advancing through discussion at the Council of Ministers. Even as yet they are not finalised. But, as I understand it, these basic principles of voluntary implementation and of the role of the individual countries in implementing the proposals remain the same. When we are discussing any aspect of structural or regional policy in the EEC we have to get across the message that this is how things work. There is a central planning framework, but that is all it is: a series of guidelines, with the responsibility lying where it is now — with the national governments — to implement their own structural and regional policies within the guideline framework.
It is for that reason that I would not have used the words used by Senator Butler in referring to Mansholt's proposals as being far-fetched. I do not think there is anything far-fetched about them. Why people find them surprising is that it must be almost the first time in history that we have seen in connection with agriculture the intelligent application of democratic social principles.
One of the great failings of socialism down the years has been its complete ignorance of the functioning of agriculture, its complete failure to understand the problems of rural communities. That to my mind is one of the major contributions of Mansholt as a socialist thinker. He has brought his principles to bear on the problems of the agricultural community.
I did not say they were far-fetched.
If I misinterpreted the Senator, I am sorry; but I certainly heard the words far-fetched while he was speaking.
I was interested in what the two previous Senators, both men with a professional interest in agriculture said. I take the points they made about the need to prepare the agricultural community to derive the optimum advantage of the opportunities which the EEC presents. I also take the point that an increase in cow numbers and increased milk production require time. I also accept that, as mentioned in the White Paper, we must build up increased efficiency in the Irish creamery and milk processing industry.
The two Senators were very keen to stress the important contribution which they felt the Department of Agriculture should make to this. Again, I have sympathy with their point of view. However, I should like to underline, as a spectator of the agricultural scene, that it is very important that leaders of the agricultural community should get the message across to farmers that farmers are, in effect, in an industrial enterprise. Just as industrialists face conditions of challenge, which they must exploit, the prosperity of farmers will be related to their actual drive and enterprise in making the most of the opportunities offered.
One of the things that make so much of what Mr. Raymond Crotty has to say about the future of agriculture in the community sound so peculiar is that his basic assumption seems to be that there is a complete lack of enterprise and initiative in Irish farming. Part of his basic case is that in EEC conditions farm output will actually decline. To the layman this is quite staggering in that in most cases, if one sees that there will be higher prices and greater profitability, one automatically assumes that production will increase to take advantage of this. I am glad to read that this message is at last getting across. I read in "Living on the Land" in the Irish Times of today's date that there can be no doubt that the majority of farmers are now commercial-minded and that we are getting away from the old subsistence farming. That is an article arising from the statistics published last week showing the encouraging increases in cattle numbers on the land in the past year. It is that sort of approach by our farmers which will ensure that we will get the benefits of the agricultural working of the Community and which, in practice, will completely refute the most peculiar predictions being made by Mr. Crotty.
Normally, I would have expected the previous speakers to make a major plea that some of the savings to the Exchequer from the common agricultural policy — savings which at the time of the White Paper's appearance were mentioned as possibly something in the region of £36 million and in the progress report around £30 million — should have gone into promoting agriculture and developing the sort of schemes for which they called. I should have thought they would have argued that——
We did not get the time.
Whether it was a matter of time or otherwise, I am glad the case was not presented quite in this way, because I am confident that farmers will have to get some of these savings. There are also other very important uses for these savings. For example, part of the benefits to farmers will mean some higher prices for the housewife in certain food products and some increase in the cost of living, although the figures given in the White Paper are much more in perspective than the figures produced out of the air by some of the critics of EEC entry. What we were talking about at the time the White Paper appeared was an increase in the retail price index for food of the order of 11 to 16 per cent on present price levels, spread, of course, over a fiveyear period.
What page?
Page 126 of the White Paper. Again, one of the things I am looking forward to, when the terms of entry are completed, is a very important section in that White Paper laying out in as much detail as possible the situation as it will affect prices in the EEC. I am confident that we shall find that some margins have narrowed since the White Paper appeared. I am also quite confident that the White Paper, by displaying the changes in real earnings that have taken place in existing member countries of the Community, will indicate that, as well as facing higher prices, we also face the brighter prospect of increased earnings and wages to help meet this situation.
There are of course in our community persons who are in receipt of social welfare benefit or on small fixed pensions. Their interests must be protected if we should enter the EEC and find our consumers hit by higher prices, particularly in foods. A major slice of the saving on agriculture must go to increased social welfare benefits particularly towards helping to protect the interests of people on small fixed retirement pensions. I should hope that, apart from dealing with food prices in as detailed a way as possible in order to get a proper presentation of the case, the new White Paper, when published, would give a summary of the proposed price control legislation and methods of surveillance which may be available to keep a proper scrutiny on prices.
Just as schools and other institutions are beginning to use the prospect of EEC membership as a framework for teaching, so one of the interesting things that organisations like the Housewives Association, the ICA, home economics teachers and the unit in Bord Iascaigh Mhara which talks about matters of diet and catering could do would be to look at the pattern of food that will come on the consumer market in an EEC situation, where there will possibly be quite a change in the make-up and variety of foods available on the market.
By looking at this situation and drawing up what might well be hypothetical and interesting in our patterns of diet and food consumption, we might well find, if we change our pattern of eating and continental eating, instead of becoming a luxury, becomes more a part of the domestic situation, that many of what seem to be price inroads on domestic budgets due to increases in prices of items we eat most regularly at the moment may be circumvented in other ways with a bit of food variety in the household.
As regards fisheries, I think the White Paper, when initially published, dealt inadequately with the problem of fishing limits, and I am very glad to say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs from the beginning particularly appreciated the urgency of this matter. The way in which he has held out in the negotiations and taken a tough line now looks like paying off, so that this outstanding matter in the negotiations may be dealt with satisfactorily. The Minister has set for his criteria for a successful conclusion the continued protection of stocks and a return that will enable us to maintain and accelerate the development of our fishing industry. I hope he will be successful in achieving those objectives.
I should like to welcome particularly in the progress report the arrangements made where dumping is concerned. It is possibly a unique problem for us because of our small size and our position in peripheral areas. It is encouraging that the Community have agreed to a special provision in our case allowing us to use our national legislation in urgent cases subject to post factum approval by the Commission.
I should like to end on a note of congratulation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Protocol negotiated on regional policy. My view is —and I appreciate the criticism of Senator McDonald and his feeling that we have not got detailed regional plans at the moment—that by the end of the year the IDA will be in a position to publish detailed proposals which will be the basis of our regional policy inside the Community.
In the short time we have to discuss these motions I can only concentrate on a few aspects. The first thing we observe is that there have been many changes and we will have an opportunity of discussing those. The most important factor is the decision by England to go in. In that situation I regret to say that we have no option but to go along with them. We cannot on any account face the prospect of non-entry. No feasible scheme has emerged and consequently I accept the inevitable. I accept the fact that now our task is, first, to prepare on all levels, even at this late date, to make the most of entry. Secondly, on a level away from the Government, we must take steps for defence of the country against some of the worst things that could happen from EEC membership. In this matter, the implementation of a really efficient and effective "Buy Irish" campaign, which we have sought for years, is the first line of defence to ensure that the impact on our industries is minimised. This can only be attained if we stand behind Irish industrialists and buy their products. That is something which will have to be dealt with on a much broader scale and in a manner which differs from the Government's method of dealing with it.
I want to keep to the motions with which we are dealing here, the main one being that on agriculture. While the document we are discussing, which was issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, is quite well done and contains a great deal of information, unfortunately there are no real guidelines for future development there. Neither is there any suggestion or evidence that such development is contemplated. Indeed, it is almost zero hour for such development. I appeal to the Minister and the Government, even at this late stage, to make some drastic changes to ensure that agriculture can share in the development and make the most of the possibilities that would appear to be present in the Common Market. We must not delude ourselves in this regard, because the greatest evidence of the relatively low standing of agriculture in the Common Market is the great dissatisfaction and discontent that seems to prevail in the farming community in all of the Six. We had the spectacle of the riots in Brussels within the past six or eight months, and there is the very real fact that agricultural prices are being kept down in the Common Market and are not being allowed to keep pace with the increased cost of living. There is dissatisfaction there and, therefore, everything may not be as rosy for us as it would appear to be.
We have got to look at the situation as a whole; and probably the most important factor in this book, in my view, is that the average growth rate in agriculture is given for the years 1957 to 1965 as 3.3 per cent in Europe. In the decade before that it was much higher, I think it was over 5 per cent in the decade immediately after the war, between 1947 and 1957. In England it almost doubled in that period. If we take the period of the 25 years since the war, agricultural production has averaged at least 4 per cent in the Common Market countries and in England. Its production has more than doubled in that period, whereas ours, according to latest figures, barely made 1 per cent. That is a very poor record and we can advance many reasons why it is so.
At this stage it should be capable of being made into a positive advantage. It is a real negotiating factor. We can legitimately hold that the lack of market opportunities and the cheap food policy pursued by England and the dumping on the British market, together with, in recent years, the quota restrictions, kept our agricultural production down artificially and prevented us from developing agriculture in the way it was capable of developing, in the way it should have been developed. Consequently, we can now claim if we are in the Common Market that we are entitled to make up that leeway in fairness and in justice if we are to get equal treatment within the Community. That will be very important because the Community is very much concerned with keeping agricultural production in balance and not having to pay exorbitant sums in support prices.
There will be pressure on all members to prevent undue expansion. We will have to keep insisting and insisting that in that case our expansion has not taken place. Therefore, we should be entitled to make up, as quickly as we can, the lack of development over the past 25 years. When we are talking elsewhere we can plead that it is no fault of our own or that the major fault has not been ours. A concession in that regard would enable us to face the development of agriculture and to make up for the past lack of development and not to be held down at this stage by Community policy and regulations which will try to keep agricultural increases within the limits of what the Community are capable of absorbing.
I would offer that point to the Minister and suggest that it should become a cardinal point in our negotiations. I should like to see a recognition of that fact in whatever articles of association we draw up on entry.
I want to turn very briefly to the capital costs. First of all, we have, by European standards, relatively large farms. We are surpassed only by England. Our average farm here is almost twice the size of the average farm in the Community. It is held in the Mansholt document that the aim should be to reach towards farms capable of 40 to 60 cows as the minimum unit and 150 to 200 head of dry cattle. The 40 to 60 cows has caused a great scare here, and rightly so, because 40 to 60 is quite a holding when we have so many in the ten to 20 level. If we examine this from a practical standpoint, taking the average 50 cows, with the modern technology and modern approach to agriculture it should be possible to carry 50 cows on 50 acres. We should aim at trebling the number of cows on our smaller farms. Any farmer with 50 acres at present probably has about 17 to 18 cows. We should aim at increasing that to 50, one cow per acre.
That is no idle dream. It is something that can be brought about on any farm over a period of three to five years, given the required capital. Then we must face the fact that modern agriculture is a costly industry. If we take the cost of raising the number of cows from 17 to 50—I have calculated some figures—there is at the outset the obvious addition of 33 cows at probably £120 each, costing in the region of £4,000. Then there is the provision of paddocks, structural improvements on the farm, silage layouts—even on a very modest scale—milking parlours and so on. That could easily cost £3,000 or more. Therefore, our small farms, the farms that are threatened by entry into the EEC, need an injection of £7,000. The effect of that £7,000 will be that the farm still remains a one man outfit. It is a question of keeping one man in employment requiring £7,000 additional capital. Of course, very high cost industries can go as far as £20,000 per worker; yet, even by industrial standards, £7,000 is quite high.
The return on, say, 50 cows, roughly estimated, is somewhere in the region of £6,000 per annum of which the labour income, excluding any capital repayments or interest on capital, might possibly be between 50 and 60 per cent, giving roughly £3,500. By any industrial standard £3,500 would reckon as quite a good return. Comparing this with income of the farmer with 17 cows, which would have left a labour income of the order of £1,000 at most per annum, there is a very substantial difference—£2,500 a year. In those circumstances, if the whole £7,000 had to be borrowed, even at 10 per cent, and remained just an interest debt all through, and even if it were external borrowing, which is something we try to avoid as far as possible—in this case it is £700 a year paid in interest—it is still a very good proposition from the standpoint of the farmer and the nation. Even if £700 is taken from £3,500 there is still £2,800 per year return.
It is an improvement from £1,000 to £2,800 a year. I think it is an excellent improvement but, of course, there is a snag in it in so far as the man who is capable of managing 17 cows, who is the ordinary man at present, will have to get a good deal of rapid retraining to be able to cope with the problem of the intensive unit. He will need to have, above all, intensive back-up services. Such back-up services will include increased advisory services—which are doing a great job at present but which can be increased very substantially—and increased part-time or auxiliary labour services coming from the co-operative unit which will allow him to have some time off. He must be able to have a day off in the week and a week or two weeks holidays if he so wishes. The only way he can get such time off is at the co-operative unit. A pool of specialist labour must be there on call so that such a man will be in a position to say: "I want a milk unit for my cows for the next two days or week." Without such a service we cannot make progress.
The question of structural reform also arises—in other words, getting into a farm, getting rid of many of the fences, laying out paddocks, putting up new buildings and so on. This is something that the ordinary farmer cannot think of undertaking because the price is exorbitant. We need something like building units which will go to the farm and do the job, even if groups could get together on a business basis and get possession of small farms, change them, get them going on a more intensive level of farming and then hand them back to the farmer. When such a farm is handed over, the farmer himself can keep it going; but the changeover from low-level farming to high-level farming is something that the ordinary man cannot face on his own.
This is, to my mind, the challenge that faces us now. The other challenge on the industrial front is: can we or will we get a successful "Buy Irish" campaign going or are we going to allow ourselves to continue to be flooded out, as we are at present, by foreign-produced goods on our shelves? Are we willing to continue to allow our own factories to close down because we will not buy our own products? Will we ever learn that there is such a thing as standing together and backing one another's efforts before it is too late? Our "Buy Irish" campaign will have to be more forceful if it is to be successful.
I should like to relate my remarks to last July's Report on the Progress of Negotiations on Ireland's Application for Accession to the European Communities. This document, on which I should like to compliment the Minister, incidentally, is now five months out of date, but I presume another similar report will be coming up in the near future. I should like to suggest to the Minister that, as the negotiations have now reached a critical stage, he might consider issuing these reports quarterly rather than what appears to be half yearly up to now. In spite of the fact that we are approaching the moment of truth with regard to Ireland's accession to the EEC, the public are still largely ignorant of the full implications of membership of the Common Market. There is still very active and strong opposition in certain quarters which the Minister and the Government would do well to take very seriously and to answer with reasoned and factual statements.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister, the Taoiseach and other members of the Government have made speeches and notwithstanding the fact that quite an amount of literature has been issued on the implications and advantages of joining the EEC, there is still a general impression throughout the country that the Common Market will mean a loss of industrial jobs and higher food costs. There will be undoubted benefit to farmers through higher prices, mainly for meat and milk products, but there are still doubts in the minds of small farmers in the face of the propaganda that has been issued following the promulgation of the Mansholt Plan some months ago.
When a somewhat similar motion was debated in this House some months ago, I gave the opinion then, and I have to reiterate it now, that the Government still have a major public relations job to perform in order to educate the public not only to the benefits to be derived from the Common Market, which have been stressed principally in the Minister's speech and in speeches of other Government Ministers, but also to the fact that there is no alternative to full membership of the Common Market. Hardly a day passes that we do not get a letter or publication to one of the national newspapers advocating alternative arrangements to the Common Market. Those publications have gained some countenance and have been supported in some quarters. I think the Minister and the Government have a vital job on their hands to demonstrate quite clearly so far as this country is concerned and apart from the obvious reason which is trotted out—that if England goes into the Common Market we must go in—the benefits that will accrue not only to agriculture but also to industry if we are prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that our industrial arm is prepared to meet the competition of the Common Market. Undoubtedly, industry will suffer the greatest competition, but industry will also offer the greatest opportunities with expanded employment and higher standards of living.
