Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 1984

Vol. 106 No. 2

Developments in the European Communities: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of developments in the European Communities since January, 1984.

—(Senator Ferris)

Mr. Lanigan

Before the adjournment I was speaking about the situation in Ethiopia and I referred to the fact that there would hardly be a dissenting voice in Europe if the mountains of food that are stored throughout the Community were released on a once-off basis to help the suffering people of a large part of Africa, not just Ethiopia. When one considers the cost of keeping the mountains of food in storage one can only suggest that the people who are benefiting most are those who are building stores for grain, meat and milk powder. They cannot keep up with the building programme because as soon as one bay is built it is filled and they go on to the next phase. There are about 30 million tonnes of grain in storage in the EC at present and it will deteriorate because it is not stored as it would be by a farmer or by a co-operative where it would be turned and the temperature kept right. The value of the grain will not be maintained in these stores. My real concern is that eventually this grain will be sold very cheaply, and more than likely it will be sold to a country which will use the grain and possibly in reselling it will foment more disorder in the countries of Africa because possibly they will use the reselling of this grain for the purpose of selling arms and armaments to countries in the Southern and Northern African countries.

We must again look at the politics of aid to Third World countries. The countries in the West, America in particular, are not playing the part that they should play, in some instances because of political considerations. If they do not like the regime in power in a country they will not aid that country irrespective of the fact that people are dying there like flies. We must take politics out of aid to these countries. There was a book published recently entitled Give us bread not cake and we in this House should say: “give them grain, not bread”. We have the grain and it is deteriorating. This is a scandal, and the people of Europe would not raise their eyebrows if this food was sent off.

Allied to the sending of food which would only give a short term benefit to the countries concerned, we must have a massive transfer of technology to the countries which are under threat through desertification and famine. Recently, under an AnCo training course, people were sent out to Louvain to help the monks in the Irish college there to re-roof their building. Would it not be possible to send out the large number of very highly technically qualified people who are unemployed in this country to the African countries? It would not cost very much to send them out there and it would not cost very much to keep them there to help in the technological development of these countries, particularly in the areas of irrigation and agriculture. It would be a lot better to send out ten cows than to send out 20,000 tonnes of milk powder, because the cows in the long term would be of more benefit to the people out there.

The people of Ireland are crying out to the Government and to the EC to get more involved and the people of Africa are crying out for aid. This concern which I am expressing is not my concern alone but that of every person to whom I have spoken.

I will get away now from the sad facts of the African situation and talk about some of the problems that have not been highlighted in the report. There is a very small paragraph given in the report to the unemployment problem in the EC, and the only mention of change in this is that there will be more emphasis placed on local employment incentives. Basically this means that the Community as a whole has given up on the problem of unemployment, because when they talk about local employment initiatives, they mean going along to the county council, the corporation or the local community and asking them to provide jobs for the people living in their own areas. This is not going to solve the problem of unemployment in Ireland or in the EC. Unless they stop producing the mountains of reports on unemployment and get down to providing jobs we will be continually coming in here listening to reports on the EC which are totally aspirational and which give no help to the people who are crying out for help from the EC. The EC is top heavy on bureaucracy and very low on action.

I appeal to the Minister and the Government over the next very short period in which they still hold the Presidency of the EC to put a sense of urgency into the units of the EC towards creating an atmosphere where young people could find that within the EC during the next few years there will be jobs and a future available for them. People of the middle age group who have lost jobs in traditional industries should be able to hope that at some stage in the future they will be employed, not just on short-term useless energy sapping ventures such as have been suggested for them in the national plan and in various other plans which have been published in the last couple of months.

Basically, the middle age group who have lost their jobs have been told that they will never work again but that there might be short-term educational and short-term work experience programmes made available to them. In other words the EC has written them off. We might be sorry in the future as this growing number of people, who have tremendous energy and who have over the last number of years taken from our educational system the value that it has given them, have a lot to offer this country but what they have to offer is being thrown away because of the lack of initiative from the EC.

There is mention of an EC energy policy which is gearing itself towards more use of native fuel sources including peat. I cannot understand why there has been no mention of our top quality coal that is available in Ireland and lignite which is available in the North. There has not been any attempt to quantify what is available in the native fuel areas in terms of coal. The technology to allow the use of low grade coal has increased vastly over the past number of years. We have untold millions of tonnes of both high and low grade quality available in Ireland which can be brought out economically, but unfortunately over the past number of years there has been a total lack of commitment, and there is no mention in the national plan of native fuel. Because of the lack of policy from the EC and the Government the excellent coalfields in Ballingarry, County Tipperary, are closed down at present.

British mining consultants have suggested that there are 29 million tonnes of coal in the Slievardagh seam. The mine is opened and closed at various intervals because there is not an energy policy which will allow the development of that mine. Rossmore, Castlecomer, Feroda and all the Leinster coalfields have been taken asunder because of lack of Government effort to provide a fuel which has excellent calorific value which could be an import substitution worth a huge amount of money. When one considers that imported anthracite is costing up to £200 a tonne at present one can see the impact that mining could have on our balance of payments. We have low grade coal in the coalfields in the Cathaoirleach's area in Leitrim which are being allowed to run down. I keep stressing that if there is a genuine effort made at community level to try to bring in technology which could use the lignite which is in Fermanagh, South Tyrone, and the crow coal and low grade coal that is available in Leitrim, we would have a 32 county energy source which could play a massive part in getting rid of our importation of foreign fuels which are much worse in many cases than the fuel that is available from Leitrim even though it is called low grade coal.

