Senator McDonald is in possession.
Developments in the EEC: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of developments in the EEC during 1983.
—(Senator Dooge)
Acting Chairman
It is rather appropriate that we should have the opportunity of discussing the activities or developments in the European Communities this week, which one hopes will be followed by a week which will give some hope to many sectors of the industrial and commercial life of this country. I refer to the coming Summit meeting. It is important that we should extend to the Taoiseach and to the team of people who will accompany him our support and best wishes and the hope that he will be able to secure an equitable deal for us at this most difficult time. The motion gives us an opportunity to review the year of 1983 but unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of the two reports that we should be discussing. Nevertheless, we have lived through a period — from a European point of view — which can only be described as disappointing because it lacked leadership and drive. Obviously, the people at the helm have no semblance of the spirit which moved the founding fathers, and so the Community has ground on through a turbulent period.
We should not look at the workings of the European Community from a completely negative standpoint. Within the system, enshrined in the Treaty of Rome and in our Treaty of Accession, there is much of benefit and many Articles and regulations which bring tremendous solace and grant-aid daily to so many different sectors of our community. The Social Fund is certainly playing a very significant role in providing invaluable resources to enable our administration to tackle, in a more determined way, the problems associated with unemployment, redundancies and school leavers who are still searching for employment.
The more I see of the way in which the Social Fund is evolving, the more I think that we owe a great debt of gratitude to President Hillery for his tremendous work and his great achievement in introducing his first social action programme. Even at that time, the early seventies, the graph was going up. It provided a foundation which has enabled the Community and the organisations that the Social Fund finances to tackle the programme. There are many who will say that the moneys are not all being spent as intelligently as possible. Nevertheless, while many people will say that there is much duplication and triplication of services, it would be worse if there were areas which were not adequately covered and needs not being fairly met. The Social Fund, therefore, has introduced to this country a new concept in care. As you go through each one of our county administrative areas, without exception you will find special schools, schools for slow learners, the mildly handicapped, or people with one or more disadvantages. Were it not for the generous grants from the Social Fund they would not be there, so we have a lot to be thankful for.
Nevertheless, there is need for the Council of Ministers and, indeed, the Commission and our own Department of State to examine how the considerable amount of money is being expended. Our benefit from the Social Fund last year, the year under review, was in excess of £140 million. When you add to that the yield from the 1 per cent levy on income it represents a considerable amount of money which, in the main, is available to ease the problems of people who are unemployed or to assist in the financing of the schemes to train or retrain workers or to help with the various AnCO projects.
I am slightly disappointed with AnCO in that they are obviously empire builders. I do not see the necessity for having skyscraper blocks in practically every city, and certainly right around Dublin city, with very expensive facades with the AnCO sign on them. The money could be much better spent on encouraging people, especially under the enterprise incentive scheme, which encourages and assists young people with ideas to start up for themselves in the private sector. However, this scheme is slowly getting off the ground and it holds out hope for our young people, people with ideas who have the energy to match them. In the main, we lack the finance to put these projects into operation and I would hope that the Government would allocate the maximum resources to that scheme to meet whatever demand is there. It is important that our young people, who have had the benefit of perhaps the best educational facilities that any generation of Irish people have been offered, be given a break and granted whatever resources they need.
The IDA, who could be said to be over-financed in ratio to the number of jobs they are providing in the year under review, should change considerably and take more chances. While they get a lot of stick for the factories that fail, they should be prepared to be a little more adventurous in trying to find the job opportunities that we need so badly. I have had occasion to write several letters to the IDA over the last five or six weeks and whether they are on a go-slow or are having difficulties with the post, they are not noted for acknowledging correspondence. This is unacceptable for a semi-State organisation. However, I do not think we should be discussing them except to say that if we are to get through our present economic difficulties it is quite obvious that we will need all the assistance we can get and from whatever source possible. I hope that priority will be afforded under the Social Fund to the agencies who are engaged in assisting young people to start into a new life.
There is an area, too, which we should take the opportunity of examining when talking about job opportunities and the role of the Social Fund in that sphere. It is not perhaps relevant, but some of our European partners have various schemes for a reduction in the general retirement age for ordinary workers in jobs. We find that many local authorities do not conform exactly to the present retirement age of 65. The Government should examine seriously the question of lowering the retirement age so as to create additional job opportunities.