Certain types of industry, such as the motor assembly industry, will be in a vulnerable position notwithstanding the concessions secured in the negotiations. I believe that in such cases every effort should be made to substitute manufacture for assembly. Some months ago the Minister for Finance assured this House that the question of establishing a full manufacturing motor assembly industry was under active consideration by the Government. At that stage he could not say anything about it as it was bound up with our impending membership of the European Economic Community. Now that we are on the threshold of joining that Community, if the Government have any such plans in hand they should make them known to the public and particularly to the people employed in the motor assembly industry.
Recently the Confederation of Irish Industries put forward what I thought was a very well worthwhile scheme. I hope the Minister and the Government will give it very favourable consideration. They suggested the setting up of a joint State-private enterprise body or board to encourage and assist the modernisation of our industrial sector through rationalisation, mergers and the training and retraining of workers. Typical industries for the attention of such a board would be those offering greater possibility of expansion and those unlikely to survive without reorganisation and re-equipment.
I hope that a step of this nature will be considered favourably by the Government and that its implementation will not be delayed. Something of the nature of the Industrial Reorganisation Board in England, which was disbanded by the Conservative Government, would be very suitable for Ireland at the present time with our pending entry to the EEC.
Among a section of Irish industry there is a complete ignorance of what their fortunes will be under Common Market conditions. It is true, of course, that the bigger industries with the necessary staffs and personnel, are fully alive to the opportunities and the dangers of membership of the Common Market. The Minister is aware, from his own experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that industry is largely made up of small industries—small family industries mainly—and it is these that are likely to suffer the severest competition. These industries are most likely to go under, unless steps are taken in time to bring them into the general scheme of things.
Possibly the most important section of the report is that dealing with regional policy, which is covered at length. I should like to refer to a section which refers to a memorandum to the Community, in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a major statement on regional policy on 12th July, 1971. Amongst the points made were that the Irish people are most anxious to play a full and constructive role in realising jointly with their partners the aims of the European communities, but they seek an assurance that the co-operative effort required will be enhanced and reinforced by further development of a comprehensive and coherent Community regional policy. I do not think that anybody could disagree with that statement. The Minister then went on to say:
There is a need to accelerate the rate of growth of the Irish economy with a view to closing the gap between the level of development in Ireland and that of the greater part of the rest of the enlarged Community.
The Minister went on to say:
It is therefore important that the Community should formally recognise that the Irish Government are confronted with major economic and social imbalances of a regional and structural character which must be corrected before a degree of harmonisation can be attained, consistent with the aims of the Community, and particularly with the achievement of an economic and monetary union.
Those words and that section of the report are undoubtedly the most important for anybody who lives in the west or south-west of Ireland. One of the great selling points of membership of the Common Market is its regional policy. Without being critical of the Minister and his Department, I should like to suggest that this facet of EEC has not been sufficiently explained, in view of the past history of this country and the oft-expressed policy of saving the West, with the continuing fall in population over the past century.
In view of our limited success over the past 50 years in developing a viable regional policy, can we be assured now that the Community's regional policy can be more effective in the adequacy of its measures, and the speed at which these can be implemented? I understand that one of the features of the Common Market is the giant bureaucratic structure under which it operates. With this enormous structure, limited like all bureaucratic structures with red tape, form-filling and inevitable delays, can we feel happy and optimistic that it will be sufficiently alive to the needs of the South and West of Ireland and that it will have the necessary impetus and the necessary flexibility to act quickly? Over the past 50 years we ourselves have not acted too quickly. Notwithstanding the goodwill that has been expressed by successive Governments, and the pious aspirations that have been expressed at innumerable chapel-gate meetings over successive years, we still have not solved the problem of the depopulation of the South and West of Ireland.
One specific and successful example stands out so clearly in comparison with the failures of the rest of the policy that it deserves special commendation: That is the success of Shannon Airport Industrial Estate and generally of the Shannon Airport-Limerick-Ennis complex. It would be tragic and disastrous if, under the new arrangements, anything were to happen that would interfere with the continued success of Shannon Airport. I am certain that the Minister, in whose constituency Shannon Airport is situated, will be very alive to that. I should like to see set up more estates of that kind, particularly in the western and southwestern areas. The people in charge of the Shannon Free Airport Industrial Estate have certainly shown what can be achieved outside the constricting organisation of the Civil Service when they have the necessary know how, drive and, of course, finance.
The Minister should seriously consider at this juncture making provision to ensure that we are going to have regional development here, assisted by the European Economic Regional Fund, and that the implementation of this policy should be regionalised to a degree that each region can get on with the job. In other words, however desirable and however magnificent the plans for the South and West of Ireland may be, if they are not impleted quickly their purpose will soon evaporate. I consider that this regional policy is one of the great features of the Common Market membership. Unless it is going to be implemented with speed and with success, it will be merely another section of the agreement, and nothing more.
I should also like to touch on the question of export tax reliefs. The Minister has made statements on this subsequent to the issue of this report. These tax reliefs are vitally important to our future development. I know the Minister appreciates that; but if we cannot continue to offer these export tax reliefs for many years to come—1990 has been mentioned as the ultimate—they should be regarded as a continuing policy, particularly having regard again to the geographical disadvantage attaching to industries in the West.
These taxes cannot be continued indefinitely. I would take a gloomy view of continuing industrial development in the West of Ireland. It is different, say, in Europe proper. Their undeveloped areas are in a big, closely contained, land mass and are not too far away from centres of population in industrial development areas. Our country, being on the perimeter of Europe, with a western and southwestern seaboard now largely denuded of people, has a far different problem from that of the undeveloped areas on the land mass of Europe. Therefore, it requires very special and very particular attention. We must continue to have the edge on industries established on the land mass in Europe and Great Britain. For that reason I hope the Minister and the Government will do everything possible to continue this inducement of export tax reliefs for industries.
I should like to speak about the cinderella of agriculture— the poultry industry. The poultry industry has been neglected for many years. Typical of that neglect is the amount of space taken up by the Government White Paper on the implications for the poultry industry if we enter the EEC. In the two pages on this subject there are a few ominous sentences.
The poultry industry receives no subsidy. This does not apply in Northern Ireland, Britain or the Common Market countries. When poultry enterprises were being set up in Northern Ireland and Britain, all branches of this industry got a 40 per cent grant, including poultry houses, hatcheries, growers and processors. There is a big poultry empire in Britain which would not be there had they not got this 40 per cent grant, plus an extra regional grant which is given to the undeveloped regions in England, Wales and Scotland.
The situation regarding the poultry industry in this country is Gilbertian. If you look for a grant from the Department of Agriculture you are told "You are not agriculture; you are an industry." Then you put your case before the IDA and they say "It has nothing to do with us; you are agriculture". But the Revenue Commissioners treat you as an industry and this situation has obtained during the past six or seven years while the poultry industry has been trying to develop.
Professor Quinlan spoke of the high capital costs of putting extra cows on a farm. The large-scale poultry farm operators have built up their own enterprises; and may I inform Professor Quinlan that one house for 10,000 birds, without any equipment, costs a farmer £7,000. If he has no way of getting the money except through hire purchase or by obtaining a loan from a bank, he will be up to his ears in debt.
The poultry industry has a great advantage in being disease-free. We were able to safeguard our industry with the existing quarantine regulations. On page 69 of the White Paper there appears this paragraph:
At present imports of eggs and poultry are prohibited on animal health grounds. In an enlarged Community where animal health regulations would be harmonised, the extent to which the imports of poultry and eggs from other Member States could be restricted on animal health grounds might be more limited.
I would dispute that. A number of poultry keepers went on one of those famous fact-finding missions to the EEC countries during the month of September. They visited the EEC headquarters and met the people who deal with agriculture and the poultry. We discovered you can put up all the sanitary barriers you wish. One American company, who came over to supply the whole of the Common Market from Holland, now find themselves having to put up three more hatcheries in three other countries because they cannot get their chickens in, as the sanitary regulations are so strict. I should like to ask the Minister to ensure that these regulations are strictly enforced here.
We have a drift away at present from our disease-free claims because we are aligning ourselves with Northern Ireland, the plea being that when another live vaccine is introduced we must keep in touch with the people in Northern Ireland, throw up our hands and say "If they have it in Northern Ireland we must have it in the Twenty-six Counties as well". I wonder why? This does not arise in other industries. This is the answer one gets from the veterinary authorities when one questions the wisdom of live vaccine being used in the poultry industry in this country.
We will be faced, not with importations from the member States of the Common Market, but with dumping from Northern Ireland. We will be on uncompetitive grounds with people who, over the years, have had lower feeding costs than we have had, and have had the advantages of getting all the grants available. Nothing is being done to help our industry, not alone in the home market, but for export.
It is also stated in the White Paper:
It is not anticipated that substantial exports would follow on our accession to the Community unless perhaps very large scale units were developed here, and there were some falling off in the British and Continental production.
The poultry units in this country are among the best in the world and compare very favourably with what we saw when abroad. In spite of the difficulties under which the poultry industry is working, there is quite a substantial amount of portion-chicken being exported every week. I cannot see why, with a little help from our friends, we cannot develop an export market to the Continent. We would, firstly, have to be considered as an industry by the Industrial Development Authority and we should receive the appropriate grants to help us meet competition. Secondly, we need very strict sanitary regulations so that we can safeguard the health of our hens, and avoid the dumping which will inevitably follow. I ask the Minister to consider these matters when he is negotiating and to remember the chickens, even though they are not considered very important.
I welcome this opportunity given to the Seanad to debate these two motions on the EEC. Because these White Papers are already dated, what we are debating is the continuing process of the negotiations and of the implications for Ireland of membership of the Common Market. There is an apparent dilemma in the present situation in that there is in the country large-scale debate in towns, cities and rural areas on the question of whether or not we should go into the Common Market. This is good; it provides a good deal of information and the people are interested because there will be a referendum next year in which they will make this decision.
At the same time we are losing valuable opportunities for making constructive preparations for entry. Too much time is being wasted on the debate as to whether we enter or not. For that reason I join with Senator McDonald in asking the Minister to take very radical steps in this direction and to set up immediately an expert planning committee with terms of reference as follows:
How can our Irish agriculture best avail of the short-term advantages of the agricultural policy and what amount of capital ought to be made available immediately to implement this?
There is need for a short-term emergency committee. I am aware that the IDA are to report. I do not think this will be adequate. We need to galvanise the resources of the Community in a very short term to make available the flow of capital to where it is necessary and to avail of the immediate advantages of the common agricultural policy. We can positively gain by doing this now. If we do not do this now, in ten years time historians will write about an opportunity lost. This point is extremely important and I join with Senator McDonald in stressing the need for immediate planning.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister and the Irish negotiating team for getting, so far, a very good deal for Ireland in the negotiations. They are to be congratulated on the following points: firstly, on achieving the immediate access to Community funds for financing agricultural exports, in that the Community have agreed that the full cost of our export subsidies and market exports for agricultural products should be borne from Community funds as from the date of our accession; secondly, the preservation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement during the transitional period; thirdly, the Community agreement that Ireland be allowed to continue her national legislation in relation to dumping in the transitional period; fourthly, the concessions for the motor industry; and, fifthly—and most important of all—the special Protocol which is to be annexed to the Accession Treaty and which will allow special provisions for Irish export aids. This is very important. It has been negotiated in a very positive way and in the Community itself it is realised that this is a significant assessment of the special position in Ireland and the need for economic expansion here.
The only substantial matter left is the fisheries policy. A great deal of attention has been directed in the Community to this policy and the Minister himself has issued various papers on it. I refer to a paper of May, 1971, on the negotiations of the Community's common fishery policy where the Minister states his concern. The Minister explains that the decision in relation to the common fisheries policy was taken in October, 1970, and the two basic regulations implementing it were issued on 1st February, 1971. It was clear that at that point the Community was to be an enlarged Community. The process had been set in motion and this was an attempt to have a fisheries policy at any price, just to have a policy. It was a desire of The Six to have a common front. It was a policy for The Six which does not suit the enlarged Community.
The Minister is right not to accept the fisheries policy. He should make a very firm stand on this and demand re-negotiation on the basis of what is best for an enlarged Community. Ireland should not accept the policy of free access to our fisheries. If a stand is taken by the entrant countries on this the Community will have to give way, because the policy was a rushed short-term attempt at having a common policy, to have a common front in negotiations, and not a genuine solution to the problem. Also, the argument has not been sufficiently made that the fishery policy is very much a part of regional policy. If the Community, as has been stated, has a commitment to Community policy, it cannot insist on the present fishery policy, which would have a very bad effect on the regional areas in Ireland. In other words, if the objections to the fishery policy can be phrased in terms of positive regional policy in Ireland, this is another argument why the present policy would not be acceptable.
I turn, then, to the question of regional policy. Here there is a very substantial role to be played by Ireland. In the Conference on Regional Policy in Galway on November 12th the commissioner in charge of regional policy. Monsieur Borschette, stressed the necessity for impetus in relation to regional policy and that this could be provided by Ireland. He stated:
As not only Ireland but all four of the countries applying for membership attach immense importance to effective regional policy, it seems clear that in the enlarged Community regional policy will be assuming a new dimension.
He goes on to show that it is only recently that the Community has come to the political decision that regional policy is a Community matter and not just a national matter. He states:
So the fact that the politicians and those concerned with social and economic matters now acknowledge it is vital that alongside the national measures Community measures should be instituted too, to make for a more even regional balance within the Common Market, is a fact of major political importance.
The main reason why this is so vital is that there are substantial disparities in the Community, with the scale of regional underdevelopment varying a good deal between one member country and another.
He then gives the reason why regional policy is necessary to the Community.
He states:
Now, failing effective regional action, the operation of the customs union, with free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, would be liable to aggravate the existing disparities between the developed and the less developed regions. And that could well endanger the economic unification of Europe and seriously retard the progress of the Community. Obviously, too, the fact that some regions are so far behind others in development makes it very difficult to frame Community policies in line with the requirements of a modern economy. Above all, the planned economic and monetary union cannot be achieved unless the present disparities between region and region are to some extent levelled out.
It is for this reason that I think the argument for regional policy can be made in much more positive terms than it is being made. The argument is not that the richer countries of the Community should give to the poorer countries or should make special exemptions. The argument is a fundamental Community argument that the whole purpose of the Community at this stage of its development cannot be achieved unless there is a commitment to regional policy. In other words, the disparities will be too great for real economic and monetary union and that it is to the benefit of the whole Community if the developing regions are developed more quickly, if each region is exploited to the full and if there is a balanced overall geographical situation in the Community.
I do not think that this positive argument has been sufficiently made and that that is why, although the Commission in October, 1969, and in May, 1971, have put forward proposals to the Council in relation to regional policy, these have not been accepted by the political will of the Council. It could be a very important contribution. It is one that Monsieur Borschette was concerned to make in Galway: that an impetus from the entrant counties stressing the importance for the whole Community of a commitment to regional policy is extremely important.
The other message that Monsieur Borschette came to Galway with was the fact that the Community's regional policy can only complement the national regional policy. When asked directly at this conference in Galway when should the Irish Government submit plans of regional development in Ireland to the Commission, taking into account the fact that the accession date is to be 1st January, 1973, he replied "the 2nd January, 1973". In other words, the sooner we have developed regional plans for Ireland the sooner we can avail of the Community's policy and the various funds for regional development.
Another point I wish to make is in relation to the Community's institutions. Here once again, because the Community is being enlarged, the question of the institutions and of their development is more important than it has been since the Community was inaugurated. It is not just a question of enlarging the present structure of the Community. It is seen not to be working and not to be a good basis for the further development of economic and monetary policy.