The report mentioned an attempt at unifying the transport policy within the EC so as to maximise the use of harmonising legal weights and dimensions. Basically what this means is that we are going to have bigger trucks, bigger units, the 50 tonne unit is not going to be enough. We are going to have massive units and we talk about harmonising weights and dimensions to have a graduated move towards freer competition between hauliers. This is an attempt to wipe out the Irish haulage system. If you harmonise the weights to attempt to have freer competition we see that the cost of the Irish haulier's vehicle in terms of the import cost, plus VAT, plus the revenue take is much higher than in Britain. His insurance is three times higher than that prevailing in Britain and his tyres and spare parts cost more than double the cost in Britain. His road tax is more than four times the British road tax and nearly ten times what it is in other countries. There is no way that we can have a harmonisation in the transport area unless we agree to wipe out our native hauliers; that is what harmonisation and a graduated move towards freer competition between hauliers in the member states will bring about.

It was mentioned that Spain will be joining the EC. As I mentioned in the debate on the national plan, we are bringing in a state which has 17,500 trawlers, who have 70 per cent of the fish take of the EC at present. We have 1,600 trawlers, and can we imagine the effect that 17,500 extra trawlers are going to have, not alone that but the fact that there are third country agreements between Spain and a huge range of countries? We should be very careful before we allow our fishing industry to be wiped out because of EC policy of bringing in Spain. Whatever protection can be given to the Irish fishing industry should be given, and it must be a long term protection, otherwise there will not be a native Irish fishing industry.

The situation in the Middle East was mentioned. The report stated that because the United States Presidential election was going on and also because of the elections in Israel very little has been done in the EC over the past months to try to do something to help that unfortunate area. Mention is made of the Lebanon and the efforts being made by the Lebanese to re-establish a government which will be self-sufficient. The Israelis are blocking every effort that is being made to have the area immediately surrounding Israel taken over by either the Lebanese army or the UNIFIL forces. UNIFIL forces in the Lebanon at present number 5,683 and it is reckoned that about another 1,500 are necessary if we want to have the area between what was the Haddad area of southern Lebanon properly policed. The Lebanese feel that the UNIFIL forces could do this job if they were given the proper mandate from the United Nations to fulfil their role in the region. They feel that the UNIFIL forces are the forces that are required in that area and not a multinational force such as has been suggested of the United States and possibly Britain and France. In recent months we have seen the effects of a multinational incursion by these countries into the area around Beirut. We have seen that it was not a peace keeping effort and that it created tremendous problems for the people of Beirut and the surrounding areas and exacerbated the problem in that area.

I appeal to the member states of the EC not to get involved in a multinational force. By doing so they run down the value and efficacy of the UNIFIL forces who have done a tremendous job for many years under tremendous pressure from the Israelis. The talks which have gone on for the past number of weeks between the Lebanese, the Syrians and the Israelis have been hampered at every step by the Israelis. They are taking every opportunity to try to break down the talks so that they do not have to withdraw from the southern area of the Lebanon. The pressure must be kept on by the United Nations and the EC to ensure that they get out of that area and let the Lebanese people rule Lebanon again. It is the desire of both the Christian and Moslem people of that area that they should withdraw and until such time as true peace can be brought about to the southern area of Lebanon the UNIFIL forces should be brought in.

On the question of the Iran-Iraq war, the EC must keep the pressure on to ensure that a just solution is brought about in that area. Iraq has at all times over the past 12 months stated that it will abide by international agreements and that it wants peace. We must keep the pressure on to ensure that the war does not escalate, that Iran and Iraq will sit around the negotiating table to try to resolve the problems and that in doing so they will create for the areas of the Middle East and indeed for the whole world, a better climate which will take away the threat of a bigger and more widespread war.

I hope that at the Palestinian National Council Meeting which takes place tomorrow in Amman, Jordan, moderate opinion in the PLO will prevail and that in doing so we may be able to get a negotiating position started in which the Israelis, the PLO and everybody else, but the Palestinians in particular, will be able to resolve the problems. Israel must talk to the PLO if there is going to be peace in that area, and the PLO will have to recognise — and I think they do realise — that Israel is a state. Even though its origins are highly questionable, it is now a legal entity and it will have to have a reasonable chance of living in peace with its neighbours. We appeal to everybody concerned to see that progress is made in attempting to get these people to sit down together, the Israelis with the PLO, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations. In doing so we would have a better chance of peace not only in that area but in the world.

The situation in Europe has not been of great benefit to us over the past 12 months. I will not deal with the agricultural part of this document, because that will be taken up by some of my colleagues. In the ten years since we joined the EC we have seen a certain amount of progress, but we are getting fed up with having these reports brought in here year after year and the same language used in every one of them. There is no progress being made by the so-called brains of the bureaucracy in Europe towards solving our major problem, which is unemployment, towards transferring our technology to the Third World where it is badly needed. I sincerely hope that when we get the 22nd report from the EC we will be able to stand up here and report progress.