When dealing with European policies, it is very difficult not to think of the Regional Fund. I have a particular belief in the ability of that fund to set the pace in transforming the face of this country but unfortunately, as far as we are concerned, the administration of the Regional Fund is not operated as most other countries operate it, that is to say it is controlled completely by two or three senior civil servants in the Department of Finance. There is absolutely no dimension of additionality in that area. In other words, the moneys from the Regional Fund are used in substitution of services that up to now were provided either from the Road Fund or from the ordinary capital budget. This defeats the whole concept of a fund provided by the Community to help to redress the imbalance between the economies of the wealthier and the poorer areas in the Community. In the last five years, that imbalance has changed, unfortunately in the wrong direction. Back in 1978 it was of the proportion of 1:8 but now it is gone to 1:10. The richer areas are ten times wealthier than the poorer areas and coming from one of the poorest areas, our midlands, I think that it is unfortunate that we have not had a fair crack of the whip — from successive Governments, I hasten to add.
The Government should take the lead and put the spirit of the Treaty of Rome into action, to read the Charter setting up the Regional Fund and consult the regions. In each of the industrial regions, we have the MRDOs, set up by members of local authorities and senior officials of the local authorities. I believe until such time as those MRDOs and local representatives are able to have a very significant input in deciding on the order of priorities for the expenditure of regional funds in their regions the moneys will not be spent to the best advantage of the areas concerned. I am quite alarmed that, at the end of practically every year, various Departments publish lists of projects to be executed in the next four, five or six weeks before the end of the calendar year in order to use up the moneys. That is an affront which I would ask sincerely should be changed. The time is long gone when we can afford expenditure of considerable proportions with so little thought and certainly no local input whatsoever.
The regulations coming from Europe and within the European Community indicate a considerable amount of effort and many regulations are designed to strengthen and conserve the quality of the environment. While we here enjoy the cleanest environment — certainly cleaner than any of the industrialised areas — we are doing precious little to conserve it. While we have had, over the last couple of years the Water Pollution Act and a number of other Acts very few of these are being put into practice. We are standing idly by and allowing the situation to deteriorate. It is shocking that most of our rivers are now so polluted that you cannot see your toes if you stand up to your knees in them. Within the next five years, a high proportion of our waterways and rivers will be absolutely hostile to fish life, which would be a great pity. Unless fairly strict rules are applied and something done about it, the environment will suffer irreparable damage, so I hope that the regulations which are adopted at Community level will be put into action as soon as possible.
We hear a lot from time to time on the Common Fisheries Policy. Unfortunately, I am not very up-to-date on that. Some six or seven weeks ago I had occasion to write to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry for a brief on the up-to-date situation. I suppose his Department is very busy and, unfortunately, he has not been able to reply. Nevertheless, it is important that the problems being experienced by our fishing industry should be treated very seriously. I recall a few years ago being on a delegation to Greenland during one of the turbulent sessions with the Greenlanders towards the end of the so-called Cod War. One of the reasons why I, as an Irishman, was sent there was that at that time we had only one boat in excess of 100 or 105 feet, or some particular dimension, so that we could not be accused of raiding their cod fishing grounds. That is just an indication of the state of our fishing fleet.
The fishermen who took the chance on expanding and invested heavily, borrowing in order to do so have been adversely affected by changes in the quota system and perhaps by the difficulties in the trade. I would hope that it would be possible for the Government to ensure that our people get the best possible support through the Common Fisheries Policy. We must at all times be in there to fight for a greater share and part in the management of this valuable resource to which we should have first access, as we have possibly some of the most extensive waters in the European Community. We do not seem to be getting a fair share of the returns from these waters, but we should put the fisheries industry a little higher on our order of priorities.
To most people, the European Community is not much more than the Common Agricultural Policy. I should like to deal with the problem that exercises the minds of most people, the question of milk. The Council of Ministers for Agriculture at their meeting some days ago decided more or less to implement the Commission's proposals, leaving the vexed question of an exemption for our country from most of these proposals to be decided by the heads of State next week. Of all the proposals, the media seem just to take the milk levy and concentrate on that. Of course, it is certainly the most radical.
The other proposals are (1) that price policies will be restricted and will operate on a two year basis rather than annually as heretofore and (2) that production which is more than 1 per cent in excess of that achieved by creameries and dairies during 1981 will be severely penalised through the imposition of a super-levy or a tax on the excess. This levy will be applied at the rate of 75 per cent of the Community's target price for milk, that is, approximately 70p per gallon. In this country, that would amount to almost 100 per cent of the price that the farmer gets, whereas the price that the Danes and the Dutch receive is almost £1 per gallon, so it affects our farmers on two fronts. I certainly support the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach on the vigorous campaign that they have undertaken against that.