I regret the statement made by the Minister in his speech at the annual dinner of the Association of Advertisers in Ireland in April of this year. The Minister seemed to underplay the development of the Community when he said:
The European Economic Community is what its name clearly says it is, namely, an economic Community. Although it is a concrete expression of the broad political and cultural solidarity of post-war Europe, it is itself concerned only with economic, commercial and related social matters.
This is not a good attitude for Ireland at a time when the Community is either going to develop into a true European Community or is going to stagnate, as it is at present stagnating, as a customs union, a common agricultural policy and then a political deadlock on any further development.
I refer particularly to Monsieur Pompidou's statement on 18th August last that there is need for a summit meeting, which would include the applicant countries, to discuss the development of Europe, and also to the meeting about a fortnight ago in Rome where Foreign Ministers of the Six and the four Ministers of the applicant countries at one of the meetings of the d'Avignon Committee decided to have a summit next year. One of the factors in that summit would be the question of an enlarged Community and the institutions of this Community.
The position of the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs ought to be to stress the necessity to strengthen these institutions, particularly that the Parliament and Council be strengthened, if it is to be possible to carry out the programmes of the Community and if there is not to be a political deadlock —particularly on such an important aspect as regional policy. It is significant that the Commission have a very strong commitment to regional policy and to aiding the developing regions of the Community, whereas it is the Council, the political body, which has not had the political will to implement this. Unless there is a strengthening of the Community institutions and a preparedness to carry out the commitments of the Common Market, then I do not think that the enlarged Community is going to work very well.
If I might change topics completely for a moment, in relation to the whole Common Market debate the subject has been confined to too narrow a limit. To illustrate this, I want to refer to what I regard as a very important meeting which took place on 16th November. That was the meeting of the Ministers for Education of the European Community—this meeting had been postponed a number of times and eventually it took place in Brussels —to discuss further co-operation in the educational field. The sad thing was that, although the applicant countries are interesting themselves in the economic aspects of it, there is no attempt to ask for or to seek consultative status. The Irish Minister for Education ought to have sought at least consultative status and to have sent a representative to this meeting.
It was the first meeting of the national Ministers for Education at Community level and it was presided over by the Italian Minister for Education. It had on the agenda such matters as the mutual recognition of diplomas, educational co-operation and the creation of a European centre for development of education. This idea of the mutual recognition of diplomas is an essential step towards the free establishment, allowing teachers and other qualified persons in education to travel and allowing free establishment and free movement of students as well as teachers.
The creation of this European centre and the development of education in order to promote research, exchange and co-operation at all levels, was proposed some years ago by the French Minister for Education, Monsieur Guichard. It was felt that education must be considered at the European level. A positive decision was taken at this meeting on 16th November to create a European Institute in Florence. If I might quote briefly from The Times of yesterday:
Education ministers of the European Economic Community today laid the foundations of a common policy for education and teaching by agreeing to set up a European university institute at Florence.
The agreement, which ended 12 years of discussions among the Six for such an establishment, envisages a European centre for study and research of a highly specialised nature.
It goes on to describe the setting up—
Meeting for the first time since the Community was founded, the education ministers agreed that the institute should begin by enrolling 150 students in its first year. This would be increased in the second year to 220 students, and then to 600 in the third year.
I mention this because there is no realisation in educational circles here that this is happening. This is the Community that we are joining, this is a common educational front, a common exchange of views, the proposed idea that there would be free establishment of teachers; and we just have no discussion or debate on it. We are not asking for consultative status so that we will know, when we take the decision in such a short time to join, what is happening in this field. This is only one example. There are also other fields where the same argument could be made that the debate is much too narrow.
In the three minutes remaining I should like to make just one point that I have made on other occasions and that I have heard made by other people, that is the question relating to the referendum, which will have to take place some time in the early months of next year. I am not satisfied that the constitutional and legal aspects of this referendum have been sufficiently looked into. It is impossible to ascertain what the position is because the Committee of the Attorney General is a rather anonymous committee of civil servants.
The legal profession in the country are unaware of the way in which the constitutional and legal questions are going to be faced. This is a public matter. It is not easy to have a constitutional change which will achieve the effect of removing the inconsistencies between the Irish Constitution and the Treaties of the European Community. It is not a matter to be decided in private by a Committee of the Attorney General. There ought to be at least consultation with legal experts in the country as to what is happening and I would welcome some indication from the Minister as to the way in which this constitutional change will be made and the way in which the committee have gone about their work in preparing for this referendum and the Bill which precedes it.
I will devote myself mainly to the agricultural sections of the motion. In doing so I should, first of all, like to say that an editorial comment in the Irish Times of 21st October, in regard to our negotiations for entrance into the Common Market, particularly in regard to industry, stated that our negotiations have been almost ridiculously successful. That comment in itself is indicative of the success which our negotiations generally up to this have had.
I will turn straight away to the agricultural sector. In doing so I should like to put forward the thought that the question of our entry revolves around whether we are prepared to go into Europe and reap the economic benefits which will be ours or stay outside Europe in a sort of economic wilderness. Up to this time Britain has always endeavoured, and indeed she has been able, to import cheap food for her industrial population. When we enter Europe, and particularly now that Britain is definitely going into Europe before us, we will inevitably have to get the full prices for our agricultural produce which are readily available in Europe at that time. Therefore, Britain's food subsidy, which she has been able successfully to carry on up to now will end at that time. As a result we will be supplying 50 million people who would be looking for our agricultural produce and prepared to pay a realistic price for it.
I have always felt that we in this country could base our industries to a much greater extent on our agricultural output. I could quote the experience of America in this regard. Six million farmers in the United States of America produce agricultural goods which provide employment for ten million people in the food processing industry. The service industries for agriculture in that area provide employment for five million more. I regard this as an important point in the structuring of industry based on agriculture in this country. I believe that it is possible for us to tackle this whole question in a live way so that we can increase very much our total employment in this type of industry based on agriculture.
Most of our cattle exports up to a year ago were on the hoof. We are now processing much of our beef in the country and with increased production of beef, which we would hope for in the Common Market, we can employ substantially more people in the meat processing industry. Our milk industry also ought to be able to employ more people, provided that our farmers respond to the price impetus which they will inevitably get within the Common Market. Taking all these things into consideration, I believe that the figure of 20,000 extra jobs in the food processing industry in this contry can be realised easily enough in a short period after our entry into Europe.
Up to now our agriculture has been restricted in its output by the fact that many of our products were produced on a quota basis. Our butter quota is a singular one and we are still on a quota for supply of butter to the British market. Cheese also caused some embarrassment in the British market within the past few years. Here again a gentlemen's agreement was arrived at between our negotiators and the British and we agreed not to send more than a certain amount of cheese to the British market. Our farmers are very limited in the growing of malting barley and I believe that on our accession there will be a substantial demand for this crop above what we have at the moment and that we will be able to avail of extra and bigger contracts for the growing of malting barley.
We have a very substantial cost advantage in the production of agricultural goods here. We have soil and a climate which are second to none in the Europe which we are about to enter. We have a very long grass growing season in comparison with many other European countries whose grass growing season is limited to about six months. We have a grass growing season here which can at times reach almost nine months. Our housing costs for cattle and herds are substantially less because of the milder winters which we have here. Taking these things into consideration it appears that our farmers, costwise, will have substantial advantages over their European competitors.
Support for agriculture in this country has been costing approximately £40 to £45 per head of the population over the past few years. Our contribution to the Common Market Fund to maintain any supports that may be necessary for agriculture will, it is hoped, be not more than £8 or £9 per head of the population, even at the end of the five-year introductory period. This is a very substantial saving which has already been commented on and I do not want to elaborate on it. I should like to say it is a much more realistic figure than the £40 or £45 which we have had to contribute to agriculture up to now. I should also like to add, in this regard, that it seems to me that we cannot—and it would be foolish of us to do so—expect that this figure of £40 to £45 per head of the population can be increased to any extent in the future because of the inability of the people to carry this load. We must look to Europe gladly in regard to this factor alone.
At present level of output, our farmers will earn approximately £90 million extra per annum at present Common Market prices in relation to agricultural production here at present. This is a very substantial amount of money which our farmers will earn, and if we relate it to single farms we find that a 20-cow farm producting milk and milk products, that is calves, will earn approximately £1,000 gross per annum more than what it is earning at this time. This farm would be in effect a 30 to 40 acre one. From what Senator Quinlan has said today it would appear that the acreage would be substantially less than what he envisages.
I do not fully agree with everything Senator Quinlan said, because he has based his farm size on Mansholt findings. With the soil and climate which we have in this country and the cost advantages which we enjoy in relation to agricultural output I believe that we will be able to keep farms of substantially less than 50 cows in business for a very long time after our entry into Europe. The Senator said in the course of his speech that we had a bigger farm acreage on average than most of the other European countries with the exception of Britain.
We have 80,000 viable farms in this country, we have 40,000 almost viable and then we have 67,000 which are not viable. This farm structure has be-develled our agriculture for many years. It is inevitable that with 67,000 non-viable farms some alternative form of supplementary employment or breaking down of these farms must come. It is taking place at this moment in a very haphazard and unplanned fashion. The regional schemes which are proposed by Mansholt are the answer to this whole problem. I believe that the 40,000 all-but-viable farms will become viable because of the price impetus which we will achieve when we enter Europe and will stay viable, as I have said, for a very, very long time to come.
The phenomenon of the butter mountain a year or two ago in Europe has disappeared. Every country in Europe and outside at that time experienced the problem of overproduction and the action taken by many of these countries was to reduce the cow population. Before that action became fully apparent the butter surplus, for some reason, had disappeared. There were many reasons for it, but it disappeared and in a very short time we found that we had a butter scarcity. This is of great advantage to us. It enables us to have a substantially higher quota on the British market at present and, indeed, I hope, will enable us to create a market for our own product on the British market in times of oversupply within the Common Market.
A suggestion was made that enough was not being done to furnish our agricultural industry for entry to Europe. There may be some truth in some of this but I would like to point out that creamery rationalisation has taken place particularly in the south. In the creamery area where I live, Ballyclough Co-operative Creamery, these people have recently taken over 20 or 21 creameries from the Dairy Disposal Board in the Coachford-Terrelton area. This involves a total milk production of 12 million gallons, and indeed is a very substantial transfer. After four or five years of frustration on the part of the farmers from the Coachford-Terrelton area, who were getting a depressed price for their milk, this amalgamation or take-over by Ballyclough has now been made possible by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Other individual creameries have also come into the Ballyclough area. They, too, will benefit from the substantially better prices that can be got in Ballyclough. This, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction in regard to rationalisation. It is a pity perhaps that more of the bigger creameries, like Ballyclough, have not endeavoured to bring other creameries into their supply net. At least I would hope that in the future the lead which has now been given by Ballyclough will be taken up by many others.
There was also mention of a capital injection to agriculture, a sum of £150 million or £200 million which ought to be injected into agriculture before our entry so that agriculture could get off the ground. It is easy to talk about injecting this amount of money into agriculture. The obvious question to ask is: where will it come from? The second question that must be asked and thought about very seriously is that the borrower of this money must inevitably repay it and pay the interest on it. It would be foolish to hand out money ad lib to farmers without looking at whether farming generally would be able to reimburse the loans which they have borrowed or acquired and, at the same time, maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves. I believe this is important.
I think it might be appropriate if the Senator continued until 1.03 p.m. when his time would be up.
In that case I will finish quickly. A Senator mentioned the Sugar Company and the Erin Foods venture into food processing sector. I believe the Sugar Company is a viable and flourising industry. It has given a lot of employment and in the southern part of our country the farmers are daily coming along to all of us looking for contracts to grow extra beet. I would hope that in the future the area from which I come will benefit from this anxiety to grow beet and possibly the Government, the Department of Finance particularly will look with sympathy on the efforts of the Sugar Company to enlarge the Mallow factory, and that in the future we will have a substantially bigger factory there so that all farmers who want to grow beet will be able to do so.
Erin Foods have their problems. Indeed, one might say they have always had their problems. I believe that their latest problems have been due to the fact that the past few winters have been very mild, ordinary fresh vegetables have been freely available and, as a result, the dehydrated product which Erin Foods produce has not been taken in sufficient amounts from the shops. This is their fundamental problem at the moment. I believe that it would be wise for them to diversify more into the frozen product because in doing so they would tap a greater amount of the housewives' business than the dehydrated product is able to do. The dehydrated product is not a good product from the housewive's point of view and for this reason diversification into frozen produce would probably serve the company very well. It may be said, in retrospect, that the company attempted far too much too quickly in its early days and this possibly is the basic reason for some of the problems which they have at this moment.
Business suspended at 1.5 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I should like to begin where Senator Robinson left off by posing both questions she put to the Minister in a more direct and, I would hope, inescapable form. Senator Robinson spoke about the lack of clarity which still surrounds one very important issue related to our entry into the Common Market, the question of the referendum. She criticised the relative secrecy with which this subject has been discussed and asked the Minister for clarification. I should like to support this plea for clarification and I want to go on to ask the Minister to comment, specifically, on the implications of the speech made recently to the Fianna Fáil Comhairle Ceanntar in Cork by the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley. I regret that I have not got the Press report on this speech to hand—I can provide the reference later if necessary—but I remember, very distinctly, that in the course of his address on that occasion the Minister for Justice made a passing reference to the work of the Attorney General's Committee on Constitutional Change and said that this committee had decided that an amendment would be necessary to our Constitution if we were to enter the Common Market.
I have looked at that statement thoroughly and to my mind it is capable of only one interpretation on the face of it, which is that when the constitutional question is put to the people of this country, in the forthcoming referendum, there will be only one question on that ballot paper. If this is so we would like to know what precisely this question will be. I should like the Minister to give us some indication, however imprecise, of the sort of question the Government has in mind. To my way of thinking there can be only two questions which could be asked and which would cover the eventuality of our entry into the Common Market.
The first type of question would refer specifically to the Treaty of Rome and perhaps to other Common Market agreements and would ask the people to authorise the Government to enter into any commitment in respect of this treaty notwithstanding the effects of the Constitution. The second type of question that could be asked would be much wider and would ask the people to authorise the Government to enter into any kind of external commitment, including that of the EEC, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution. I think the Minister should indicate which of the two courses of action he has in mind. I would be very disturbed if I thought he had the second course of action in mind, because this would, in effect, be giving the Government a blank cheque that I think the people of Ireland, as a whole, would be slow to sign. I believe that the Government may have much more trouble than they imagine in getting the people of Ireland to sign any cheque at all in a referendum.
We have been treated to a non-campaign by the Government in favour of EEC entry which has dismayed even the ardent opponents of our entry to the Common Market. There seems to be an implied understanding that, come hell or high water, in March the referendum will be presented to a grateful people and that the proposal will be accepted by a substantial majority. If the Government is working on this assumption I think they are treading on very, very dangerous ground indeed. It will not have escaped the notice of the Government that some of the most trenchant opposition to their Common Market policy comes from groups of people inside and outside the Oireachtas—but more especially outside it—who also challenge the Government on their Northern policy. I wonder if the Government are aware of the electoral danger they face in a situation in which one issue, with a very high emotional and political content, namely, that of the North, is yoked with the issue of entry into the Common Market. It does not seem to me, from Government speeches and statements, that they are really aware of this danger. If they are aware of it they see it free of any consequence.
A further danger which I believe is not being fully faced up to is the possibility of a further extension by the Common Market, in the period prior to entry, of the right to establishment in relation to land. The Government have, up to now, been fairly solicitious in trying to reassure the Irish people that very little has been done in the Common Market to bring into force rights of establishment in relation to land and that is, in fact, the case. But it is not at all outside the bounds of possibility that the right to establishment in land may be extended before we enter the Common Market. If this happens the Government will find themselves facing a campaign against the referendum which will be compounded of disagreement on the Common Market per se, disagreement on the Common Market policy with regard to establishment in land in particular, and disagreement on the Government's domestic policy with regard to the North of Ireland.