Mr. Ferris

The discussion of these three motions together taking note of the developments in the European Communities since January 1984, the report of the Joint Committee on secondary legislation dealing with the application of the milk levy, and the report of the Joint Committee on the accession of Spain and Portugal leaves us quite a wide-ranging area which we can discuss vis-à-vis the attitude of the Senators in this House to the Community and its attitude both to those who hope to accede to the Community and our attitude to the Third World.

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs for the wide-ranging introductory speech he made to comply with these motions before the House today. Senator Lanigan mentioned three points, and before I deal with the report proper I would like to concur with some of the sentiments he expressed. He felt that this motion allowed people to state their views on the lack of development in the European Community. It would be inappropriate for me as the leader of my group in the House not to avail of this opportunity to express my concern at the lack of developments, particularly the attitude of the British Premier to all the work that was put into the Forum Report, if that can be taken as a development. Certainly from our point of view it was a major development within the Community and we would have hoped for a better response and hope that in the future months and years there will be a more positive response in this area.

I would also like to refer to his comments on our natural resources, especially our mining resources. He specifically mentioned Ballingarry which because of its vast wealth of mineral resources could benefit from European assistance to ensure that this country would avail of the benefits that could accrue to our economy if we manage to successfully bring that wealth to the surface and dispose of it. There is not doubt that what he says in that regard is correct, and I have some knowledge of it. To this day there are people with a keen interest in the Ballingarry mines and Tipperary anthracite who are trying to persuade people who are willing and capable of putting money into the development of those mines to do so. We must not be unmindful of the fact that the mining rights are owned by private individuals who are protected constitutionally in this country. I hope that at some future date during election time politicans will have the courage of their convictions when it comes to the rights of the community and that benefits to the community will override other rights, especially the right to private property. Where the private sector is not putting its efforts into the benefit of the community the community should have some rights to develop these assets for the benefit of the nation. I hope that if we fail to attract private funding from outside this country to develop Ballingarry mines the Government will look at the possibility of asking the Community for this. The Community has a special policy on the development of our energy resources and I hope this aspect will be explored if at all possible.

Senator Lanigan also mentioned the Middle East. He and I had an opportunity recently of discussing this major and tragic problem with politicians from various countries in Europe and from the Arab world. I agree that there is a desire on all sides out there, possibly with the exception of Israel and Iran, to come to grips with the problem. I hope that the Community and the Government who hold the Presidency of the Community will strive for further United Nations intervention in the area of the Middle East. We hope that the major powers like the eastern bloc, the Soviets, and the Americans and other people with vested interests in that area will recognise that the United Nations is the obvious forum that would have international recognition to intervene in a peaceful way in the tragedy of the Middle East.

The Minister, Deputy Barry, in his wide-ranging speech dealt with many areas of concern. I will try to be as brief as possible. I think I am sharing the sentiments of many Senators when I say that the Community today faces a crisis which threatens its own future and the future of its people. With millions of unemployed people and with regional and social imbalances, uncontained I might say, the prospects for the decades ahead are bleak in the Community unless we make fundamental changes or unless we can influence fundamental changes — and ensure that they are brought about. The Community has vast resources but in spite of these vast resources it seems to be unable to fulfil adequately its responsibilities to its own population and to the world at large.

The general problems of the Community are reflected in Ireland particularly. The present high levels of unemployment were referred to by Senator Lanigan and I agree with him totally. The EC seems to have failed to come to grips with the problem. The question of redundancies and the level of poverty in parts of this country are all closely related to the structural issues which have been aggravated by the failure of the Community to introduce or apply effective policies in the areas of regional and social development and our own position being a peripheral one, both geographically and economically, to this crisis. The people of every member state of the Community desperately need the restoration of hope for their future and for the future of their children. The social dislocation and the human misery caused by present mass unemployment can no longer be accepted by any democratic process. The central political priority is that a new prospect of meaningful employment must be offered to old and young alike. We seem to have concentrated totally in recent years on the problem of unemployed young people. We must not be unaware of the problem of people who are still capable of working effectively but who, because they are not in the 25 to 30 age group, tend to be forgotten. They are vital national assets and we must not forget they have a major role to play.

The Community itself now requires an economic re-launching if there is to be any hope in the future. Unless there is an immediate and collective response to the central crisis of today, the present appalling level of 12 million people out of work, which possibly could escalate to 20 million by the end of the decade, the Community will fall into further decline in the face of competition from the United States and Japan and other technological super-powers. Jobs must be created through united and coherent economic action. The common Community strategy must concentrate upon three main lines of action and they must be launched together and carried forward together. There must be selective recovery of economic growth through state action in the Community, there must be restructuring of the economies based on technological advances and there must be a redistribution of work as well as wealth. In my opinion, the next decade will be crucial unless a sense of direction is found and a new strategy is implemented that will achieve these objectives. I hope there will be the political will in Europe to ensure that that takes place.