We must accept that action must be taken to limit the growth of milk supply in the Community and to contain the growth in expenditure. However, I insist that expenditure in other sectors, which is, in fact, growing more rapidly than in the milk sector should also be dealt with. I believe that whatever action is eventually taken next week will be fair and that it will take account of the level of development of the dairy industries in the different regions of the Community and of the special importance of milk to the Irish economy. In my view, the proposed super-levy meets none of these aims and, consequently, is unacceptable.
I would like briefly to put on record my reasons for believing that we must have an exemption from the super-levy. We must insist that we are not being bad Europeans but, believing in the true spirit of the Treaty of Rome, are adamant on getting the benefit of that treaty. The super-levy proposal cannot be fair while there exists the present wide divergence in levels of development as between the various member states. It cannot take due account of the degree to which the different regions and different groups of producers contribute to the current surplus. The three member states with the most developed dairying — the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark — which have only 9 per cent of the Community holdings, have 27 per cent of the Community dairy cows and account for almost one-third of the Community's milk production. Other member states, including Ireland, contribute to the total milk production roughly in proportion to their holdings, with perhaps the Greek and Italian contributions being less than proportionate. It is no coincidence that the disproportionately high contributions come those member states with the highest proportion of the larger scale holdings.
While milk production is of far greater relative economic importance to Ireland, where directly and indirectly it accounts for almost 9 per cent of our gross national product, our dairying industry is still comparatively under-developed compared with the other member states. Our average yields are only 80 per cent of the Community average and only about 65 per cent of the average yields in the most developed dairying regions. To freeze production levels at this time would clearly be unfair to us. For instance, a farmer with 30 cows in Ireland would have his annual production frozen at 21,000 gallons or face a levy of the full price that he would get, which is around 70 pence per gallon, whereas a similar sized farmer in Denmark, Holland or the very developed areas could maintain production at 32,000 gallons without any penalty, and he would be getting almost £1 a gallon for his milk at the same time.
From the low base milk deliveries in Ireland we have increased more rapidly since 1981 than elsewhere in the Community and, therefore, in addition to preventing our industry developing towards the level achieved elsewhere this proposed super-levy would impose the greatest relative burden on our industry in respect of the current levels of production. Our increase over 1981 could result in levies totalling close to £1 million on the industry or, more likely, a loss of output of a similar amount. This would represent at least 10 per cent of the overall Community take from the levy, whereas Ireland accounts for less than 5 per cent of the Community deliveries.
Many people who are absolutely cheesed off listening the argument on the super-levy find difficulty in appreciating the effects that that kind of an imposition is going to have on Irish agriculture and agricultural development. This year we are told that price increases — if there are any — for farm produce will amount to roughly 2 or 3 per cent at the most, but already this year the nitrogen fertilisers that have already been spread on the land have been purchased by dairy farmers at a cost of 19 or 20 per cent more than last year. Similarly the price of concentrated dairy nuts has increased substantially over the last couple of months, so farm costs have gone up significantly. People, in pursuance of their participation in the farm modernisation scheme, decided to develop their holdings in accordance with a farm plan which was drawn up by their advisers embarked on an extension at fairly costly amounts, most of which were borrowed. They can only increase their income and their return from the farms by increasing their output, and if the super-levy is imposed this will mean that they will not be able to make any money by increasing their output and therefore, will not be able to reach their target.
Many thousands of dairy farmers — who account for practically half the farmers in this country — will be in serious difficulties with their lending agencies, the ordinary commercial banks or the ACC, and they will be forced to re-negotiate whatever loans or arrangements that they had come to over the last few years. This is something that has not been mentioned and to which sufficient attention has not been paid.
I see this as the most serious aspect of the arguments surrounding the imposition of the super-levy. We certainly cannot blame the Government, the Taoiseach or his senior Ministers, who have for many months in very strong terms told all the Heads of State and every Minister concerned in the other nine partner countries of the difficult situation in this country. The basic reason for joining the Community was that we should be able to improve our output by improving the quality of our husbandry to increase production and to be able to bring the standard of living and the working conditions of our people more closely aligned to that in the better developed countries of Europe. I hope that in the negotiations next week the country will get a fair deal from the Community which will justify the hope and trust that we originally placed in it.
There is also the proposal about the elimination of the special subsidy on butter, which would result in a loss of about £50 million to our country. It will lead to an increase in the retail price of butter of some 13p per lb., which will mean a drop in consumption. Also coming up at the Summit is the question of the deal with the New Zealand Government on the importation of New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom. They undermined one of the cornerstones of the Common Agricultural Policy inasmuch as they offer a challenge to the principle of Community preference. The New Zealand imports to the United Kingdom, which of course was always our traditional market, amounts to 34 per cent of consumption in the UK, and since the Commission proposals on milk involve major sacrifices by Community producers, it is imperative that these are matched by sacrifices from the third countries as well. For this reason I should like to see a significant reduction in the New Zealand butter import quotas to the Community over and above that likely to be imposed in the normal review. The Commission proposals for a five year agreement providing for the import of 83,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter in 1984 reducing by 2,000 tonnes a year to, I think, 75,000 tonnes in 1988 is totally inadequate.