If we take these three factors together and add to them the apathy that always affects a certain percentage of our voters, it can be argued that the Government's position is not at all as strong as they would like us to think it is. The Government may say that both the Fianna Fáil and the Fine Gael Parties have come out in favour of entry to the Common Market and that this massive show of unity by the two major political parties in this country virtually guarantees a positive result in the referendum. I wonder if this is so. I would not be a bit surprised— and I do not think I am being unduly cynical in this—if a very large sector of the Irish people saw this agreement between the political parties as something to be viewed with the very greatest suspicion. They might well ask themselves if Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, whom we know to have been embittered enemies for the best part of 50 years, have suddenly decided to agree on this subject about which we know nothing. It can surely be seen by the voters as nothing more than an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. In such a situation they could react very simply either by voting against the referendum, on the grounds of suspicion, or by staying away from the polls. Either of these courses of action would have very serious consequences for the Government.
I think it is true to say that, as a people, we are relatively slow to change. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view and depending on the issues involved. It is undeniably true and its truth was shown particularly in the result of the referendum on proportional representation. This was widely trumpeted about as a defeat for the Government, which in the circumstances it was. To my way of thinking, it was also very largely the reaction of people who did not want to change from something they knew and trusted, with all its inadequacies, to something quite unknown, and its consequences were quite unforeseeable.
The Government should be building an appreciation of all these factors into its approach to the problem of persuading the Irish people of the necessity of our joining the Common Market. I am not convinced that there is any benefit to Ireland in staying out of the Common Market. I regret that I cannot make my point of view any more positive, but certainly that particular sentence expresses my frame of mind on it. I cannot accept at the moment that it would be to our benefit, either in the short term or in the long term, to stay out of the Common Market. For this reason, I am distressed at the lack-lustre quality of the Government's approach to the whole question. When it comes to the campaign for the referendum next March, or thereabouts, despite the fact that the Fine Gael Party agree with the policy of entering the Common Market, the onus of persuading the people will be overwhelmingly on the Government and on the Government alone. In terms of enthusiasm, initiative and effort, it is not a task that they are matching up to. If they fail in this task they will have nobody but themselves to blame.
On a more limited issue, I should like the Minister, when he contributes to this debate to give us as clear an idea as he possibly can of the position with regard to our fisheries. For example, is it seriously thought that we will be able to maintain the 12-mile limit after we go into the Common Market? Is there still a very real danger, despite the concerted attempt of all the applicant countries, that the Common Market fisheries policy will be less than resolved before we go in? If this happens, what are the consequences for the Irish fishermen? I do not want the Minister to reveal his negotiating position unduly, but in view of all the confusion about the fisheries issue over the past couple of months, and especially in the last couple of weeks, he has the duty to inform us in reasonably broad terms what the chances are for our fishermen.
The final point I should like to make refers to the Minister's success to date in the negotiations. It is a great pity that the Minister's obvious success in the negotiations to date has not been matched by any success in the domestic sphere, in persuading people of the advantages of the course of action he is pursuing. It is probably true to say that on almost every single issue to date, with the probable exception of fisheries, the Minister has got, if not exactly what he asked for, certainly something very close to it. I should like to warn the Minister against relaxing too much in this position. If he actually succeeds in all these issues, including the fisheries issue, of getting either exactly what he has asked for, or an approximation of it, without any great breast-beating and tearing-out of hair, he can certainly derive a lot of political capital out of this. However, the question will also be put to him: if he has got everything he has asked for, why did he not ask for more? I suspect that it is a question that we may be asked sooner or later.
The outstanding feature of our decision to enter the EEC will be the attraction of Ireland as a base for new foreign industrial development. Despite the disadvantage of the country not being a member of the European trading group, our industrial base has widened considerably over the past decade. An indication of progress made is that export industries now account for about one-third of total industrial output. We can therefore feel confident that foreign industrial development will proceed at an accelerating rate when we accede to the EEC.
There are people who criticise our decision to seek entry to the European Economic Community and whose main argument is that we should seek an association or trade agreement with the EEC, and draw up bilateral agreements with other countries. Surely it must be obvious that that could not advance our industrial development in any significant fashion. It may well leave us open to free trade, but we would not gain any of the agricultural benefits which full membership would give us. On the question of bilateral agreements we must remember that we and the vast majority of countries with which we have, or are likely to have, worthwhile trading relations, are bound by the rules of GATT. That means that the scope for preferential bilateral bargaining has virtually disappeared.
I am anxious to deal with the question which is of most concern to people living in progressive towns, such as Thurles where I live, which have developed over the years to become an industrial complex. That question is: What is the likely effect on Irish industry when we claim membership of the European Community? The challenge will undoubtedly be predominantly in the increased competition for Irish firms on the home market, by virtue of the progressive elimination of protection against a member state of the enlarged Community. Because of the five-year transitional period, there will be no question of Irish industry being forced to face overnight the whole impact of free trade. Irish industry has already been exposed to a considerable degree to the challenge of free trade with Britain, under the provision of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, and has stood up well to the challenge.
The new challenge is a free market of 250 million people. Many of them have great traditions of industrial enterprise and craftsmanship. In Ireland we have the spirit, the education and the ability to work which, if properly developed, could lead to an Irish reputation inside the enlarged European Community which will, in time, be as good, if not better, than the formidable reputation of the German, French or Italian people.
I believe we should enter the European Economic Community for self-protection. The real basis of the Treaty of Rome was self-defence and self-protection—self-defence against the bigger industrial combines of the world and self-protection form the passions which existed within each country. From any point of view, the Irish nation, divided as it is, standing on the perimeter of Europe, had no alternative but to get into Europe and to get in under the best possible conditions and with all the necessary safeguards to preserve the economy we have and to expand it further.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been engaged in this work and the complaints we get in this House about the situation are that he has not emphasised certain factors in relation to our economy or given information some people think he should have given. These may be legitimate "cribs", as we say in the country. What the nation wants the Minister to do, rather than what the Dáil or the Government want him to do, is to make the best possible bargain he can and to ensure that the standards and values we wish to preserve will be preserved; that the economy will blossom and bloom under the new situation and that the sovereignty of the nation will be preserved so far as it is consistent with the Treaty of Rome and any amendments that might be made to that treaty from time to time.
The quarrel with the Government from many sectors is that sufficient information has not been given about the situation, its implications and whether or not alternatives exist. The people who speak against entering the EEC have not made a sufficient case from the point of view of alternatives. They claim they are not in the same position as the Government to get the information. They have not the money nor the organisations for full research, but they have failed to convince me, and I am sure a great many other people, that there is any viable alternative to our entry into Europe.
I am most worried about the small farming sector, the undeveloped areas in the West of Ireland and the situation regarding fisheries. Many people along the western seaboard, and along southern and northern seaboards too, are dependent on fishing for a livelihood. It is absolutely essential that we should preserve our 12-mile limit, so that the fishermen will have an opportunity of making a living, and that the stocks will be preserved. The biggest danger of all is overfishing. If the highly organised fleets of the Continent come in, they could wipe out the fishing grounds in a short space of time. They will not be interested in conservation. It is up to us to ensure that the breeding grounds and the stocks are conserved.
It can be said with truth that during the years we had the fisheries to ourselves, or had agreements to preserve a 12-mile limit, we did very little for fisheries. Indeed, we have done little for the fishing industry and for farming as a whole. This is a valid argument which can be held against us. Why did we not in the past years do something to ensure that we had a fully organised modern fishing fleet capable of going abroad into the further reaches of the Atlantic as those of other countries do? Why did we not equip ourselves with the type of boats necessary for this? Above all, why did we not concern ourselves with making piers and landing places along the western seaboard so that the fishing boats could have shelter and could land their catches? Why did we not have a marketing organisation to ensure that people living in a country with fish abounding around its shores would be able to obtain fish on any day of the week? People living within 20 miles of the sea are unable to get fish.
When we make a case for fisheries, it is weakened by the fact that we did not do what we should have in the past to build up our fishing industry, to preserve what we had and to ensure that modern techniques, modern research, modern marketing methods and all that go with it, were used in the preservation and development of fisheries. I hope that in the future the Minister will make the best agreement he can; but let us face it, the Minister cannot stand up, put the muzzle of a gun to the heads of the members of the EEC and say "This is what we demand and this is what we will get". We must be fair.
The nations have agreed that all must pull together. For the common good there must be general agreement on basic factors. The EEC does not represent one nation with overwhelming power trying to impose its will upon another. It is a case of equal partners bargaining. Therefore, it should not be so difficult for a Minister bargaining for a small nation to get the views and the support of other small nations, who will realise the problems that exist for our small nation just as they realise their own problems. This is one of the Minister's strongest bargaining features. The Minister is to be complimented on the good he has done so far. He has not given way and has put our case forward in the strongest possible light. But I should like to tell him that the country needs far more information than it has got in order to make the decision that it will have to make when the referendum comes before it.
Senator Horgan has taken several aspects of that case and examined them here this evening. The idea in his mind seems to be that, even though Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are agreed that we should go into Europe, there are many sectors of the people who, for one reason or another not completely connected with party politics, may be inclined to vote against our going into Europe. It would be a pity if through non-clarification of the whole situation the people's voice was not stated loudly and clearly. This, from every point of view, would be a tragedy; and it is something which we all hope will not happen.
There may be divisive factors as well. Senator Horgan said that the Northern situation might mean that difficulties might arise for us from the point of view of our people giving their decision. It might also make it difficult for the Minister to negotiate with Europe because while once upon a time this nation of ours had a Christian image, an image of stability and patriotism, today Ireland—and when I say Ireland I am including the Six Counties—has a different image. The State to which we belong has acquired an image it had not before because of dissention in politics and in the Government party. The other part of the State—and we cannot forget that it is part of this State too—has acquired an image of primitive savagery, hatred and bloodshed, an image all of us decry. We are sorry it has this image, but the facts are there.
These things may not help in the final resolution of the negotiations and agreements we must enter into. But we must be realistic enough to face them. We must be able to ensure that the people of Europe will know exactly what causes this savagery, this violence and this bloodshed. This is part of the work that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to do, to ensure by every means in his power that Europe knows exactly what the situation is. The Government should do this in a careful non-political, non-party way, because there would be a very definite danger that if the statements issued to clarify the position dealt with only one point of view—a Fianna Fáil one.
There are people who say that the uneasy partners, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, cannot lie in the same bed together and that the nation should rise up against any decision made by these conservatives. I decry that. I want, like Senator Horgan, to ensure that when the referendum day comes the questions are put clearly and without ambiguity and that, as far as is possible, politics are kept completely out. I know there are deep thinkers in the Government, the parties and in the Dáil. The right approach to this would be to have some kind of a joint committee, composed of the Government party and other parties, to draft the questions for the referendum, so that the people when making their decision would know that these questions were absolutely non-party. It is the nation as a whole which must decide whether we are going into Europe.
Most of the discussion on entry to the European Community in recent months has hinged around the question of fisheries. A great deal of emotion has been aroused in regard to this question. To a certain extent people in this country have got the impression that there was something vindictive or quite unreasonable about the attitude of the Community in regard to this question. While I do not for a moment say that the Minister should not negotiate in as tough a way as he can to get all the concessions possible, we should put the position in perspective. We should realise that the fishery policy that was drawn up by the Community was a policy which suited the Six existing members of the Community. They did not have this problem of access. With the possible exception of France, none of the countries in the European Community at that time worried to much about fishermen from other nations going into their waters, and consequently they were more concerned about the price of fish, about developing their own fishery fleets and research. They were not concerned about access.
Consequently, when the four applicants arrived on the scene, all of whom had a very serious concern about the question of access, they naturally took a very serious view of the situation. The people in the four applicant countries did not fully realise that the policy as it stood was quite a reasonable one for the Six members and the only reason that it created so much discussion and hostility was that it was obviously completely unsuited for the four applicant countries.
We should realise also that the basic principle behind the fishery policy drawn up by The Six was in conformity of equal rights, and of freedom of movement between the members of the Community. Just as labour is free to move from one country to another, goods are free to move and capital is free to move; and it was in conformity with this policy that the boats of one nation should be free to move into the waters of another. We should look at this question in that perspective and realise why the fishery policy that exists up to the moment is there, and not feel that this was drawn up merely to antagonise the four applicants, or possibly to discourage them from entering.
Having said that I nevertheless think that the applicant countries, and this country in particular, must fight very hard to have a radical change made in that fishery policy. I have no doubt that a change will be made. It is quite clear that the Community now realise that the policy which seemed to be quite suitable to the Six is unsuitable to the four applicants, and that the Community will make substantial changes in that policy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made great headway in this regard and I am confident that he will eventually arrive at a solution which will be acceptable to most reasonable people.
Compliments have been paid to the Minister for the fact that he has been so successful in most of the negotiations to date—in fact, in all the negotiations with the exception of the one which has not been concluded, the question of fisheries. Senator Horgan raised a most extraordinary aspect of this. He said that because the Minister had been almost 100 per cent successful in the other negotiations one was led to the conclusion that maybe he did not try hard enough, and that if he had asked for a bit more he might have got a bit more. Therefore, the Minister is left in the position that he really cannot win. If he is unsuccessful he is unsuccessful and if he is successful then he is wrong because he should have asked for more. It is very difficult really to get any credit if one approaches it as Senator Horgan did.
Apart from the fact that people did not see this in complete perspective many people in this country are looking at the fisheries policy entirely from the point of view of access to our waters, from the point of view that it may do some damage to this country, and are not looking at the positive aspects of this policy. They are ignoring the fact that this policy has very positive advantages for the fishing community in this country, advantages in the sense of grants towards boats, equipment and research, and very definite improvements in regard to marketing. Our fishermen would also have the advantage of fixed prices, guide prices and withdrawal prices, which would ensure that the price they get would be in most cases considerably more than they are getting at the moment. In addition, there would be a withdrawal price, which would ensure that in any event the price could not drop too low. There are positive advantages from this fishery policy which have already been ignored, which certainly have not been talked about very much, and which should be considered. Even if it happened that the final agreement made between this country and the Community was not 100 per cent acceptable to everybody, it must be realised that there are advantages as well as disadvantages and that these positive advantages would certainly go a long way towards balancing such disadvantages as there may be. However, I am not taking a pessimistic view. I believe we will eventually get an agreement which will be quite satisfactory.
There is another aspect of this. It is not directly related to fishery policy as such. We should realise that in the future the emphasis will be on conservation. Necessarily, the conservation of fisheries around our coasts and on the European coasts generally will mean that there could not be the disastrous overfishing which has been suggested by some people. In this respect Senator Dalgan Lyons is perhaps wrong in thinking that the other members of the Community would, if they got the opportunity, completely fish out our waters and leave no fish in them. If we joined the Community, then Irish waters would be Community waters. Consequently, we should not be trying to keep them for ourselves. But the other side of that penny is that, if our waters are Community waters, then the countries of the Community must be concerned that these waters are not over-fished. They will then be Community waters as well as Irish waters and the question of conservation will be regarded as being a European problem, not merely an Irish problem. The Community will have to be convinced that measures are taken to ensure that Irish waters, as well as the waters of every other country in the Community, will be protected from the abuse of overfishing. From that point of view we can be reasonably optimistic that, quite apart from any decision with regard to the European fishery policy, the emphasis on conservation, which is gaining ground every day, will mean that measures will be taken to ensure that our waters are not seriously affected.
The other question that is being discussed very much at the present time is the question of regional policy. Regional policy is something which was mentioned at the very beginning in the Treaty of Rome. From the beginning the necessity to eliminate economic disparities between various countries was recognised in the treaty and regarded as of considerable importance. But it is true that the policy did not make much progress in the early years of the Community because for the first ten or twelve years the emphasis was on removing barriers between the countries in The Six and introducing customs barriers around The Six, in co-ordinating commercial policies and in introducing the common agricultural policy. As a result regional policy was not given as much attention as some of these other policies in the first ten years. It is true that during the last three or four years regional policy has come to the forefront as being a very important part of the Community policy and one in which great emphasis will be placed in the future. The introduction of economic and monetary union is now being aimed at by the Community. This necessitates concentration on regional policy and means that, from now on, it will take up more and more time and will receive more and more emphasis and more and more help from the Community.