I agree also that the international political situation is grave. The European Community has made a major input in many of these areas. The arms race, the increase in nuclear arsenals, the conflicts I have mentioned in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Central America, southern Africa, the crisis in Poland, give evidence of the interventions of the super-powers consultation and of continuing threats to peace. The plight of the Third World, which is the subject of a motion from the Labour Party to conclude this evening is an appalling plight for millions of people, women, men and children, who are all just struggling for their survival and dignity. The poor nations are plagued by debts. They are hit by declining world trade and they are shamefully neglected by wealthier populations who are now concerned exclusively with their own problems. Confronted with all these facts, the Labour Party particularly recognise that progress and hope can only come through strong political leadership at every level within the nations and within the Community.

We are aware that we need a European Community but not just any European Community. We must transform the commercial and technocratic Europe into a fraternal Europe of workers and people. I know that our colleagues in the socialist group in Europe are continuing to lead the battle in all the areas in which the European Parliament is competent to deal; I refer to the social areas, to economic, industrial and agricultural policies, to the fight against unemployment, the control of multinational companies, cooperation in the development of the poorer countries and respect for the human rights of the peoples of the world. We need support in extending and intensifying these activities and in making them more effective.

The Labour Party have developed policies along these lines within and outside the Community over a number of years and we do so on three main fundamental principles. We recognise Ireland's particular problems and needs as a peripheral area and a less developed economy than those of the other member states. We want a critical appraisal of the Community's performance. We need a commitment to the pursuit of alternatives to existing structures and policies. We have worked consistently to ensure that there is a full understanding of Ireland's positive neutrality, particularly at a time of wide-ranging debate on the future political directions of the Community. We in the Labour Party have always believed that the Community's purpose must relate to the fundamental needs of its people in terms of jobs, security and balanced overall development within a democratic and participative framework and to the great challenge of peace, justice and of combating hunger and need.

The European Community has great natural resources and great traditional strengths of economic organisation and human skills which must be directed to fulfilling its basic purpose. This has not been the case because unemployment has soared and national and social imbalances have not been offset by meaningful policies. The institutions in the Community have failed to measure up to the challenge of this difficult era. We believe that the Community must now advance towards a new phase of development in which the emphasis must be changed from the dictates of purely competitive interests in the pursuit of social goals. With present and likely levels of unemployment and with increasing deep-seated structural difficulties, it is clear that solutions do not lie in the direction of outdated fiscal and monetary policies alone.

The position of our colleagues in the European Parliament must relate directly to eradication of the fundamental causes of the present crisis which include badly distributed resources and a lack of democratic control of the key centres of the social and economic system. What is now essential is the emergence at national and transnational levels of a coherent expression of other alternative policies. The Community desperately needs a new approach in this area.

We have adapted reasonably well to our membership of the Community. Our experience has been mixed. It is true there has been a necessary realignment of attitudes in all sections in the economy in the direction of an acceptance of wider opportunity and involvement. Industrial efficiency has been ruthlessly forced on many firms. In Ireland this has been particularly true since our accession and because of lack of protection for our industries, we have lost many of our native industries. At the same time the total failure of the Community's policies in the critical area of regional development and employment has resulted in much hardship and sectoral infrastructural collapse. An official unemployment rate in excess of 16 per cent of the workforce in the Community is a poor advertisement.

The Community is officially committed to the elimination of regional imbalance and inequality but with those kind of statistics I do not think we can sit in the Seanad today and say that it has done magnificent work. With the kind of unemployment rates available to us and the present structures in the Community, there is no doubt it has failed economically to alter the course of the poorer nations in the Community.

Unemployment, not alone in the Community but in Ireland, threatens the very basis of our society but although the Community has not sufficiently offset the effect of some of these policies we still look to it. It is obvious that we are unable for whatever reason to settle our unemployment problems on our own. We can only depend on our Community partners through schemes and employment policies developed at Community level to try to come to grips with the problem.

Industry has been largely restructured with an emphasis on the new technologies. Whereas Ireland has benefited to some extent in this area, it does not compensate for the large loss of employment in other industries, particularly native industries. While our development in technological areas has contributed to our overall economy, it has resulted in massive escalation of job losses and social dislocation, particularly in the area of food processing.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, dealt with agriculture. There is some controversy about the application of the milk levy and it is appropriate at this time to comment on that. There is some doubt in people's minds as to how the application of the milk levy will affect the Irish producer. A document from the Department on 31 March 1984 stated that where Italy and Luxembourg will get quotas above their 1983 level, Ireland will get a 1983 production level plus 4.63 per cent and for future years the quantities will be reviewed annually with Ireland having priority in regard to increases.

For some unknown reason — I have not yet seen the terms of the agreement that was reached in Europe — I understand that it was based on production figures and not on estimated production figures which, of course, the Minister could only use at negotiations because at that time we were only estimating what would be our total production. To be penalised by the Community as a whole for estimating production, to word the communique to say that we were entitled to 4.63 per cent on our 1983 level of production and to be penalised for the difference would be most unfair. It would cause widespread problems in the dairying industry in this country. I hope the Minister when replying to this debate will confirm what efforts he is making to ensure that the original agreement is adhered to.

The previous Bill was a technical one which allowed us to put in additional funds to overcome the problems that have arisen. We have always played according to the rules. Senator Smith referred to a previous contribution of mine. I agree in a way that we have always been too good a European country and have never fought our case on the basis of our national interest. Our experience of other countries in this connection should be a lesson to us from now on. It is obvious that if we want to get something we will have to go in there with the gloves off.