I also wish to draw attention to the fact that we are the only other major supplier of the butter imported from New Zealand to the British market which is classified as cream butter. Britain is still our main outlet for this butter, and we are put in a very adverse trading position compared with Denmark and the Netherlands, who export ripened or lactic cream butter to the British market and are, accordingly, not affected by New Zealand imports. Imports of New Zealand cheddar cheese to the UK market causes a similar problem for us, as cheddar cheese is our main variety of cheese on the British market also. The position constitutes a serious discrimination against our dairy products. The Minister should continue his efforts to ensure that the Commission proposals for the import of New Zealand butter and cheese on the UK market take a realistic and sympathetic view of our special problems in this area.
We are also facing the question of the variable premium system and the problem that it presents to the Irish beef industry, not just to farmers but to our meat processing plants. Since the beginning of 1983, the variable premium rate has been at or near its maximum of 20p per kilogram. Possibly it is down to 10p this week and, as a result, the Southern meat plant buyers are unable to compete with Northern buyers. This has resulted in an increase in animals going North in 1983 compared to 1982. Last year it is estimated that 165,000 head went to Northern Ireland meat plants whereas in 1982 the figure was 88,000. This distortion of trade has occurred at a time when our own meat plants are starved of supplies and many operate a restricted working week or close down for long periods.
As a result of the review, I hope the suckler cow premium will be increased to a more realistic level. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give us the latest information regarding the calf subsidy. Indications were that it was going to disappear altogether, nevertheless where there is life there is hope. Perhaps the Minister could also inform the House about the latest situation regarding transport policy which has not been given a high priority in the European scheme of things for 27 or 28 years. While transport systems are, to a degree, rationalised our exporters and producers who must place their produce on the large and profitable markets in the centre of Europe are at a significant disadvantage without the benefit of a transport policy. I hope that the Minister for Transport will redouble his efforts to bring in a transport policy which will take account of the problems that we have in negotiating two very expensive sea crossings. We should be able to place our produce in Paris or Brussels or in any of the big continental markets at a competitive price. I hope that a system, whether through national subsidies or whatever, will be introduced to enable more Irish truckers or transport companies to compete and to bring our produce out to those markets. Our Government have not placed sufficient emphasis on this and we should press very hard for a policy which would introduce a system of equality. If you had harmonisation of taxation on juggernauts or large lorries it would be very helpful in enabling our transport companies to compete.
Since this is a European election year it would be difficult to contribute without mentioning the European Parliament and the progress that institution has made as, according to the Treaty of Rome, it is the first of the Community institutions. I believe — perhaps it is not a belief shared by everybody — that we should have greater powers for the parliament. In my experience the parliament and the members from across the Community are always more than fair to the cases advanced in support of people from the various regions. I have no doubt that that system of fair play will continue. It is unfortunate that the European parliament has not taken more powers to be in a better position to directly affect and react to the problems in the different parts of the Community.
From a Community point of view, the Common Agricultural Policy is worse than it was in 1979. There has been no success in correcting the imbalance in the EEC budget or in working out a new policy in the Community. The Council of Ministers seldom heed the recommendations of the parliament anyway. I am not disappointed at the work that was done in the Community and in the parliament in particular but I am disappointed with the results. There has been no improvement in the standing of parliament in its first five years as a directly elected body, which is a pity.
Next week the Taoiseach will fight to have the EEC budget increased substantially and this will mean a new net benefit of considerable proportions of hundreds of millions of pounds to Ireland to enable the continuation of the development of the Social Fund which is so desperately needed for young and old to fight the blight of unemployment, to help the handicapped and train and re-train workers. Women in particular must be afforded a special programme to enable them to re-enter the workforce. It is important that heads of state reach agreement on the increase in the rate of VAT for the budget. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is expected, whether it will be 1.4 per cent or 1.8 per cent VAT.
On the question of surpluses and food surpluses it is ironic that in this part of the world, in Europe, we are complaining about surplus food which does not at present constitute record stockpiles. They represent only a few days' supply in excess of what is necessary to feed the Community. I do not think that the population in this country would object to paying an extra .4 per cent if they knew that some of that money could be used to sell the extra food that would be produced to the millions of people who are undernourished and starving in some Third World countries.