It is necessary to emphasise this fact: regional policy did not receive much attention in earlier years but is receiving it now. There has been a tendency in this country by some of those who are against entering Europe to regard regional policy, when you mention it, as something that has suddenly been pulled out of the hat, something invented as a way of saving the West or helping our backward areas, and that it was not really a genuine part of the policy of the Community, but something merely being used for the purposes of winning people towards approval of membership of the Community. It is necessary to understand why it has not played such a big part in the Community in the past and why it is playing a bigger part now and certainly will play a very much bigger part in the future.
The six States of the Community already have very fully worked out regional policies and they are already gaining advantages, giving incentives, tax reliefs, grants and so on to ensure that the underdeveloped parts of their particular countries can be developed and brought up to the level as far as possible of the more prosperous areas. The states themselves draw up these policies, and they initiate action in regard to these policies.
The Community helps in three different ways. It helps (1) by defining ground rules within which national states and other authorities will have to work; (2) it supplements with Community resources suitable recent developments, and projects in member states and (3) it helps to co-ordinate the regional projects involving more than one member state. It is important to appreciate that the initiative in this question of regional policy must come from the states themselves, from the particular countries. The policies and the plans are the policies and plans of the individual state; the European Community merely steps in to help them to co-ordinate and to supplement.
Already there has been considerable development in regard to help from the Community. A rule has recently been introduced that the net subsidy value in any new industry must not exceed 20 per cent in development areas, that is, in the already highly-developed areas subsidies must not exceed 20 per cent of the total cost of a project. This means that those who are thinking of starting new industries will get very much higher grants and subsidies of various kinds if they start their industry in one of the underdeveloped areas. This is a very important innovation and something which will certainly help the peripheral areas, the underdeveloped areas in the member states of the Community, and something which will be of tremendous help to this country if we join, because I think a very large part of this country would qualify as being an underdeveloped area, or certainly not as a very highly developed area. We would benefit very much from this rule which has already been introduced.
Some of the other proposals which have been made—they have not yet been adopted, but I think they will be very shortly—include the provision of interest free loans for development projects and a proposal to give to any industry which starts in an underdeveloped area a sum of £700 for each person employed in the new industry. In addition to that, many of the features of the common agricultural policy can be regarded as an element in regional development and regional policy because it is obviously a transfer of money from the rich areas to the poor areas; it is an effort to redress the balance between the wealth of the industrial community and the agricultural community. To that extent it can be regarded as an element in regional policy.
I do not think it is too optimistic to take the view that there is immense potential for the country in the regional policy. From the practical point of view, having regard to the limits within which we could work in this country, it would be true to say that there is unlikely to be any shortage of money in regional development and that what we may be short of—it is a possibility which will not turn out to be true— is not money, but plans and policies by which we could implement the principle of regional development.
It is very important that we should be thinking, planning and producing policies now for regional development because from the very moment we become members of the European Community, which is likely to be January, 1973, we would qualify for such grants and helps as are available. Obviously, unless we have our plans ready, unless we have our policies ready, we will not qualify and will not be able to avail of the helps which will be available; and it will be our own fault if our regional policy does not rise to its full potential or if we get less help than we would be entitled to.
It should be realised that regional policy covers everything: it covers industry, it covers agriculture, it covers such things as tourism; in fact, any idea, any development, anything that will provide employment in an area that is not fully developed, which will provide wealth, which will help to keep people in that area with a reasonable standard of living, would come under the category of regional development and regional policy. Consequently, it would qualify for any help that is available from the State itself or from such funds as are made available by the European Community.
The Senator's time is up.
I shall finish by saying that in this regard and in regard to industry, in regard to agriculture, in regard to every aspect of our membership of the Community, what we should be thinking of and talking about and emphasising is the opportunities that are there. This is not a social welfare organisation which we propose to join; it is an organisation in which there are immense opportunities. That is what we should be emphasising when we are discussing and working for membership of it.
I should like to start by seconding what Senator McDonald said in complimenting the Minister and his staff on their efforts on our behalf. They have done extremely well at the negotiations. I was able to visit Brussels earlier this year and was able to see our delegation at the EEC and talk to the Minister, the Ambassador and his staff in Brussels. My only comment about the terrific job they are doing is that there are too few of them there and they are overworked. I should like the Minister to pass on the compliments that have been paid to the staff in Brussels and in Ireland by the Members of this House. I think they are doing a very good job. Perhaps this discussion can help them in some way because, if the Department of Foreign Affairs have fallen down in any respect, I would agree with Senator Horgan that it is in the field of selling the idea in this country. There will be a problem about the referendum. I am firmly pro-European for many reasons, but I think a bigger effort should be made to emphasise the sort of opportunities that Senator Eoin Ryan talked about in his contribution.
We have got to emphasise the positive aspects of our entry into the Common Market just as much as the more negative ones which we cannot avoid emphasising, such as the position this country would have if we did not join the Community. I am pro-European for more reasons than the purely economic ones. Psychologically and culturally we have a tremendous amount to gain from Europe, and also to give to them. Some of the biggest problems that face this country today cannot be solved in our own context.
Yesterday we spent a great deal of time talking about making our institutions outward looking. The country itself needs to be made more outward looking. This would help in solving the problems that face it. I feel that joining the European Economic Community will have this desired effect. We will be made to think more about our European neighbours, to think more about things outside our own narrow confines, and I am sure this will be tremendously important for this country.
I should like to refer to two points that Senator Ryan made in his speech, the first dealing with the fisheries policy. We have ourselves to blame. We cannot just blame the present Government. All Governments must accept some of the blame, but also the country as a whole must accept the blame for not developing the fishing industry as it should have been developed. There has not been enough private capital. There has not been enough Government capital, and the nation as a whole really should not be proud of the efforts it has made on behalf of the fishermen in this country.
I have here a document produced around 1970—there is no date on it—by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, an excellent document entitled "Investment Opportunities in Commercial Fisheries in Ireland". It sets out the opportunities extremely well. The documentation is very good but the criticism I have to make is that the document was not produced 20 years earlier, because our fishing industry is certainly far behind the fishing industries of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, even taking percentages, fractions and comparing our average incomes. We will suffer tremendous competition inside the EEC and every effort must be made to develop our own industry so that it can meet this competition.
Senator Ryan also referred to regional policy in the Community. This, of course, affects our agriculture tremendously. I learned one interesting fact when I was in Brussels earlier this year. I was specifically interested in regional questions, and I had a long discussion with an Italian member of the Commission. He said that one of the great successes for the Community's regional policy was Southern Italy about which he talked; but when he got outside the office and started to talk off the cuff he said it really was not the Community money that had made the difference in Southern Italy at all—it was the fact that the Italian Government had to subscribe to the Community Government policy on regionalism that had allowed the Italian Government to pump funds into Southern Italy whereas previously interests in Italy had prevented this.
This is an interesting sidelight on regional policy and it could well apply here. We could find that perhaps interests in Dublin, which may have impeded various Governments from developing the West of Ireland as much as they would have liked, will now find that because the Government have subscribed to the regional policy the money has to go in and it has to be put into the right channels.
I should like the Minister to say something in his reply to the debate on aspects of regional policy and how they will affect agriculture and fisheries. The Minister's negotiation on the fisheries position has been very good. I especially like the idea of not just treating the fishermen of the West coast as fishermen, but pointing out that they were also small farm holders, many of them on very poor agricultural land. The way the fishermen were linked with the areas which most need development and the way these two problems were tied together was good. It is absolutely fair and correct and I think it makes our case so much stronger for protecting the people who are involved in these two industries, as most of them are in the West of Ireland.
Senator Butler, earlier in the debate, referred to the problem of changes in prices since the documents appeared and he asked the Minister to amend the documents to bring the prices up to date. I think that is very important. I fear that we must have more information. As Senators Horgan and Lyons said earlier, the problems of actually persuading the Irish people to vote in the referendum will be considerable, and perhaps this discussion can help to ferret out some of the information and to look at the various possibilities. If we have co-operation from the members of the Press —as I am sure we will—in this respect, we can help the Minister and his Department along the way, because it is our duty to examine as many aspects of Common Market policy and our attitudes to them as we can.
I should like to talk about one of the problems which have occurred recently as far as common agricultural policy is concerned, the problem caused in European financial circles by the floating of the Mark and the Dutch Guilder. This has had the effect of changing the prices of agricultural and other goods and has, in fact, meant that at the moment there are three different markets operating inside The Six. There is a German market, a Benelux market and a French-Italian market. This is because the currencies have suddenly changed and this has affected the whole support pricing of the common agricultural policy.
When currencies changed previously there was an attempt made on behalf of the Commission to make adjustments to rectify the situation so that the common support price policy would be brought back into line with the changed prices, but the recent changes have been so considerable that it seems to me there is some chaos in this common agriculture policy as far as pricing is concerned. I would like the Minister to refer to this and perhaps say what he thinks will happen in this regard, especially when we talk about the possible prices of our goods when we enter the Community. There are problems.
I ask the Minister to answer some questions. He obviously will not be able to give complete answers, because some of these answers will be in the nature of a forecasts, but I think it is important that we should have his views. He is the person who is in touch with the situation and who has got most of the documentation. The nation as a whole needs these views and we need his forecasts. It is most important that we have some idea of how changes in the current European set up will affect us, both now and on January 1st, 1973. Therefore, I would like the Minister to make some forecasts, even if only of a general nature, when he is replying to the debate, especially as far as prices are concerned.
I feel that I could best confine the remainder of my discussion on this motion to a series of questions which I think the Minister should answer when he is replying to the debate. For example, what is the future for the sugar beet industry in this country, both as regards the farmers who grow the sugar beet and as regards the sugar beet company in its production of sugar from sugar beet? What is the future for the horticulture industry in this country? A Government regional document painted a rather bleak picture for horticulture. It has become a bigger section of our agricultural industry. The Minister ought to give us some indication of the future of horticulture here, and if the future is bleak he ought to say so quite distinctly. The documentation the Government produced earlier in our Common Market negotiations gave the impression that there would be a considerable drop in prices, especially for the smaller producers of horticultural goods, and that only the bigger concerns would be able to survive the competitive input from the EEC countries.
Another question, which Senator Butler raised, is: what is the position in regard to non-nationals buying agricultural land? That is an old chestnut, but Senator Butler mentioned the problem of non-nationals investing in our agricultural industries. He specifically referred to the dairying industry. I know something about the dairying industry and I know that non-Irish firms have a large stake in our dairying industry. I think this is a great pity. The dairying industry has been a big industry in this country for many years but what will be the position with regard to it when we enter the EEC?
As Senator Butler has said, we need some very rigid controls. I should like to know what such controls are to be within the EEC framework.
What will be the position of the really small farmers in this country vis-à-vis the Mansholt reorganisation of agriculture? Will they be forced to expand or, alternatively, go out of business after the transitional period? What is the position of such organisations as Father MacDyer's co-operative in County Donegal? What is the future of the meat export industry, as the Minister sees it, in the EEC? I should be particularly interested to learn if a bigger fraction of our exported meat will be exported dead rather than alive. This is very important and I should like to see increases in the dead meat trade relative to live meat leaving this country. What is the position of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement during the transitional period? I know that one of the documents we are discussing refers to the hope that the present agreements would be still in force during the transitional period. I should be grateful if the Minister could reply to this question and to the other questions I have posed.
We have been debating these two motions since early morning and the debate on them has been most interesting and most informative. Many good and valid points have been made, many valid criticisms have been made and, above all, very good questions have been asked. I am sure each of us looks forward to hearing the Minister's reply later on this evening.
I do not intend to delay the House very long. However, I wish to put forward one or two points dealing mostly with our own philosophy on the eve of such an exciting adventure as entry into Europe once again. The first thing that comes to mind is our attitude, particularly at present, towards a four-letter word, not the one you are thinking of but a word that used to be very respectable and is to be found in every dictionary, it is w-o-r-k —work. So many of our people nowadays for some reason or other. possibly for historical reasons and possibly because we live close to another country where an attitude of mind has developed of getting as much as possible by way of return for as little as possible by way of expenditure or work, have forgotten the meaning of the word. To come back to our own traditional attitude towards it we think of the proverb "Is giorra cabhair Dé ná an doras" which is perfectly true. At the same time, if we do not make the effort ourselves, it is most unfair to ask any special intercession by Divine Providence.
Time and time again it has been noticeable, not so much in the agricultural sector nowadays, thanks be to God, but certainly in the industrial sector, that our attitude towards work of a high quality has been conditioned by the type of thinking which postulates that, when you do anything, if you even half do it it will be all right and will do. That is one of the first shocks people of that type of mind will get when we gain closer contact with the French, the Germans and the Italians where, from my own knowledge, experience and observations, they seem to take pleasure in what they do and make sure when they do a job they will do it right from the very beginning and that it will not have to be redone.
That is one of the first lessons we will have to learn when we go into the EEC. Despite the great possibilities that lie before us for expansion, with a market of 250 million people, it will be of no avail whatever if we do not gear ourselves to work conscientiously and properly and adopt the attitude that if we do a job we will do it properly the first time and not render it necessary to have it redone by somebody else. On numerous occasions I have met people from the countries I have just mentioned who throw their hands to high heaven when they see jobs badly done or carelessly done for no particular reason.
The second point I wish to make is that in the agricultural sector there are wonderful possibilities facing us, especially in so far as the livestock industry is concerned. Exports of cattle will be big because, while we have not received everything from Almighty God, we certainly have the best climate in the world for cattle rearing. We would all agree that there is nothing in Europe comparable to an Irish bullock. When we have the marriage, so to speak, between the Irish bullock and continental cooking we will have a foretaste of paradise.
I believe that the prices in the agricultural sector where livestock is concerned will increase by 50 to 60 per cent. That is a huge increase and carries a great danger with it: will people be content with just taking the higher rates of remuneration and leaving things as they are? If that happens, there will be disaster. As a result of increased prices for the same output of work there will arise the danger of inflation that is afflicting every country at present.
One speaker referred to the slogan: "Buy Irish". Excellent as that slogan is, we can do a little better. My slogan would be: "Be Irish". It is only by being completely Irish that we can completely face up to our responsibilities and put our own stamp on what we do, on what we say, on what we think and on what we have to offer. Essentially, it is only by being Irish that we can become European.
Sílim gurab é tuairim Sheanad Éireann gur cuspóir náisiúnta leathnú na Gaeilge mar mheán cumarsáide agus mar ghnáth-theanga urlabhra. Is í an Ghaeilge an uirlis náisiúntachta is treise agus is tabhachtaí dá bhfuil againn.
Tá imní ar a lán Gaeilgeóirí faoí láthair maidir leis an aitheantas a thabharfar dár dteanga náisiúnta nuair a rachaimíd isteach sa Chomhmhargadh. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an tAire tagairt don ghné seo nuair a bheidh sé ag labhairt ar ball.
Dar ndóigh, is é mo thuairim féin nó go ndéanfar tairbhe do ghluaiseacht na Gaeilge, mar, don chéad uair, tuigfear do dhaoine áirithe sa tír seo nach é an Béarla an taon teanga amháin a thug Dia don chine daonna. Tá an dul amú sin ar anchuid dár muintir fós. Sa Chomhmhargadh béimid ag déaileáil le Francaigh, le Gearmáinigh, le hIodáiligh, daoine a bhfuil meas acu ar a dteanga agus ar a gcultúr féin. B'fhéidir, le cúnamh Dé, go sphreagfaí sinn chun beart fónta iomlán a dhéanamh ar son ár dteanga agus ár gcultúir féin.