Our future in the Community will be under threat in the next decade unless recognition is taken of our very special place, particularly in the area of agriculture. There have been some benefits but in reality they were superficial. We have had enhanced market outlets and some financial gains. For one period I suppose the financial gains could be termed to be huge in comparison with anything the agricultural community had faced before that. Taking the overall actual earning capability of the farming community over the three or four years towards the end of the seventies, it was just as well there was a European Community to help them to top up their income; otherwise, most of those engaged in agriculture would be out of business. All of us recognise the importance of agriculture to our economy and anything we can gain from membership of the Community particularly in the area of agriculture will be welcome.

I am disappointed that more is not being done in the development of our processing sector when we look at the amount of agricultural imports much of which could be produced by the agricultural sector at home. There will be a Bill before the House soon about potato marketing, and that is a step in the right direction. We cannot over-emphasise the importance to the housewife of home produced horticulture, of packaging, processing and presentation. If that can be done efficiently there is no doubt in my mind we can balance in some way many of our food imports.

On regional and social policies, the benefits have been very small but admittedly they have been significant. They have contributed to our infrastructure and to some of our social programmes. There has been, however, an inherent lack of regional and social balance in the Community and this is reflected in Ireland. We have fallen further behind the other developed areas since 1973 particularly because of our peripheral location. Our adherence to the EMS in 1980 was not paralleled by any correct domestic policies in regard to inflation or interest rates. They moved out of line with the rest of the Community, and compensatory elements that were in the EMS package have been seriously inadequate for Ireland's needs. Although most people at the time felt that it was the correct thing to do, because Britain refused to enter the EMS there is no doubt there have been disadvantages for this country with the break of the link with sterling. Progress in the promised development of new policies in the Community for consumers, for the environment, for social advancement, for industry and energy, to name but a few areas, has been very slow, entirely due to the lack of political will in Europe. I call on our Members of the European Parliament — unfortunately my party are not represented at that level now, although we have many colleagues in the Socialist group — to use all their power within the next five years to ensure that there is a political will on the part of Irish Members to have a proper development of these new policies to deal with our infrastructure, industry and our social needs.

Our own integration into the Community has offset the country's traditional relationship with the United Kingdom. Ireland has achieved a genuinely independent status in the Community and in all its institutions.

The subject of neutrality was also touched on by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the considered context of our neutrality we seem to be under constant pressure nowadays within the Community and at times we seem to be dominated by the major NATO countries, including the nuclear powers. Membership of the EC has concentrated attention on the meaning and practice of our neutrality in a new and significant manner, particularly in the process of European Political Co-operation. The Labour Party regard our neutrality as fundamental to their policy stance in all matters of international relations, including our membership of the European Community. Our neutrality must not be compromised.

Our view of neutrality is of a positive philosophy of political action for justice, peace and progress in the world, and this has been clearly set out in a number of policy statements from the Labour Party over recent years. It is the position of our party that the largely pragmatic basis of our neutrality should be strengthened by a firm acceptance of a non-aligned position in world politics and the refusal to contemplate involvement in any form of military alliance. Above all, there can be no question of Ireland becoming aligned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or any military organisation. Neutrality should include a whole range of approaches to the main issue of international politics. In particular, it means that there must be a total commitment to the pursuit of détente and world peace, a rejection of any form of involvement in the sordid armaments trade which has brought so much misery to the world for the sake of financial progress and a positive contribution to the necessary process of world development. Only a country which is clearly seen to be independent of the entanglements of military alliances can play an acceptable role in the struggle for a new international economic order. This has been stated and has been confirmed by all our colleagues in Europe. Our particular neutral situation has been accepted even by our colleagues who are members of NATO.

There must be a major attack on mass unemployment, and it must concentrate on the lines indicated in the introduction to "Relaunching and Restructuring of the European Economies and the Distribution of Work and Wealth". It is important to remember that there are people in Europe as well as profits. Within this growth for potential, there must be room for Ireland's case.

It is important for us that there be a defined regional policy and an industrial policy that will deal with all the problems of our under-developed country. It is only in the area of the development of regional infrastructure that foreign industry can be coaxed to come here to set up industries to create jobs, whether it be in the food processing area or in the area of technology.

Although the CAP is a fundamental policy of the European Community, the only policy that it has, we recognise that its reform is essential. The fundamental principles of the CAP which are contained in the Treaty of Accession must be recognised. We must also recognise that there are current problems that must be solved, such as the super-levy. We must also take into account the development status and the potential of member states. The principle of Community preference must be respected. This was dealt with by Senator Smith when he mentioned the import of cereals and other commodities. If the Community showed a preference to its own producers that there would not be such distortions of the MCAs and, therefore, we would not have the problem of cereal substitutes, New Zealand butter and all the other problems which create problems for us as a major producer of these commodities.

The CAP has a special role to play in the area of food because what is lacking is a comprehensive Community food policy. We should have that policy if we are to strengthen and advance the labour intensive food processing sector. There must be a balanced agricultural and food sector development programme which would enhance employment and add value throughout the country and all the rural areas of the Community. Whereas membership of the Community was welcomed by the vast majority of the people, those of us who opposed it did so on the basis of the terms of accession. As socialists we are basically European and can work in close conjunction with our colleagues in Europe. Although we fundamentally disagreed with some of the terms of accession because of the strain put on our industrial policy, having achieved terms it is a pity that the stronger nations in Europe now use their cheque books to alter the terms of their contribution to the Community budget. This has created the problem which all of us are faced with and particularly for Ireland who hold the Presidency of the EC.

The accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities is another problem facing us. We welcome their assession to the European Communities. We welcome them too, because they have socialist governments in power. The larger the Community the more power it can wield in world affairs and the more influence it can make either on the Eastern bloc nations or on the American nation. It is important to have Europe united. In the accession of these two additional countries — particular in regard to Spain, and Senator Lanigan referred to this — it is of paramount importance for us to ensure that the terms agreed on Spanish accession will take into account our special position in regard to the protection of our fisheries. Nobody is in any doubt about the problem that could be created if our fishing waters were open to all and sundry and particularly to our colleagues in Spain. We have evidence in recent times of the disastrous consequences that could have on our fishing stocks. It is imperative that this particular aspect of the accession of Spain be dealt with in a manner which will take into account the special position of our mariculture and our fishing industry. Ireland would be failing in its duty, holding the Presidency of the European Community, not to make this point adequately known to our colleagues in Spain, welcome as they are in the Community. By the end of 1986 — which is the Minister's deadline for accession — I should hope that these problems will be sorted out but it is important that we set them down as problems.

In the past we have played a major role as a member of the Community. We have made a major contribution, we have a neutral voice there which is welcome in Europe and we are a developing nation which should be welcomed in Europe. From our past performance we have, if anything, been gentlemen in Europe. The time is coming when we have to be tougher if our national interests are to be protected. That does not make us bad Europeans. If Mrs. Thatcher can dictate the policy to suit her own membership of the European Community and remain outside the EMS — which is abhorred by most other member states — then we should be tougher in our attitude for the protection of our national interests.

Mr. T. Hussey

I shall be very brief in this debate. First of all I would like to compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the very extensive review that he has presented to this House of the European situation.

Looking back on our years of membership of the EC one would find it hard to judge whether we have benefited or not because there are so many problems at present, both here in our own country and throughout Europe. We have millions of people unemployed throughout Europe and here at home in our own country in spite of all the grants and all the incentives that have been paid over the years we have in the region at present of 215,000 or 216,000 people unemployed.

If we look back to the early seventies when we entered the EC we entered with great hope because we felt that for the first time Ireland was breaking away from the traditional market of Britain and that we were getting entry into an expanded market of something in the region of 250 million people. Naturally, because we were starting from a very low base, particularly the farmers who were starting from a very low base, indeed we did benefit during those years. But in recent times we have seen a great change in the European scene. We have the mountains of butter and dairy products of all kinds built up. We have seen the mountains of beef built up and now we are witnessing the lakes of wine. It says very little for the European system that this should be allowed to happen particularly at a time when so many millions on the other side of the world are dying of starvation. During the week this has been brought home to us very forcefully. The EC at present should be doing more to eliminate the hardships that those living in the Third World are faced with. They should be making greater efforts to get rid of those butter mountains and those sugar and beef mountains that are costing so much in storage around Europe. I cannot understand why some system could not be devised that would help to eliminate that problem and bring relief to the starving millions in Ethiopia and the other African countries. I hope that we will use our Presidency of the EC to ensure that some positive contribution is made towards eliminating the problems which those people are faced with. They cannot hope to eliminate those problems on their own. Seeing that we have such vast quantities of surplus food stored up, it is only right that it should be distributed to those people and save them from the horrible death that has been staring them in the face now for some time.

It has been stressed here tonight that we have been good Europeans. Indeed we have. Right from the very beginning we have tried to stick by the rules and play the game fairly. But the time has come when we have to take off the kid gloves and go in there fighting and think more of our national interest than perhaps we have done in the past. We now have serious problems here at home. Our counterparts in the EC are not going to solve those problems for us unless we go in there and highlight those problems and make sure that we get our share of the cake when it is being divided. We have a situation in farming where you have great uncertainty because of the levies that have been imposed here at home and in Europe. We have fought the case of the super-levy in this House and in the other House and indeed in every hall and at every crossroads throughout rural Ireland. We have tried to highlight the dangers to our dairy industry of this levy at all times. Indeed, we have given every support we possibly could to our Ministers and to the Government in their efforts at fighting this levy.

We were told at that time that the effect of the levy would not be so serious. But everybody now agrees — and indeed you do not have to be a dairy farmer to understand it — that the effects of this levy are going to be disastrous for our dairy industry. Farmers over the years have had their herds built up. They have provided themselves with facilities for milking and so on. They have built cowbyres, milking parlours and so on. In the past few weeks many of those farmers were told that they had supplied their quota and that they would have to get out of milk. That is the stark message that is being dictated to those farmers at present. I have seen some of my neighbours, people who have had themselves organised for dairying over the years, having to go out in the past few weeks to purchase calves in order to use up the surplus milk that they now find that they have on hands. Those people are not organised for feeding calves at this stage: they are organised for dairying; they are organised for the supply of milk. It is very unfortunate that they now have to get out of the industry that they found themselves organised for and go into something else.