According to the latest report from the FAO, by the end of this decade there will be serious famine problems in quite a number of countries. This country and the European Community in general should be prepared to make a significant contribution to alleviate the hunger and famine conditions in those countries. Protein-rich powdered milk is the ideal way to transport that kind of food aid across the world. I hope that the Community in its deliberations next week will avail of the opportunity to display its social conscience.
In advance of the European elections, it is imperative that the Government should publish in statistical form a list of the net benefits and the areas in which the country benefits from grants and otherwise from our membership of the Community. People should be encouraged not to view the activities of the Community as a crutch to help what could be described as a "limping" agricultural economy or system but to understand the different ways in which the Community plays a role in the development of this country and I am confident that it is possible to do that.
Since the appropriate reports have not been published for last year — the 22nd and 23rd reports — the Minister of State should publish the appropriate figures regarding development-in-aid. It is important that the taxpayer should know what our contribution is and also the amount of moneys we have received and can expect to receive in respect of the Common Agricultural Policy both from FEOGA grants, the Social Fund and the Regional Fund. Could the Minister indicate in what areas he anticipates that we can expect to see reform, even from a national point of view, in the administration of some of those grants?
I should like to refer to the highly topical and controversial super-levy. Negotiations have now reached a critical stage. We can only hope for the country's sake that the Minister for Agriculture has not made a tactical blunder in leaving the final decision on the super-levy to the Heads of Government meeting next week. This same body failed to reach agreement on this issue as recently as December last. I should like to know from the Minister what foundations the Minister for Agriculture has laid to show that a better deal can be achieved at next week's Summit meeting.
On the question of farmers' incomes, there are misunderstandings and mistaken views about what farmers are getting from the EEC and from the CAP in particular. The benefits that accrue from the CAP were the primary consideration when the Irish people voted to join the EEC. Farmers regularly come in for unfair criticism about the benefits they enjoy from the CAP. Central to our joining the EEC was the belief that farmers would achieve a fair standard of living with increasing individual earnings. Given the budgetary crisis in the Community at present, agricultural increases are exceptionally low. Present indications are that price increases for the market year 1984-85 will be drastically below the Irish rate of inflation and, one might speculate, well below what other sectors in Ireland will likely achieve.
In short, farmers can validly argue that they are not now getting out of the CAP what they believed they would and should get when we voted to join the Community. During 1983, primarily the period we are discussing, the Government suspended the farm modernisation scheme, thereby failing to implement the terms of an EEC directive. The consequences of this were to deny farmers the right to progress and also to deprive the country of EEC aid. In one thoughtless move the Government succeeded in wiping out the farm construction business which has led to the creation in its place of a black economy in farm construction. The Government have much to answer for in this connection.
Senator McDonald referred briefly to farm retirement. For all practical purposes, the present farm retirement scheme has failed. I would like to put it on record that the European Progressive Democrats, who are comprised of Fianna Fáil members and their French allies, in the European Parliament, have been very active in tackling this problem by proposing and gaining support in the Parliament for a new EEC farm retirement scheme.
I now want to refer briefly to industry. During 1983, and credit should be given where it is due, as a result of the initiative and hard work of the European Progressive Democrats, the year was dedicated to Small and Medium Sized Industries, SMEs. The Community came to realise during the year the importance to member states of small firms and their place in the creation of employment.
In Ireland, of course, there has been a rapid growth in small industries since the mid-seventies and in our case they have made a significant contribution to job creation. The emphasis on the employment generating ability of SMEs is reflected in the new Social Fund which extends aid to vocational training operations for persons employed in SMEs who require retraining as a result of the introduction of new technology. Projects aided by the Social Fund in Ireland are reimbursed 55 per cent of the cost.
On the same industrial theme, electronics and chemicals are two key sectors that have shown increases in both output and employment over the past decade. Our membership of the Community, of course, has provided access to the world's biggest single market. This membership has in turn been central to attracting industrial investment to Ireland, especially American subsidiaries of electronic and computer software firms. Export prospects for both electronic and computer software are excellent. However, to ensure the future viability and competitiveness of these subsidiaries, it is most desirable that permanent research and development functions be attached to the Irish manufacturing units.
In the context of technological development there was movement in 1983 in the EEC towards the introduction of a Community technological programme ESPRIT. This, of course, is a belated response to the major technological advances in the United States and Japan. Given the great potential of this programme for future industrial development, it is vital for Ireland to be involved in the research stage and for Irish university and research groups to participate fully. The results of their research may well chart the course for the industries of the future and the direction of new employment opportunities.