To conclude, I should like to compliment the Minister and all who work with him, for the tremendous amount of work they have done since entry into the Common Market was first mooted. It is very easy for people to say: "Why does the Minister and his Department not do this, that and the other things even at this late stage." The Minister and his advisers and staff have been working non-stop, and they have presented their case ably and confidently in Brussels and elsewhere.
I have only one criticism to make. Having done all that work and having made so much information available, they should now sell it to the people. Even yet, there are many people who do not seem to know where to go for information. I meet many people in the remotest parts and they are all taking a great interest in developments in connection with our entry into EEC. They ask questions and it is enlightening how penetrating these questions can be and how satisfied they are with the replies we give them, as far as our information goes. It would be great if at this stage the work of the Minister and his staff would not alone be done but be seen to be done, by making available all the pamphlets that are there. That can only be done by advertising these pamphlets, through radio, television and by all other means. Along with everyone else in the House, I eagerly look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
I had not intended to intervene in this debate today, but I should like to add my congratulations to those of other speakers to the Department and particularly to the Minister for the way in which these negotiations have been conducted and the clear prospect we have now of their being brought to a very successful conclusion.
I also appreciate the amount of information that has been given to all Members of this House and, if they really want it, to the public at large, on the way these negotiations have been going on, and the objectives and results that may be expected. Sometimes I am embarrassed by the amount of material I get because it is so difficult to find time to read it. In the Minister's profession and in mine we have a lot of journals every day bringing information about different events, and we complain to each other about the volume of this information, and sometimes wish that they did not produce so much of it. Sometimes I feel like that about the Common Market. It is difficult to cope with the amount of reading one would have to do. However, it is a good fault.
On the other hand, I agree that there may be a danger that the Minister, having won the battle, may lose the war. In fact, when it comes to the crunch and the people have to decide, by referendum, whether or not they are going to do this thing, they may be so confused and have such a variety of ideas about it that they do the wrong thing. It is a very difficult decision that the Minister and his Department have to make, that is, how exactly to conduct the business in this country from this point forward. It is a very delicate question of timing. We could easily start off with a great flow of effort now and produce confusion in the minds of people at the time when they have to register their vote. If we start too soon, the other tide begins to flow and people wonder what to do. Probably, we can rely on the Minister, on his judgment and on the judgment of his advisers to make the effort when it is likely to produce the best results and to be most effective.
This document to which Motion No. 20 refers is very informative except on the one point I am particularly interested in and which I have referred to before. The Minister knows to what I am referring. It is on page 38—the free movement of workers. This refers to all kinds of workers. I am sure the Minister regards himself as a worker and I regard myself as a worker, and I regard the members of my profession and of every other profession as workers. I wonder what this free movement to which we will be entitled under the new conditions will mean for us. This is not referred to in any detail in this paper and it is unlikely at this stage there are clear answers to the questions many of us have in mind. This will have to be looked at very carefully by the Minister and his advisers and I and many of us in the professions would appreciate, at the earliest possible time, a paper on this from the Minister with regard to exactly how this will affect the professional workers in the various countries of the Community.
I am more familiar with the problems arising in medicine and the allied professions than in the other professions, but I am sure they are spread over all professions. We talk about specialities in medicine. It is only now the United Kingdom and we in this country are grasping the nettle of the proper organisation of ourselves towards specialisation in medicine. At least on paper we are far behind the European countries in this regard.
In the streets of Venice or Rome you will see brass plates on doors on which doctors describe themselves as practising this or that kind of speciality. These brass plates are not new; they are well polished with signs of having been there for many years. We have nothing like that so far in this country, no open recognition of people specialising in different narrow areas of their profession. I am sure this will come. It is related to all sorts of peculiar questions. We debated in another place recently if a dentist should be encouraged to use the title "Doctor". It is quite common in the European countries that dentists are called doctors. Should they be here and would this be acceptable to the bodies that are supervising the practice of doctors and dentists in these countries?
There are many such questions of which I am sure the Minister is aware and many of us would like information concerning them. There is the movement of students between one country and another at levels of higher education. Every year we have a fair number of applications to our school from people who are nationals of European countries. The question of language does not seem to matter so much now. We have regulations about this and every medical school in this country has regulations similar to ours, emphasising that the great majority of places are available only for people normally resident in this country. We have an easy answer now, but that answer will not be so easy if the conditions of the European Community make it possible for people to apply to come in here from other countries.
Will we be able to assess the standards of these people in relation to those of our own candidates? We will also have to face problems regarding social questions. If the Minister at some future time has information to give us on this we would appreciate it. There are many burning questions which involve entrenched ideas here and in relation to which ideas are more liberal and rather different in continental countries. Will we have to change our social practices in conformity with these when the time comes to join the EEC? I hope the Minister will bear these questions in mind and some time give us the benefit of his views on them.
Aontaím leis an Seanadóir Jessop. Is maith an tuarascáil é seo. Tuarascáil leath-áma ar na cómh-chainteanna atá ar siúl ar na socraithe atá á dhéanamh i dtaobh an Chomhmhargadh. Tá roint mhaith éolais ann, cé go bhfuil sé beagáinín deánach anois ag dul siar go dtí mí Iúil, a léiríonn cuid den pictiúir a bheidh romhainn má téimíd isteach sa Chomhmhargadh. Tá sé suimiúil go bhfuil socraithe ann cheana féin i dtaobh ísliú cáin ionas nach gcuirfidh sé isteach ar an chonnradh atá idir sinn féin agus an Bhreatain, sé sin an Connradh Saor Trádáil.
Rinne an Seanadóir Cranitch tagairt do chursaí cultúra agus do chúrsaí theangachais, agus bhí imní air i dtaobh úsáid ár dteanga féin mar theanga oifigiúil. Mheas sé chomh maith go gcabhroídh sé linne mar náisiún teangmháil a bheith againn le daoine go bhfuil teangacha íasachta acu, agus aontaoím leis sa mhéid san.
Senator Cranitch raised the important question of the Irish language being one of the official languages. The view has been expressed to me, on the one hand, that this is necessary, but that, on the other hand, we should not just be satisfied that the Minister and his advisers would secure agreement on the recognition of the language as one of the official languages, purely as lip service to the Irish language. There is a problem here if one considers the documentation to which Professor Jessop referred and which we have been receiving over the past 12 months in relation to the EEC.
I am appalled by the picture of the massive translations in which one would be involved if one were to include at this stage translations of everything into our own language. While I would not preclude this, I would prefer to see the question of the Irish language being one of a language which would be recognised, but that it should be presented by way of a challenge to us that the degree to which documents would be translated into Irish would depend on how far we ourselves are prepared to use it as a language, because we are open to a considerable degree of criticism in this area. This is largely a matter for ourselves, but I agree with Senator Cranitch that the involvement with Europe should encourage us to want to strengthen our sense of identity by using our own language. Some of the information contained in the report is very useful.
It is useful to know that we will have the right during the interim period to regulate against dumping. It would also appear that, under article 86, there will be the possibility of prohibiting or preventing improper exploitation. I would imagine that in the context of the thinking of the European Community anything which would be likely to cause large-scale upset in any area would come under this article and we could operate in this area to protect our own local interests.
I should like to put a query to the Minister on the question of revenue duties which will be removed. Will this in any way ease the position regarding the customs declarations eventually? I am not clear on what the position is between the member countries on this question. It is possibly a question for the Revenue Commissioners. What has always caused a lot of trouble here is the problem of getting clearance where necessary without considerable delay.
I have considerable sympathy for people engaged in the motor assembly industry. The concession to extend the phasing out up to 1985 is a good one, because it should give time and opportunity for those employed in this industry to engage in retraining and adaptation so that they can continue to contribute their skills to this country.
I should like to raise with the Minister the question of export tax reliefs in relation to companies. It may not be directly within his province but I know that not a few foreign companies have taken advantage of the temporary relief in taxation and have then ceased to operate. I suspect there may be a few more companies of this kind engaged in export industry here. This is where grants and export tax relief are given to companies who are encouraged to come here and set up an industry. The danger I see in connection with some of these companies is that, having taken advantage of the period of tax relief, they would then wind up and cause redundancy to the workers. I wonder if, in the event of a situation developing in regard to any factories here which are either subsidiaries of foreign concerns or are merely set up by people from outside, there would be any obstacle to the Industrial Development Authority or some other State agency taking over such units in the interests of our community and those working in them.
The question of regional policy has been raised by Senators Robinson and Ryan. It does seem that the regional policy as put forward in this document is a reasonable one. Regional policy could not merely be a matter for a member country. There must be some discussion and co-ordination within the Community, but my interpretation of it, which I hope is correct, is that each country, having discussed it with the Community, will be able to pursue a regional policy in accordance with its own special needs. I have found the last couple of pages —42, 43 and 44—on agriculture very interesting. It is a subject with which I am not very familiar, but this seems to me to clear the air to a considerable degree on the questions raised by Senator West, particularly paragraph 127 on page 44, which states:
The criteria for participation in a development plan merely specify that a farm comprising of one or two labour units should have a target of reaching a minimum earned income comparable with that obtained in non-farm employment in the same region.
If that is an indication of the general policy to be followed with regard to agriculture it is a very logical approach to the problem, because we are, and have all along, been up against the difficulty that those engaged in agriculture will always wish to have the same standards as those engaged in industry. The policy as set out there would seem to fit in with that.
I should like to join with the other Senators in complimenting the Minister and his advisers on producing this report. It is a very useful one. I look forward, as I am sure do other Senators, to a further report at a later stage comparable to this.
This whole question of our entry into the Economic Community got a very long and detailed airing in the other House. Deputy Garret FitzGerald spent hours and hours briefing us on this particular subject. Of course, Deputy Garret FitzGerald has made a study of it and it is very doubtful if any Member of this House—I am not saying this because he is a member of my own party —would have the time, the aptitude or the application to put into the study of the question of our entry into the European Economic Community. Deputy FitzGerald went into this matter in great detail. What we are doing here is possibly rehashing most of the things which he said in the other House. Certain people have spoken here about their own special interests. It is correct that the Minister should hear in detail the particular views and interests of people like Senator Jessop, engaged in certain pursuits and professions.
There are a few aspects that have not been touched on here but were touched on when this subject was discussed in the other House six or eight months ago. The whole question of our taxation system will need revision if we enter the European Economic Community. The Minister for Finance is at the present moment introducing a Bill to abolish turnover tax and wholesale tax and to substitute for them value-added tax. This covers a certain aspect of our taxation. There are other aspects of taxation to which this value-added tax does not apply. There is the question of excise taxation and the question of income taxation. From what I know as regards these two particular aspects of taxation, even The Six at the present moment are not fully in harmony about them.
The only thing which is common to The Six at the present moment is value-added tax. There is a variation in the method of collecting taxes on incomes by way of excise. The Minister may enlighten me, as I may be entirely wrong in this, but when I read about it last there were certain differences in the methods of collecting taxes. For instance, there was the alcoholic tax in certain countries and not in others.
Another question which was slightly adverted to by Senator Brugha is this question of the Irish language. I do not mean the Irish language per se. What I mean is the whole question of the sovereignty of the Irish nation. We must get this very serious point into our heads. If we are going to join a bloc of ten countries comparable to other huge blocs of countries throughout the world, there must, in my opinion, be a certain surrender of portions of our sovereignty, and some of our ideals. To keep emphasising at this stage of the negotiations the retention or even the extension of certain aspects of sovereignty may not fit in with negotiations the Minister is conducting. To be practical, we must recognise that there are some aspects of our sovereignty upon which we must yield slightly. I do not want to yield, but when you are associating with other countries, it is hard to expect to get everything without yielding something. That would not be negotiation, but command.
I rather admired Senator Eoin Ryan's speech on fishing. Fishing and agriculture are to me the two great productive industries in this country. I am using the word "productive" in this sense because the car assembly industry to which Senator Brugha referred is to me only an employment agency. I do not regard it as a productive industry like fishing or agriculture. More emphasis should be laid upon agriculture and fishing than on industries such as the motor car assembly industry. I do not want anyone to go away from this House saying I deplore or decry the motor car industry. I do not, but I want to get each type of industry into proper perspective. Productive industries are the industries which need watching more than anything else. It is correct, therefore, for the Minister to fight as hard as he can for any rights we can get in the fishing industry. It is true, as Senator Ryan has said, that what we seek may be ours already. We can also gain, by way of the grants, expertise and other assets available in the Community as it exists at the moment.
I will not delay the House too long, because I am quite sure the Minister knows the situation. He has faced the difficulties that arose in negotiations with other people. What we are looking for is the best bargain for ourselves. But the other countries are also looking for the best deal for themselves. Somewhere in between we have got to met. That is why I feel sovereignty, as we know it at the moment or as we would wish to have it, may not be the same in the future if we enter the European Economic Community.
I am totally and utterly committed to entry to the European Economic Community. Because of what I have said people may go away with the idea that I am not. But while I am committed to it my eyes are not closed to what we have to surrender. We have to surrender something.
The question of the Irish language was mentioned. Senator Brugha enlarged upon it and wanted to make it one of the languages of the new Community. Yes, if we can get away with it; but I would not let our attention to the Irish language stand in our way or be an impediment to economic success. It is more important to me— maybe I am not as good an Irishman as some others—to avoid empty bellies. I believe that is more patriotic than having the ability to speak Irish fluently. The economic aspect of the Community is to me fundamental completely, and I am committed to going into Europe. I do not wish to go into any further detail but I wish the Minister success in dealing with the fisheries negotiations, and that he will achieve in that sphere as much as he has achieved up to the moment in the other fields of negotiation.
I should like to thank the Seanad for the range and depth of this study made and the contributions made to this debate. It is very useful to me at this point in time to have the opinion of people not completely immersed in the negotiations, but at the same time familiar enough with the scene to be able to discuss it. If there is one thing that comes clearly out of today's discussion it is something which I have experienced on other occasions when I tried to have seminars or meetings at which we could discuss for the benefit of public information concerning the application for membership of the Communities, and that is that people are not getting information and for a long time the complaint was that we were not giving enough information. I have discovered what Senator Jessop spoke of today, that the problem is that we have too much information. There is too much information for any man who is not an economist or a full-time politician or a civil servant to sit down and study and carry around in his head.
I should like if possible to clear up now one notion—it is not necessary to have the detailed understanding and knowledge which everybody seems to seek of the Community and of our own economy to be able to make a decision about entry into the Community. I think the public will make this decision on a political basis and the amount of information necessary to make this decision will be available. All of us in politics should try to do our best to separate the seduction of the massive knowledge and the type of situation where you can make a speech of three and four hours long in the Dáil. C'est magnifique, but it is not any good for the purpose of getting through a referendum. We should separate that type of massive information on economics in Europe, economics in Ireland, economics in the future, and the information which it is necessary for the public to have in making this most serious decision.
I am more and more anxious about the decision now because if the decision to stay out of the Community is made that will be a bad decision for this country for the future and a decision which we would find it difficult to catch up on. I take it as my duty, as far as information is concerned, to make it all available and it is available. Any Senator or Deputy or anybody who seeks detailed information on any one aspect of his own interest can have it, or those who want the simple straightforward broad line of policy thinking can have this information by asking the Department of Foreign Affairs. We have a section there for it. Some of the simpler documents, leaflets and pamphlets are being distributed to post offices and if there is any other way in which we could approach people with this information I should be very glad to follow it.
We have distributed to Members of the Oireachtas from time to time information on the progress of negotiations. At the same time I am fully aware that the Members, even though vitally involved, have not the time that I have to deal with this. At the end of the negotiations we will have a White Paper cutting out the unnecessaries and having the clearest picture possible of the package attained in the negotiations, of the effects of membership having regard to what we have negotiated and projections for the future. The decision-making process will not be obscured and people should not be discouraged by the fact that at this time only those full-time on the job can carry all the information. We will reach a stage where the necessary information that has been isolated and made available to those who want it and the extra information will also be available, but will not obscure the picture.