I shudder to think of what is going to happen next spring particularly when western farmers try to buy calves from the south. They will have to pay a very high price for those calves. If so many more people start rearing calves are we going to find ourselves in a situation next November or October where there is going to be a surplus and where there is going to be a very poor price for those animals?

We have the same situation in beet. I see farmers who have grown beet and who have been encouraged to grow beet to keep the Tuam sugar factory open. They now find that they are only going to be paid £5 per tonne for some of the beet that they have produced. Many of those farmers have rented land in order to grow that beet. Now they find that they are going to be paid £5 per tonne on anything over a certain quota. That is very discouraging. That is something to which our Minister should apply his talents in Europe. That is where the fight for the levies will be made. I know it was a good year for beet. It was a good year for potatoes too. We have the same situation in potatoes where they are being sold at the moment for about £50 or £60 per ton. But the Minister and the Government should learn from the experience of this year. They can see now how detrimental the application of those levies can be to Irish agriculture.

We are being told that next year a levy will be imposed on producers of grain. Where can farmers go? We all talk about encouraging young people into agriculture, but any young farmer who has been reading the papers or listening to the news for the past few weeks certainly would not be encouraged to go into agriculture. Nobody can tell him at this time what is the best line of agriculture to go on. We have the EC telling us to get out of dairying. Levies and quotas are being applied in the production of sugar beet. Next year they will apply to the production of barley and other cereals. I do not know where our young farmers are going to face. More and more people are leaving agriculture. This would be all right if there were jobs in industry or in the public service for them. But, unfortunately, that is not the situation. Those young people have to rely only on the Department of Social Welfare.

When our Ministers go to Europe to negotiate they should bear these facts in mind. Far too much time has been spent on the fight over the British contribution. Each summit meeting for the last two or three years has been held up fighting over the British refund. A lot of time has been wasted, and I hope for all our sakes that that problem is now over and done with and that the heads of state can get down to tackling the serious economic problems now facing the Community. I hope that our Government and our Ministers will be alive to the problems we have to face here at home. Even though we want to apply the rules and remain within the regulations we must be conscious at all times of our own problems at home. The protection of our national interest should be of paramount importance at all those negotiations.

Today, in a Bill of this House, we provided additional moneys for payment to the European Community. I suppose we are one of the first to do this. We all appreciate that the European Community cannot function unless adequate money is provided for it. There are lots of demands on the funds under the Common Agricultural Policy, the social schemes and so on. We will play our part, and the legislation we have put through this House today is an indication of our desire to help in providing the money so that the schemes that are so necessary for the young people of Europe can be implemented. I hope that the problems confronting Europe at present can be resolved. I hope our Government can tackle the serious unemployment situation that exists at present.

Many of our young people are convinced that there is no hope for them in the present set-up. There is no sign of the jobs we all hoped would be there for them, and they are becoming disillusioned. It is sad to see that at present approximately 10,000 or more young people have been leaving our shores in search of employment in other countries. Many have gone to Saudi Arabia, America and any place they foresee a future. We should be striving to employ those young people. They have cost the State quite a considerable amount of money in education up to this. It is up to us as legislators and our counterparts in Europe to try to help them to get the jobs they are entitled to in their own countries.

I will finish with those few remarks, and I hope that our Ministers will bear our national problems in mind when they are negotiating in Europe. I hope that over the next couple of years we will see some impact being made on the serious problem of quotas, subsidies and levies and so on.

Mr. Kiely

I intend to speak on item No. 6 on the Order Paper which is a very important item. I am sure that discussions arising from this report relating especially to the enlargement of the EC will have serious implications for the Irish fishing industry. There is no question whatsoever but that the entry of Spain will be very damaging to Irish fishing. When we joined the EC the prospect was held out that substantial benefits would be available to Irish fishermen. The Common Fisheries Policy was expected to give markets and guaranteed prices for fish which would ensure survival and further development of the fishing industry. It took the Common Market six years to reach agreement, and after it all fish prices have fallen and costs have increased out of all proportion. Fuel, fishing, fishing gear, vessels, wages and other expenses are so high that the result in many cases is that people in the fishing industry are worse off now than they were when Ireland joined the EC. Many have been forced out of the business.

The enlargement of the Community now being proposed cannot be helpful when we bear in mind that the Spanish fleet will be 70 per cent of the Common Market fleet when Spain and Portugal join. I do not know if people realise the size of the Spanish fleet, and I hope the Government and especially those negotiating on behalf of Ireland will bear in mind the enormity of the Spanish fleet and the threat it holds for Irish fishermen.

The Spanish fleet consists of 17,500 vessels representing 750,000 gross registered tonnes and 110,000 fishermen. They operate mainly off the north-west coast of Spain and across the west coast of Ireland, nearly into Castletownbere. One need only look at the number of Spanish boats that have been brought in here for illegal fishing over the past number of years to see how dangerous it will be to Irish fishing when these two countries gain access to the European Community. There is a lot of illegal fishing and the Irish navy have been stretched to the limit to control it.