One of the most important developments in the Community during 1983 was the agreement reached on the terms of a new European Social Fund. In 1983 Ireland received £134 million from the fund, mainly for educational and training programmes. Given the gravity of unemployment, funds for training are particularly welcome. Without a trained workforce, employment opportunities are clearly reduced. AnCO, IDA, YEA, the ESB, CERT, Aer Lingus and the Departments of Labour and the Environment are all aided by the Social Fund as is the National Rehabilitation Board. Most of the £134 million received from the fund was spent on training young people under the age of 25. The new Social Fund is now to devote 75 per cent of its aid to young people under the age of 25 years.
Senator McDonald correctly referred to the powers of the European Parliament and his desire that those powers would be increased. However, a lot of useful work is done in the Parliament. As a practical example of what can be achieved, the Fianna Fáil Euro MPs in the EPD group, with their French allies, against tough British opposition, succeeded in ensuring that all people under the age of 25 years would be eligible to receive aid from the Social Fund for training programmes. Also in the context of the Social Fund, the EPD has actively sought more funds for the training and job opportunities of the handicapped. Towards this end the EPD has proposed a European Charter for the residential care of the physically disabled.
One of the major concerns Ireland had during 1983 was that our priority status in the Social Fund would be changed. It was not, and credit is due for that. This will not be construed as a begging bowl attitude. Ireland can legitimately claim under the terms and objectives of the Social Fund that we should be placed and stay at the top of the priority list for aid. Nonetheless, areas of industrial decline, the so-called black spots on the Continent in highly developed countries such as Germany, are now to be included for priority consideration. While one can readily acknowledge that industries such as ship building and textiles are hard hit in those countries, I would like an assurance from the Minister that no effort will be spared to ensure that Ireland will remain at the top of the priority list. Whatever about the black spots in industrial areas of the Continent, we do not have the economic resources of the more advanced continental countries.
The news on the Social Fund during 1983 was encouraging, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for the Regional Fund. After discussions which lasted for well over two years a new Regional Fund has not been introduced. Since its foundation in 1975, Ireland has received £370 million, of which £74 million was received in 1983. Having said that, however, the gap between the richer and poorer countries of the Community has widened over the last decade.
In other words, the primary objective of the Regional Fund has not been achieved. Compared with Holland, for example, Ireland is relatively worse off than it was at the time we joined the Community in 1973. Clearly the Regional Fund is of particular relevance to Ireland because among Community states we are one of the least developed countries. We are on the periphery of Europe, distant from the major markets on the Continent. We have, therefore, a compelling case for perferential and more generous treatment from the Regional Fund, given the objectives of the Treaties under which we joined the Community. For the Regional Fund to be a real instrument for infrastructural development its resources must be substantially increased. Without adequate infrastructure, industrial development cannot proceed satisfactorily. Indeed, if we are to continue to attract foreign investment, for which there is intense international competition, we must have proper roads, telecommunications and services. Surely the Regional Fund is a major key to that type of development and more funds should be allocated to it.
Finally, I want to refer to the area of energy. As we are aware, turf development does not qualify for EEC aid at present. I am happy to put on record that one of the Fianna Fáil Euro MPs, Mr. Seán Flanagan, has been instrumental in pressing for the inclusion of turf development aid under the energy policy of the EEC. Due to his efforts, I understand, the Commission has prepared a report on this issue which may well lead to EEC aid for turf development. The benefits which would flow from such aid are obvious and include increased employment in turf development and a reduction in our dependence on expensive imported oil.
I agree with much of what Senator Hillery has said. We are complaining about being worse off now than when we joined the EEC. The time to look at the conditions was before we joined. We were aware of what we were doing. We went in with our eyes wide open, and thank God The Labour Party, if it can say nothing else for itself, was the party that said we would not get the conditions, and we canvassed in that direction.
Regarding the wording of the motion, "That Seanad Éireann takes note of the developments in the EEC during 1983," I am a little puzzled by this terminology. I find it difficult to know where developments took place. A very strong nation, France, holds the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers and despite their holding of the Presidency we have not seen anything happening. Since 1979 there have been very few developments in many areas. While I am not blaming the French, I am saying that what has been happening is that there has been indecision rather than initiatives over that period. Consequently, it behoves us to urge the Presidency, with its strength and influence, to start dealing with initiatives to help us over the economic crisis that we find ourselves in.
We have more than 12 million people unemployed in Europe, an unprecedented level of unemployment. As long as initiatives to create employment are not taken there is no point arguing for a fair and just society, because once you start taking initiatives in this regard you get into the area of jobs, peace and freedom, and it is only then we can say that we are moving in the right direction. But the initiatives are not there. I welcome much of what has been said in this debate, but for my part I am beginning to despair, because what I have been seeing is a revival of the laissez-faire monetarism and a sustained assault on the welfare state. This is what is happening throughout Europe.