May I ask if there will be an opportunity for a full discussion soon after the White Paper?
In the Dáil there will be.
In the Seanad?
Certainly, I would come to the Seanad.
One of the motions today was about the White Paper on agriculture. This is profoundly detailed. Many of the questions asked seek information about investments which might now be made by the State in agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries intends to deal with this in the Dáil on the Estimate for his Department soon. For that reason I am not dealing with it and also for the reason that it is his line of country and I came here to talk more on the negotiations motion.
I should like to say that one speaker mentioned that now that Britain has made her decision there is a big difference between now and the state of things in July when the paper we are discussing was published. I would point out that the decision before us from now on is not to remain as we are or to join the Community, because from now on we can never stay as we are because our biggest trading partner has now decided to complete negotiations to become members. On that account we can never be the same again; we either stay out of the Community of which Britain is a member, or we go into the Community with Britain as a member. If we stay out we do so in circumstances in which tariff barriers will come between us and our biggest trading partner. Two-thirds of our exports are to Britain and if we stay out we exclude ourselves from the common agricultural policy of the Community.
There may be those who will argue that an enlarged Community will have markets for our farmers. I should like to say that this just puts our farmers in the position they have been for so long, having no control over the markets, having no rights in the markets, having no guarantees of prices. Exclusion from the common agricultural policy is not compensated for by the prospects that the Community may from time to time, for some time, or even for all time, want to trade with us, because they will be trading with our farmers on the terms of the Community, not on the terms of our farmers.
Membership of the Community with the application of the common agricultural policy will, for the first time ever, put our farmers in a position to have rights in markets, to sustain prices and to be able to plan their development. There is absolutely no comparison between that and a trade agreement with the Community.
Further information on the horticultural industry was sought here. We have already published in one of the White Papers our estimate that the horticulturist section will meet more competition, and for that reason will not look to the membership with the same enthusiasm or prospects as there are in regard to agriculture.
At the same time we have been able to make some special arrangements for them and there is no reason why our horticulture industry cannot gear itself not alone to survive but to expand. But this extra information is again available. I have circulated it. I am well aware that all the information that has gone out is not in a form that can readily be referred to, but if anybody has a special interest for himself or those he represents the Department of Foreign Affairs will answer and prepare any material that any Senator requires such as that asked for about horticulture.
The free movement of capital, workers and so on and the whole concept of a single community would mean that there would be free movement in the purchase of land. Our present position is that we have a law which prevents the purchase of land by a person unless he has been resident in Ireland for seven years. The Community has already a draft of a directive which would give free right of establishment on land. This directive has not been adopted by the Council. I have no indication that it will be adopted but I should like to say that no decision has been made by the Council, no decision which vitally affects the national interests of any member state represented on the Council; and we, as members, will be on that Council and our particular interest in relation to land will be protected in that way.
There are already two regulations governing land which do not, as far as our Department of Lands are concerned, affect us. One is that if a person works as an agricultural labourer in the Community in any country then he is entitled to buy land in that country even if he is not a citizen of the country. The other is that if land lies unused for two years then anybody from any part of the Community, regardless of nationality, should be allowed to buy it. These do not create problems. Agricultural labourers in this country do not make the kind of money that would allow them to buy land after two years.
I would like the Minister to elaborate on what he calls "unused".
It is just unused.
Do you mean being rented or something like that?
No. Not being farmed. I mention these things because the common agricultural policy is a big attraction for all this country. Some people see the benefits direct to farmers; but the income increases, the guaranteed markets and the expansion which is possible and which has been predicted—in spite of what somebody said—to be over 30 per cent, will mean that our economy in total will benefit apart from any other sectors benefiting.
I do not wish to go too deeply into agriculture except to say that the Mansholt Plan, as Senator Keery said, is an intelligent application of social principles. But we are dealing in this publicity that was given to the Mansholt Plan, with people who are totally antagonistic to the enlargement of the European Communities, including Ireland's membership of that. From time to time they grasp emotional matters like the question of land establishment and the Mansholt Plan, which was an attempt to bring humanity to the actual fact of life that people are leaving small holdings.
The Mansholt Plan which was an attempt to bring humanity to that situation, was represented as driving people off the land. There is no attempt to drive people off the land. The attempt is to give them a standard of living; and if what land they have is incapable of doing that for them the attempt is to allow them to continue to live where they are and bring employment towards them. There is no question of the small farmer being badly off in the Communities. All farmers will be better off. These very small holdings which are not viable have the Mansholt Plan more to support the people in a way of life than a protection against the costs of living and the various vicissitudes which arise.
From the point of view of our industry we have reached a stage of the development of our industry, and we have reached it for some time, where protected industry in a protected market of about 3 million people can no longer give the expansion we need. In Europe there is a market of 250 million people. It is a market of opportunity. There is no trade agreement. There is no community we will join that will take care of us if we do not do it ourselves. We have to remember what was so often said by Seán Lemass: "Nobody owes us a living." There is no trade agreement that any Government can make to bring other nations in here, to sustain here a standard of living which we cannot earn by our own work. What the European membership will do for us is that it will open up markets of 250 million people in which our workers and our management should be able to expand and create new employment.
I think that something which may be overlooked is that the availability of this big market—it will be probably the biggest in the world—will be the biggest attraction for new industry and new investment in industry here. I look forward to a big new growth in industrial opportunities and jobs here because of the availability of the market in which people can compete and also because of the incentives which we will be able to continue to give to new industries setting up here.
Apart from those attractions, one of the biggest attractions from the point of view of anybody who has had to deal with a bigger nation, a bigger trading partner, is that there will be rules of trading and that in the Common Market of ten nations the rules will be laid down to apply to the ten nations. For the first time again we should be able to get out from a situation where the bigger trading partner tells you what you can have. Membership of the Community will mean that all partners will obey a set of rules, will be bound by the same rules and, therefore, for a country like ours it is a new element of freedom; it is an economic freedom that we never had before. The prospect of being able to exist with an equal voice in the Community is the prospect of adding to the political freedom which we got 50 years ago, the economic freedom which a small nation cannot have if it is dealing with a big trading partner who can lay down the rules.
These are all the attractions of membership which were seen by us when the decision was made to seek membership in 1961. There have been ten years of discussion and if people do not know all about it, it is perhaps because the negotiations broke down twice. But these negotiations that are on now started in June of last year. Again the negotiations were on the basis that we were not doing a trade agreement with the Community, not giving up concessions to get something from them; we were joining with them in this new idea of uniting Europe and basically uniting Europe to prevent war, so that the people of Europe could come closer together. The fact that in their coming closer together the Community has had one of the greatest success stories in the economic history of the world is an attraction also.
However, we must not forget that the whole purpose of uniting the peoples of Europe is so that they could live closer together and in closer harmony. When we started negotiations the rules were laid down that other countries could apply and could negotiate for membership if they accepted the Treaties of Rome and the decisions already made under the Treaties of Rome in the Community. We accepted those conditions. We would not be negotiating had we not accepted that statement. The other applicant countries accepted it too. For that reason, the Community have held firmly that the negotiations will not attempt to change the Community from outside to suit the applicants, nor would the negotiations mean that any applicant would try to get all the benefits but stay outside of membership or look for permanent derogation.
Therefore, what we have been negotiating on is transitional periods and methods to allow the Irish economy and the economies of the other applicant countries to come in and join with the economy of the European Communities without too much disturbance to the economies of either side. In those negotiations we have found a transitional period for agriculture which suited us and which gives early benefits to the Irish economy and the Irish farmer. We have found a transitional period for industry which phases out the protection we have over a five-year period. In the case of Ireland I sought special treatment. It is important that we should acknowledge it now because at the beginning of the negotiations, at the beginning of our application in 1961, we had to prove that we were developed enough to become members of the Community. We had to prove to the Community that we would be able to catch up with them and that we would not be a burden on them. The beginning of our application, therefore, was to prove our fitness to become members.
Having proved to the satisfaction of the Community that Ireland is developed enough to become a member my task has been to show that in certain areas Ireland is a special case and needs special treatment. Some of this special treatment has been mentioned in the House today. The most important development from our point of view in the negotiations was the agreement reached with the Community on the terms of a special Protocol concerning Ireland which is to be annexed to the Treaty of Accession. I have made the text of the Protocol and the other documents associated with it available to the Members of the Seanad. The agreement by the Community to this Protocol is a positive and clearcut response to the requests, which I made in the negotiations, that the Community should in a formal way recognise that Ireland is faced with major economic and social imbalances, regional and structural imbalances, and that the Community should commit itself to employ all its own resources and all the means at its disposal to supplement our national programmes of industrialisation and economic development. That recognition and that commitment by the Community is given in full in the terms of the Protocol.
The significance of the Protocol is best seen in the context of the basic objectives in our membership. We are convinced that by membership of the enlarged Community we can effectively achieve our economic and social aims, full employment and a standard of living in Ireland equal to that in the rest of Europe. We are convinced that membership will enable our agriculture to at last develop to its full potential and that it will enable our industry to expand outwards to export markets. Apart from the conviction of the benefits of membership, we are fully aware of the problems which the conditions of the EEC will pose for us. We are less developed than the present member states of the Community. We are less developed than the other three applicant countries. Because of this position of being less developed and because of our peripheral position at the edge of the Community we have special problems, and for that reason I had to negotiate for special arrangements.
These special arrangements caused a problem for the Community because they went beyond what the Community envisaged as transitional measures. One example of that is the one mentioned by Senator Belton. The time limit for the industrial transition—five years— is satisfactory for Irish industry as a whole, but it was essential that separate arrangements be made for the motor assembly industry. The motor assembly industry here is in a very special position. It is not a strong well-founded industry, but I put it to the Community that the livelihood of the workers in the industry could be safeguarded by giving this industry a fair opportunity to convert itself into a sound industry. The motor assembly industry here can adapt itself and it can be converted into an industry that does not need any special care. We have an arrangement in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement that the special position of the industry would be protected until 1990 and that anybody importing motor cars would import them in proportion and in relation to the employment maintained in his assembly here. It was a total protection of an assembly industry here.
In the negotiations the Community put it to me that if the assembly industry could be converted into other lines or specialised lines and that they had their specialist information and consultations they felt this could be done in a period of seven years. It is up to the management to see that it is done. It is up to the management and trade unions between them to do it. Seven years seemed to me to be a short time and I negotiated a transitional period which is by far the longest transitional period negotiated by any of the applicant countries. If the management and workers set about adapting the industry right away—I know it can be done but it is not for me to give a lecture about it—to put that industry on a sound basis, the jobs in the industry will be saved. Not only will they save the jobs in it but they will be put on a basis that will not need any agreement in time. I got a transitional period up to 1985 for them; but I know, from what I learned in Europe, that they can put that industry on a basis where the date will not matter. They can go right into the future in confidence that their industry is safe and their job is safe. They can put it on a much sounder basis than the present artificial scheme has it on.
It would be an underestimate of the management and the workers in the assembly industry to suggest that they would not be fit to make the right changes and adjustments over the 13 years which are available to them. I know they can do it and I know that it can be done. It can be done by Irish workers and management.
I touched on this subject because it is evidence of the Community's willingness to do everything possible to protect the jobs and the livelihood of Irish workers. They knew from their own consultants and from their own specialists that seven years would put this industry right. They gave me a transitional period of 12 years because I had to insist on it. We are dealing not alone with what can be done but with what the management and workers there are willing to do. We had to get a longer period and I hope they do it now. Their jobs can be made safe by themselves.
These arrangements are a concrete example of the kind of thinking and intention behind the special Protocol that I received at another negotiation. As Monsieur Brochette was quoted here, he is the EEC Commissioner responsible for regional policy. In Galway last week, he spoke about the Protocol. Ireland has special problems which will have to have special solutions, hence the Protocol. The terms of the protocol recall that the fundamental objectives of the Community lie in the steady improvement of the living standards and working conditions of the peoples of the member states, together with the harmonious development of their economies, by reducing the differences between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions. The text of the Protocol notes that: The Irish Government have embarked on a policy of industrialisation and economic development designed to bring a standard of living in Ireland up to the level of the other European nations and to eliminate unemployment and even out the differences between the regions.
The Protocol then expresses the recognition on the part of the member states that it is in their common interests that the objectives of the Irish Government's policy should be attained. It also expresses their agreement that the Community institutions should use all the means laid down by the treaties, including the financial resources of the Community, for the realisation of these objectives.
The Protocol, which will be a Protocol to the Treaty, standing as part of the Treaty, will amount to nothing less than a commitment on behalf of the enlarged Community and its institutions, to do everything possible to assist the Irish Government in their efforts to create full employment in this country, to eliminate economic disparities as between our regions, and to achieve a standard of living for our people comparable to that in the other member states.
This is not an empty sentiment. The Six have recognised, by agreeing to a protocol for Ireland, that it is in their own interest to make this commitment to us. As a prospective member—even as a small member—our prosperity can affect the prosperity of the whole European community as it will be. It is clearly in the common interest that any member state should not be a drag on the Community. Each member state should be able to make its full contribution to the development of the Community as a whole, in accordance with capacity and potential.
The Protocol recognises, in particular, with the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, which deal with state aids, it will be necessary to take fully into account the agreed objectives of the creation of new employment and the improvement in the standard of living, when the Community is dealing with the State aids which we will be applying to new industry to develop it.
It has now been established that we can continue to operate our scheme of export tax relief. I should like to make it clear that the outcome of our negotiations on this question is that we shall be able to honour the commitments already made in regard to the export tax reliefs, and to continue to grant these reliefs to new firms which set up here to manufacture for export. In due course, it is intended that in the enlarged Community all tax incentives and all industrial incentives, including our export tax reliefs, will come under consideration by the Commission as part of their examination of the whole structure of aids within the Community. These come under Articles 92 and 93. It may be that our aids may have to be modified as a result of the examination. Other places will have to modify, because the peripheral countries and the developing ones, like ours, will always have to have a good advantage. If we have to modify, we have the assurance of the Community that any revised incentive scheme will have to be equally effective in promoting industrial development in Ireland.
I might mention in this connection that Commissioner Brochette made it quite clear in his remarks in Galway that our aids to industry might eventually be modified in form, but not modified in intensity. The Community has also assured us that, if changes ultimately prove to be necessary, there is no question of an abrupt stopping of any particular kind of incentive. Any changes would be made over a suitable transitional period, and with suitable transitional methods. Meanwhile we continue, and can continue, to offer tax reliefs on export profits as an incentive to new firms to establish themselves here and so provide new opportunities for employment in Ireland.
The major outstanding issue mentioned here has been the problem of fisheries. This is also a question with great implications for economic development and the provision of employment opportunities in this country. The number of fishermen employed here is quite small, about 1,800 full-time fishermen, and maybe a total of 5,000 fishermen. For that reason the size of the economic problem may not have impressed outsiders who had not been conscious of the fishing industry, or of the potential here for a big fishing industry. Through the negotiations I have maintained the importance of the prospects here of developing a big fishing industry as well as protecting the fishermen already in existence. Gradually, this realisation has come home to our own people and to members of the Community. It is fair to say that at the Ministerial meetings between the Community and the applicant countries last week, there was a significant movement towards the solution of this very difficult problem. The difficulty arises from the Community point of view in so far as this was a regulation of theirs, an established regulation made by the Community of Six. The applicants had undertaken to negotiate in terms of transitional periods and not changing the rules. However, the day after we started to negotiate, this new regulation was brought in and immediately I protested. We have continued to protest, because of the access phrase on the regulation.