In 1983 nearly £2 million in fines was collected for breaches of fishing laws, and the Spaniards were the greatest culprits as far as illegal fishing was concerned. There is no hope of controlling the Spanish fleet, and I am sure the Government and the Minister responsible realise this. The accession of these countries to the EC will not improve our export market of fish. While I realise that the consumption of fish in Spain is the largest per capita fish consumption in Europe — £40 annually as against £12 in Ireland — total fish landings in Spain for 1983 were 1.1 million tonnes against Irish landings of 200,000 tonnes. Spain imports 27,000 tonnes of fish per year and exports about 200,000. The markets in Spain are tied up in previous agreements and Ireland will have no prospect of exporting fish to the British market. There will be no gain for Ireland with Spain's access to the Common Market as far as the fishing industry is concerned.

What are the Irish Government doing for the fishing industry? There was a rescue package promised some months ago for the Irish need; it has not materialised. Where is it? Is it held up by the Department of Finance? Will there be less money for development with the entry of these two countries to the EEC as money for development is likely to be shared with the inevitable result of a decrease in the money which would be available to the Common Fisheries Policies for the development of the Irish fishing industry? Where is the Government White Paper which was promised some time back? The Irish Fishermen's Organisation are disappointed with the way the Government and the Minister are treating the fishing industry.

At a meeting with the Minister the Irish Fishermen's Organisation pointed out that they could see no merit in the EC Commission proposals and are of the opinion that they are mainly intended to boost the Commission's own power and glory. In addition, all the advantages were with the Spaniards. The proposals are for nothing from the point of view of the Irish fishing industry. It was again pointed out to the Minister that all the North Sea species have been blocked off through the operation of total allowable catches and quotas and that a similar situation could be brought about off the Irish coast. With regard to all species which have not been traditionally fished by any country a total allowable catch in a quota system should benefit Ireland in that its location and economic requirements could give it a major share of the stocks concerned. The IFO delegation argued that the Irish are net losers in fishing matters all down the years, and it appeared clear that the main consideration in Government thinking was to gain a net advantage in national terms if it meant sacrificing some sectors. In the Chairman's report at a meeting of 21 September 1984 he said the proposals already put forward by the IFO are for the best basis so far for a solution to the problem. The proposals were originally put to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy O'Toole, on 1 May last, but no indication of his attitude had since being received.

That is a very serious matter and something that should be treated with more urgency by the Minister responsible for our fishing industry. There was reference to the Spanish accession in the same report. It said:

There has been a response to our request to meet the Minister for Fisheries but so far not from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the Government policy towards Spanish and Portuguese accession.

The present needs of the Irish fishing industry were emphasised at both the emergency general meetings and total opposition was expressed to any vessels from these countries being allowed fish inside EC limits. Yet despite the magnitude of this issue, there is total lack of information regarding Government and EC policies in the accession negotiations. I appeal to the Minister of State who is responsible for fisheries and forestry to meet the people who are concerned about the fishing industry and let them know the position and provide them with the information. They are entitled to that and should get it.

Being in the rural area and fairly familiar with the farming community I would also like to refer to the super-levy which is the matter for discussion on item No. 5. There is a lot of confusion among farmers. They do not know whether they should produce more milk or whether they should stop milk production at the present time. Letters are being received from the co-ops by farmers telling them how much they have gone over their quota. It is very late to be telling them now. The greatest blunder of all time was the furnishing of the wrong amount of milk, 58,000 tonnes, that we produced in 1983. I quote from the report of the Joint Committee:

Accordingly, it urges the Government and in particular the Minister for Agriculture to pursue corrective measures with all means at his disposal including reports to the European Court of Justice to indicate Ireland's claim to a quota based on the actual 1983 milk deliveries.

Many farmers are very disappointed, and especially dairy farmers, that such a mistake should be made, and what puzzles them entirely is that no one seems to know who is responsible for the mistake, whether it is the Minister or the Department or the Central Statistics Office and they seem to be getting away without any reprimand at all. Such action is giving a licence for other mistakes to be made which could be as serious and may be more serious than this which is going to cost this country up to £50 million over the five-year course if it cannot be corrected. I also read in the report, page 19, that a specific reference quantity may be granted to young farmers setting up after 31 December 1980. This is something that should be made clear, and I think it is something that should be made more public and more information should be available to give these young farmers encouragement in farming.

Our quota was based on the 1983 supply of milk. Articles 3, 4 and 5 relate to the provision for dealing with certain categories who are designated special cases and are therefore eligible for special consideration in the allocation of individual quotas if their 1983 supply was less than that of 1981 or 1982. The report says that arrangements for these cases are at present being finalised in consultation with the farming and co-operative organisations. I know cases where because of the very bad weather experienced in April, May and June of 1983 the actual 1983 quotas are less than those of 1982. I would like to see these arrangements being finalised so that the farmers concerned would know of them and would not be over penalised.

Many farmers are also asking me about the cessation premium. This is something that farmers would like to know, the conditions and what grants they will get if they cease milk production. Our forestries are in production and thinning operations are being carried out but our export market seems to be actually nil. This is a worrying factor especially for employment. I should like an export market to be developed so that we can continue our forestry programme and ensure further employment in that area and also the usage of our waste land which is suitable for forestry.

I will conclude by endorsing what the previous speakers said, especially Senator Ferris, that it is time to take off the kid gloves; our gentlemanly approach has gained us nothing. We will have to fight hard and ensure that we get our rights in any EC negotiations.

Debate adjourned.