Instead of worrying about unemployment and taking initiatives in a collective way in Europe, we all have our nationalism, and the way it is manifesting itself here is very disturbing. We are reengaged in the civil war, with accusations of bugging and counter accusations by the two main parties. This politiking is taking us away from the real issues of jobs, peace and freedom. It must be a sorry sight for a boy of 20 years, or his mother or father having put him through school, to turn on the radio and hear all this about the bugging, but with no initiatives on the question of employment or other relevent matters. We are not innocent in the European scene; we are part of it and we must share the guilt, yet we subject our young people to this nonsense of bugging. What are they doing in the rest of Europe? There is a shadow over the world now. The whole question of our activities as Europeans is responsible for that shadow. There is stagnation and the falling off of economic growth; mass unemployment; a substantial drop in contributions to the Third World in particular; relations between the two super powers are at their lowest ebb ever; there is an acceleration of the arms race; overall incomes have dropped; crime has accelerated. There is the crime attached to technology, not in the sense that we do not need it, of allowing it to come on at the rate and pace that it has come, and we have not taken precautions alongside it to circumvent the effects of it. We are going to have technological progress, we need it, it has been good for us, but we must use it to our advantage.
There is no evidence in the European scene of a policy of containing costs, of lowering inflation, of maintenance of purchasing power and the redistribution of work by not only shortening the working week but the reallocation of working hours. There is no initiative for investment by public authorities or industrialists. In short, there is no overall package running alongside the technological advance to assist us over the problems that we are facing in relation to jobs, peace, and so on in a fair and just society.
Europe lags behind the USA and Japan as regards the whole question of a reduction in unemployment. There is not any seriousness in relation to the Third World in the sense of trying to free it from hunger and poverty. We, as Europeans, have not done much to stop the world from sinking — and it has sunk. If we let it drift on in the direction it is going and not pay attention to the important aspects of how to get over the economic crisis, and stop referring back to the second oil price increases, and so on, followed by the economic crisis, and get on with looking at how we can take initiatives, we will be dealing with the question of providing uniforms and not reforms. This is a gloomy situation that we are in. What we have in Europe are depression and unemployment. Both are used as tools to reduce inflationary pressures.
The precarious energy market was dealt with by Senator Hillery. This is another area which the EEC do not seem to have got their teeth into in a unified way or as a collective force. I have not seen much in the direction of private monopolies which would be of assistance. There are pressures for the redistribution of incomes: there is not a lot in that direction in the sense of sustained initiatives.
Britain chooses to remain outside the European Monetary System. Unless Europeans make up their minds that they can start using some sort of pressures to get Britain to join the EMS there is no way in which Europe can begin the road to independence in economic and monetary affairs from the USA. In Europe we should begin thinking in a collective way of becoming economically and monetarily independent of the US.
The problems of adjustments within the EMS should be shared equally. We, in Ireland, have a very serious situation facing us. We were speaking about the Spinelli Report in the House last week. The great danger for Ireland is that the more we get from Europe the bigger the obligation we have to it and the more vulnerable we become to the people who would advocate alignment. Therefore, it is very important for us to ensure that either by accident or design we will not slip up. We do not owe the EEC our neutrality, and we have to guard against this.
I should like to finish by saying that I do not think there has been much development in the unemployment, peace or jobs aspects of the EEC, or independence from the USA not only since 1983 but since 1979.
For some time now a motion has been on the Order Paper to deal with the 21st Report of Developments in the European Communities. Since this report deals only with the period to January 1983, more than a year out of date, I welcome the decision to broaden the debate to cover all of last year. At the same time, and particularly as a new Member, I find it difficult to make any kind of meaningful contribution without the help of an up-to-date report. The Minister's detailed and comprehensive address makes up for this deficiency to some extent, but not entirely — I am sure it is not unkind or unfair to say this. I would like to know what the reason is for the delay in publishing the reports and if this can be avoided in the future.
As committed Europeans, but proud of our national, traditional and cultural heritage, we are all anxious to play our part in solving the problems that for so long transcended national frontiers and divisions. We all want to get an opportunity to make a positive contribution at individual and national level. This involves financial aid and incentives, more particularly because of our misfortune to have been an exploited people for nearly a thousand years. I do not think this is something we should be ashamed of. For that reason I deplore the tendency in some Irish quarters lately to portray our country as Caitlín Ní hUallacháin with the begging bowl and the disposition of Oliver. I believe this is an insidious and perverted picture. It misjudges and misrepresents the situation. The real picture is a tragic one of our young people, our unemployed and deprived, losing hope and interest. They are the chief sufferers.