In the regulation, all fishermen of the Community will have access to the waters, right up to the shore, of all member states. The Community now accepts that unrestricted access—free access to our fishery waters—by vessels from other countries of the enlarged Community, is quite unacceptable to Ireland. This acceptance by the Community is a major improvement on their original position. The original position was a fixed one: they said it could not be changed, and it meant free access to the shores. I do not know if it is necessary to repeat here what I have said at every negotiating meeting: that free access would create great difficulties for our fishermen, seriously disturb and be badly detrimental to the conservation of our fish stocks, and would jeopardise the development of a fishing industry here. I put it to the Community that this access provision which was designed for the Community of six was not suitable for a Community of ten with totally different interests in the fisheries sector.
I see a prospect for the development of a fishing industry in Ireland. It is in the early stage of development. Our fishermen are not equipped to compete with the bigger fleets from other countries. These bigger fleets would be there in the enlarged Community. Free access would lead to overfishing which would result in serious depletion of the stocks, and this would be disastrous in the preventing of a fishing industry which is just beginning in Ireland.
The proposals put forward by the Community last week represent a significant advance. They now understand the problem and are anxious to find a solution. The latest proposals put to us do not go far enough. They do not solve the problems I see for fishermen and for the fishing industry. What they have done means we are within sight of a solution which will meet the legitimate requirements of the Irish fishing industry. I will continue to press for a solution to meet the legitimate requirements of Irish fishermen and the Irish fishing industry. I know the applicant countries will strive for a satisfactory solution too.
There is one important difference between the other applicant countries and ourselves. They all have well-developed, sophisticated fishing industries, whereas ours is only beginning to develop and has to realise its full potential. They are seeking protection for fishermen who are already in existence; they are seeking protection so that they will lose none of the rewards their skill brings them. We, on the other hand, are seeking protection for fisheries, not only because of the living it provides for the small number of fishermen I mentioned and the contribution it makes to the economy, but also because of its capacity and potential to develop into a greater source of employment and much more important economic activity than at present.
If we can get a satisfactory outcome —and I think we will—to the question of the access regulation, the Irish fishing industry has a bright future in the EEC. Access to the market of the enlarged EEC participation in the arrangements for the organisation of the market and participation in the arrangements for structural improvement should be a major asset in expanding our fishing industry. It is true to say we can find a solution to our problem of developing a fishing industry as members of the Community much earlier than we could hope to have on a national basis. I am determined to get a settlement which will give these benefits of marketing and structural supports as well as a protection in the area of access to make these useful.
In this way our fisheries will no longer be underexploited but should come out from their position of comparative neglect and make a rightful contribution to job creation and to the economy as a whole. It has taken me a long time to get the negotiators in the EEC to realise that what is at stake in the fishing industry for Ireland is not just 1,800 jobs for fishermen; it is the whole policy of the Government regarding development, the whole prospect of using our natural resources. It is for no small reason I am resisting this regulation on access which would be so damaging as almost to destroy the prospect we have of a fully developed fishing industry.
One important issue which has not appeared in the publicity is animal health. This has been very important from the point of view of negotiators, but has not had the same public acceptance except within special agricultural bodies. This country has been free from certain major animal diseases, such as foot and mouth, for many years and it is the policy of the Government to preserve that freedom from disease. In the negotiations we are trying to maintain our present arrangements, such as veterinary controls on imports of livestock and livestock products. We are also seeking exemption from the Community requirement to vaccinate animals against foot and mouth disease for export to other member states. The purpose of this is to ensure the preservation of Ireland from serious animal diseases.
We have sought exemption from requirements governing the trading of cattle and pigs, noticeably those regarding the testing of animals for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to export. These requirements of the Community, if applied here, would greatly upset our present livestock production and marketing system, including the relatively free movement of animals between here and Northern Ireland and Britain. There have been detailed discussion at technical level between our veterinary experts and officials of the Commission on the question of animal health but we have not yet had a response from the Community in the negotiations to the request which I have mentioned. This matter will fall to be settled in the coming weeks and I am confident we can make arrangements which will protect our vital interests in relation to animal health.
That is as far as the negotiations have gone. Government thinking has been directed towards the objective of membership of the Community on the best possible terms. Before there were any negotiations, membership of the Community appeared to us the best possible course for Ireland to take. We began negotiations on that basis.
Getting back to the question of giving information at home, it has been difficult for us to make the strong case we will make for membership, if, at the same time we are negotiating and trying to get the best terms from the Community in the transitional period. If you make a speech in Seanad Éireann, pointing out all the marvels of becoming members, you cannot then go to Europe and expect them not to have read the Irish newspapers and not to have any notion that you are getting benefits, but only seeing the difficulties. It has been difficult to give a full picture to the public without interfering with the negotiations. The negotiations are drawing to a close and we will, having concluded them, be freer both physically, in time, and without the inhibition of negotiating at the same time as dealing with information at home, to pursue this question of giving adequate information.
There are all sorts of documents being circulated to the public. Those who were opposed to the enlargement of Europe in different countries have played on extraordinary aspects of people's fears and anxieties. These will all have to be dealt with when we have got the best possible terms for membership and can join the Community in the assurance that we have negotiated terms of accession which will prevent membership of the Community from having the bad effects that it could have. Everyone here who spoke about regional policy realises that if you become part of a big Community, a less well-developed and peripheral part, economic forces are all working against you. There has to be special provision made for a country that is less well-developed or in a transition from agriculture to industry and at the periphery of the Community.
These are the matters which we must deal with in the negotiations. Above all, apart from the negotiations, there must be a commitment in the European Community to fully develop regional policies. There is nothing in their policy at the moment to prevent us from carrying out our own regional policies and indeed supporting them financially and otherwise. It is essential, especially if monetary and economic union becomes part of the European picture, that adequate regional policies be developed to stop ordinary economic forces preventing a country like ours attaining the real benefits which obviously would ensue from membership and which other countries who are members have gained.
If a great deal of work could be concentrated into the next few weeks it could be possible that we would finish the negotiations and sign the agreement before Christmas. Next year we would have to ask the public to decide on it. It will be necessary to go through the Oireachtas with a Bill. Two Senators asked what will the question be. This is being dealt with by the Taoiseach and the Attorney-General's Committee.
The application of the Treaty of Rome to Ireland would require that some of the institutions of Europe in relation to certain aspects of the Treaty of Rome would take the functions reserved for institutions here like our Supreme Court. Our Constitution could prevent the application of the Treaty of Rome to Ireland. Basically this is why changes in the Constitution are necessary. This is a matter for the Taoiseach and he will be dealing with it. Early next year the public will be asked to decide this. Before that we will have concluded our negotiations and we will have another White Paper. I hope that this new White Paper will have the minimum necessary information to make it possible for people to reach a decision. It will make other information available to people. As far as is possible to project into the future we will try to assess the effects of membership and the effects of nonmembership.
We can never opt to stay as we are again. There is now virtually a Community of seven. Britain has made her decision. When they complete their negotiations they can become members. Our trading situation with Britain can never be the same again. The decisions to be made are whether we join a Community with all its advantages, political, economic, social and otherwise, or whether we stay out of a Community and not alone lose those advantages but also have barriers erected between us and the main markets for our farmers and industrialists.
I should like to compliment the Minister on his very detailed survey of our entry into the EEC. I was not here earlier in the day to speak and I am glad to have the opportunity now of complimenting the Minister for indicating to us the problems we will face and the benefits we will gain.
Being associated with the livestock trade, I am very conscious they are going to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of our entry into the EEC. But, as the Minister pointed out, unless Britain decided to go in it would be ludicrous for us not to do likewise. In the negotiations Britain obviously are going to seek the best terms for themselves and they could not care tuppence about what terms we get. But it is very important for us to remember that as far as our cattle are concerned we have a clean bill of health. I am glad the Minister mentioned that. We can ship cattle to any part of the world. We have not had foot and mouth disease for over 30 years. We should take advantage of that. I know there are certain countries in the EEC where you cannot ship direct. For instance if you ship cattle from Dublin to Amsterdam and you want them to go to Italy they will not accept them through the Continent. Any one who wants to ship cattle to Italy has to charter a ship and go by the Mediterranean through Gibralter to Genoa. The cost is prohibitive. I feel that the Minister should discuss this more closely with people who are involved in the cattle trade. I am not saying that the civil servants are not doing their job right, but surely the practical people should be consulted more because this is a good move. Once Britain decided to enter the EEC we had no option. If we decided to stay out we would be out on a limb.
I am not too clear as to what the Minister meant about the purchase of land that has not been used for two years. If land was not used for two years the people who own it must be out of their minds. The Land Commission have regulations under which they can compulsorily acquire land if it is set on an 11 month basis over a period of three years. I am sure we have to go along with the Treaty of Rome in regard to the purchase of land, but in regard to land not being used for two years, who has land and does not use it?
The Mansholt Plan was mentioned. The Mansholt plan really worries the people in the livestock exporting trade because Mansholt is an advocate of co-operatives and he wants to eliminate all private enterprise and all private dealings between cattle dealers. When Mr. Mansholt was in the Shelbourne about a year ago I questioned him on this matter. I am not a Mansholt man at all. A lot of people in the EEC are not too happy with him either.
The Minister mentioned the problem as regards fishing and I know very well he is doing his best to solve it and I hope it will be solved to everybody's satisfaction. It certainly is a bigger problem than many people appreciate and I am sure the Minister is capable of dealing with it.
I am very glad that these two motions have attracted such a good debate. There is one point I should like to make. Some Members complained that the scope of the debate remained rather narrow. This is so except for the areas in which there has been progress and in which we had an opportunity of reviewing the negotiations by means of the Minister's document as circulated in July. I would like to refer people who may read this debate and feel that it is rather narrow to Volume 69 of the Seanad Debates of 11th March, 1971, in which the Seanad debated the White Paper on Membership of the European Communities and the Implications for Ireland. It was generally agreed on that date that the discussion should centre on the implications for Ireland, excluding as far as possible any detailed reference to agriculture, because at that date Motion No. 10, standing in the names of my colleague and myself, was on the Order Paper and we did not want to have a duplication of the debate. For that reason I should like to place on record the reason that many others availed of the opportunity to deal a little more fully with matters pertaining mainly to agriculture. On that score perhaps the Minister missed that point at the beginning, but I was disappointed when he abdicated his right to reply to these agricultural points. After all he is the man who is dealing with our agricultural negotiations in Europe and I have not seen that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Fisheries, has gone to help him out on these questions. On the other hand, I saw that the chairman of An Bord of Iascaigh Mhara was shipped home.
This brings me to the very important negotiating point of fisheries. I should like to support the Minister in his efforts on this behalf. I would earnestly impress on him the dire consequences of further complicating our territorial boundaries. It is completely unreasonable to expect this small country to have its territorial limits 12 miles from Donegal to Galway and reduced to six miles from Galway to Cork and Cork to Wexford and from Wexford up to Louth. This is most unfair. Our Constitution—this part of it will not be amended in the referendum—proposes that all our children should be cherished equally. The fishermen on the south and east coasts have every right to claim that they need a 12-mile limit off Dunmore East. The Minister must hold out on this point. He must protect our territory to the very last yard. I also feel that a differential in our fishing limits would be a further complication for our protection service who find it quite difficult as it is to patrol the waters without having people slipping across the boundary into the 12-mile area. Now is the time for the Minister to insist on having the integrity of our boundaries retained.
The question that may have been missed—and I did not have time to ask the Minister about it this morning —is the rather thorny one of the permanency of the Border between the Twenty-six and the Six Counties. I know there is an article in the Treaty of Rome which guarantees the national boundaries of the member states.
Senator Keery made reference to one point I made during the debate when he advocated that the leaders of the agricultural community should get the message across to their members to improve their own industry. This is a quite valid point. I should like to ask the well-intentioned Senator how they can possibly do that if they have not got the necessary capital with which to do it. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is a very big institution; it wields a lot of power and by and large it has its finger in all the agencies who set the prices for agricultural commodities. Therefore we farmers are not really masters in our own house when it comes to price-fixing. We are not really in charge of our own incomes. For that reason I feel it is an area on which the Government must keep a very vigilant eye. There is also the saving to the Exchequer of £30 million that Senator Keery forecast. The one infuriating figure that comes up year in and year out is the Exchequer subvention to agriculture. This year it is bandied about as £100 million. A most exact figure affecting Irish farmers—when we speak of the agricultural industry people invariably think of the few farmers on the land—would be in the region of £40 million, because the remainder goes either to the input services to agriculture or to the industries processing agricultural produce and to a host of ancillary industries in the agricultural sector.
I also feel that the Government have not tackled a very important problem They have not segregated social aid to Irish agriculture and Irish farmers and economic aid or production incentives. It is high time that a differentiation was made here. In other sectors, for instance industry and commerce, the social payments or redundancy payments are not put against the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. The same applies to education. For that reason I feel that we farmers are being held up as a burden on the State, which we are not. We are more than paying our way, and we should be encouraged to continue doing so.
Senator O'Callaghan spoke mainly on the same topic this morning and I took it that he was not in favour of extending credit for investment. I mentioned £100 million as a necessary figure within the next 12 months to put our farmers on a sound footing, to enable them to stock up to the maximum amount possible, so that they might be able to reap the benefits of membership or partnership in a greater Europe. This is necessary and it is no good sitting back and saying "Now we are going to get higher prices", because that will only be of benefit on the first fair day. The second day you have to go out to buy back and you will be buying at a correspondingly increased price. Unless our farmers are encouraged to increase their production through improved output and efficiency the net benefits to Irish agriculture will not be that significant at all. I shall leave over the very important questions of land structure and agricultural education to the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill which we expect to have here next week or the following week. I shall then have an opportunity of dealing more fully with this very important aspect of agricultural expenditure, having regard to our imminent entry into Europe.
I do not know if I was sufficiently strong on the subject, but I found that our Mission in Brussels are overworked. We met them each morning shortly after seven o'clock and the people assigned to us were on duty until after eleven o'clock or midnight. I hope that the Minister will ensure that in this crucial year that is before him and his colleagues he will give this excellent staff the back-up facilities necessary by way of increased numbers of staff.
A question which was not mentioned today was that of agricultural rates. I would understand from my brief visit to the Continent that there is no rating system in operation there as we know it here. Many people think that farmers do not pay rates, but every farmer, big and small, pays rates, at least on his farm buildings and on his dwelling. Those people with valuations in excess of £20 pay rates on their poor law valuation of lands as well as on their farm buildings. This is an added burden with which our competitors in the United Kingdom and in other European countries will not have to contend. The prices we shall be competing with will be higher than the level of the transitional period. We have also, being on the very outskirts of Europe, higher transport charges. These are matters which I would hope the Minister would bear very much in mind when he comes to the final negotiations in the EEC.
Most of the speakers in this debate felt that they were Europeans. From the idea we have of the part the Continent should play in the world at this time I think the European spirit is stronger now than ever before, with this movement towards a greater unity. With Ireland a member of an enlarged EEC we will have a vote and a place in the Europe of the future. This cannot be overstressed. However, I think the onus is on the Government to ensure that, before we formally join the EEC in 1973, should the people so decide at the coming referendum, we are going in at the best possible price and that the best possible arrangements are made. I would sincerely hope that our Minister for Foreign Affairs will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the negotiations he makes will be to the advantage of every sector of the community. I think we should be able to go into Europe without losing any jobs at all. We have it within ourselves to produce quality products in every sphere and because of the scale of our operations here we should be able to appeal to this greater market of 250 million people. We should be able to supply them with a variety of high-quality produce that will command premier prices throughout the ten nations of the greater Europe.
I should like to wish success to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, our Ambassador in Brussels, Mr. Kennan, the mission in Brussels, and those who are actively engaged in the negotiations, because on the completion of these negotiations I will be faced with the problem of advising the electorate in a few months time whether or not they should vote for entry to the EEC.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the Study "Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC" issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in April, 1970.