I have a list of some preliminary figures for grants and loans to Ireland during 1983. These are: FEOGA Guidance, £58,850,759; Social Fund, £134,278,733; Regional Fund, £77,349,623; ECSC loans, £124,037; EIB loans, £220,000,000; NCI loans, £21,100,000; EMS interest subsidies, £22,885,823; Energy grants, £894,750; ECSC grants, £53,000; Budget contribution, £191.5 million. Because the headings do not correspond entirely with those which I have for previous years, back to 1973, I am unable to make annual comparisons, but I welcome the increase in the European Social Fund allocation from £97 million in 1982.
In July 1975 it was decided to change the rules of the fund to make aid available for operations intended to help young people under 25 years who were unemployed or seeking employment. It was also decided that priority would be given to those seeking employment for the first time. This was a new and welcome departure. Now the Minister has informed us that a further review was successfully completed in June of last year. In addition, Social Fund assistance became available for certain job-creation measures for young people under 25 years and this provision has operated since 1979. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the Community in this respect and the important results the Minister spoke of, all of these efforts are proving to be totally inadequate to cope with the problem. I would like some detailed figures on the basis of results and proposals, as well as the general figures we were given. I would also like details on how this country is benefiting through the education and exchange programmes of the EEC and the European Youth Forum.
Regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, the outcome of the Fisheries Council early this year is encouraging, particularly the increase of 5,300 tonnes of western stock mackerel over our 1983 quota and the optimism, which we hope is justified, regarding the market situation in herring. There has been a spectacular growth in the Irish fishing industry which had started before our accession to the EEC, but our achievements in this regard are still nowhere near the level we are entitled to because of our strategic geographic location. The fisheries question has been dominated by the controversies over national fishing limits and quotas. I would like information on the grants that have been paid for the construction and modernisation of trawlers and for mariculture and fish farming projects, including fish farming plants.
The Minister stated in his address that the Community has lost its way over the past four years. This is something which concerns us all. It is somewhat heartening to hear the Minister say that he believes this is only temporary. I do not wish to go into great detail on the Common Agricultural Policy, because this has been debated extensively by people who are more familiar with it than I. The Minister pointed out that Community consumption of milk and milk products is estimated at just over 80 million tonnes while production last year was 113 million tonnes. Of course this creates very serious problems. In these circumstances how can we justify the importation into the Community of New Zealand butter when the market is so over-supplied, or the importation of cereal substitutes when Community cereals have to be off-loaded on third country markets? The Government must take a very firm stand on the crisis looming for Irish agriculture, as it is vital that they do so.
Many speakers have contributed to the discussion on the super-levy on milk production, so I do not propose to go into it in any great detail. It would be a tragedy for this country if a satisfactory solution is not reached. The Minister stated that our demand is for an exemption from the four-year duration of the levy. He stated that milk in Ireland is responsible for about 9 per cent of our GNP. He felt that our partners have shown considerable understanding and appreciation for the particular circumstances of our case. However, having read reports in today's newspapers I would put a question mark against this optimism.
The Minister also said we need in particular to give the Community financial security to plan ahead. He welcomed the increase in VAT, the doubling of the VAT ceiling of 1 per cent. This is something with which we would all agree. He said in rather figurative language — and I suppose we could all agree with him although we would like to have it spelt out in some great detail — that we require above all to take a giant qualitative step forward and that our achievements must be built on and not rested upon. He referred to a new departure and the important continuing work on a range of possible new Community policies and that we must successfully match our competitors in the vital growth area of modem economics, research and development, bio-technology and telecommunications, if we are to create new job opportunities in the Community for the future.
The only problem I see here and of course I agree with keeping abreast of technology and developments, is that all of these in the past, in my view, resulted in reducing employment. The Minister stated that we will give our support to the development of other new policies which can help to create jobs. Of course, we all agree with this and feel that job creation is vital. We all welcome the prospect of EEC enlargement, and it is pleasing to note the progress made in the accession negotiations with both Spain and Portugal in 1983. It is also gratifying to note that there is a possibility of concluding the negotiations by September of this year. I suppose we should also feel somewhat saddened at Greenland's withdrawing from the Community, because in some degree it was a loss and shows a defeat in some ways.
With regard to the Arab-Israeli situation, we would all agree with the Minister in his expressions. We are glad that the European Council statement expressed concern at the lack of progress towards a peace settlement in that area.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.