I would, first of all, like to express my thanks to the House for the expeditious way in which it has dealt with this matter of the accession of Spain and Portugal. As always, this debate indicated the genuine interest of the Members of this House in this matter, which is of great importance to us.
In replying to the debate, I propose to address myself directly to the issues of the accession of Spain and Portugal rather than give any kind of general dissertation on the general issues relating to the Community. In the debate Senators asked that, in view of the enlargement, was it not appropriate that we would at this time draw up a balance sheet of the pros and cons of our membership of the Community, seeing that we are there now for the past 12 years and that in doing so this kind of assessment would influence our attitudes to the Community itself and our behaviour therein in the future.
I do not think that there is a need, first of all, for such a balance sheet. We have had substantial benefits from our membership of the Community. They have been considerable since day one; and we have also, of course, invariably taken stock of our position vis-a-vis the Community and there is an ongoing assessment by the Government and its agencies as to where we stand on any issue from day to day within the context of the EC. There is no question of stopping at a particular point and assessing where you stand.
This is an ongoing process and because of its nature, and because we are talking about a community of nations, there is all the time an evolving situation where things are changing, some things making progress, some things not making progress. There is change all the time and the Community and its members at all levels must ensure in so far as it can that, despite the so-called massive bureaucracy there, the Community itself responds to the changes that go on within its membership and, indeed, in relation to third countries also with whom it has very close relations all over the world. Therefore, unless we as members are prepared to play our part in the overall approach of the Community to these changes and try to achieve some dynamic response to many of the things happening, both within the Community and outside the Community and in third countries with whom we have close economic, social and cultural relations, then we are failing in our function as a member of the Community. There is no time for a static approach.
This is my first day participating in the debate. Senator Fitzsimons mentioned the begging bowl concept and said he was not in favour of promoting that idea. We have responsibilities to live up to as members. There are also benefits accruing to us from our membership but we should not overdo or oversell ourselves as all the time looking for something and trying to exploit our membership of the EC. We have an obligation to see to it that we get justice and fair play and that we get our entitlements as members of the EC but not to the detriment of others. That is the important point. I am glad that Senators saw that point.
One area that is very relevant in relation to evolvement and the need for its ongoing assessment is the Common Agricultural Policy. CAP has been the subject of long and tedious debates on where it stands, what its past history has been and what its future will be. Senators referred to the Commission's Green Paper and have expressed concern at some of the proposals outlined in that Green Paper and concern that the basic principles on which CAP is based might be undermined by some of the proposals enshrined in the Green Paper. As Senators know the Green Paper is a discussion document setting out sets of possibilities and options for the future in a broad framework within which CAP might operate in the future given the food surpluses we have.
Will regard to the mountains of beef, butter and cereals and the lakes of milk, I am sure the Senators would agree that it is time to sit down and discuss what we should do in this kind of situation in which we subsidise the production of these commodities; we then have to pay for their storage and at the end of the day the markets are not sufficient to absorb the volume of these commodities on hand. There is something wrong in that kind of equation.
That having been said, Senators have been quite correct in expressing concern about the Green Paper and its contents. In the case of Ireland we entered the EC largely on the basis of the benefits that would accrue to us and that we expected to accrue to us from our agriculture. The Minister, Deputy Deasy, has also expressed concern at the content of some of the proposals in the Green Paper. He has pointed out very vehemently in European forums the importance of the agricultural sector in Ireland and that its centrality to our whole way of life must be recognised by our European partners. Our traditional rural lifestyle is based on agriculture. The social consequences of any diminution of that recognition that agriculture must get in the context of the EC must be looked at very carefully. My colleague in Agriculture is very much aware of the importance of this aspect of the economy.
Senators have expressed views and disappointments in relation to the Regional Policy. I would go along with the view expressed that the policy and the concept underlying it has not achieved its primary objective. The primary aim of the Regional Policy when it was set up in 1975 was to eliminate the economic disparities and the imbalances that exist between the favoured and the less favoured areas in the Community.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs dealt with this area in detail. I do not propose to repeat what he said except that I would endorse the disappointment expressed with the lack of progress since the establishment of the fund in 1975 when it represented 4.8 per cent of the Community budget. Ten years later, in 1985, it represents a mere 7.3 per cent of that same budget.
One would have expected that the determination and enthusiasm there was in 1975 for the levelling out of the disparities and imbalances would have carried us on to ensure a greater level of funding but while the enthusiasm was there I am afraid the funding did not keep pace with the ideas that existed in 1975. We still have major differences in economic and social levels between different areas within the Community. There is a direct ratio between the success of efforts in that respect and the level of funding made available to ensure that success. Unless the funding is made available the economic convergence which was sought through the establishment of the fund which has been very elusive in the past will continue to be elusive in the future.
Some Members of this House said that the accession of Spain and Portugal will probably worsen that imbalance simply because it will draw more on that fund resulting in a reduced fund for those people who have been beneficiaries up to now. Ireland has been one of the major beneficiaries on a per capita basis not in the overall lump sum in volume terms. I would not go along with the idea that the accession of Spain and Portugal will have a totally damaging effect. I can see some beneficial results from the accession of our colleagues in Spain and Portugal.
In the normal day-to-day bargaining that goes on at European level you find lobbies forming. From my experience in dealing with my own area small countries tend to stick together and help one another out in relation to many issues and I feel that we will have now a very strong lobby in relation to the Regional Fund and its capacity to do the job it was put there to do. Spain and Portugal will now be a part of that lobby as they would fall into the category of the less developed areas. Extra pressure will be brought on the powers that be to introduce forceful policies with adequate funding for the purposes of eliminating the imbalances and the disequilibriums there are within the confines of the Community. I can assure you that the Government look forward to pressing ahead, with the assistance now of Spain and Portugal, to provide what we regard as adequate funding for that area of activity.
Several Senators referred to the problem of unemployment which is a major problem within the Community and within specific member states including our own. I think we will have to recognise the fact that not only is unemployment a problem in the peripheral area where one might expect severe difficulties but we have now reached the stage in recent years where in the very industrial heartland of Europe it is also a major problem. Recent European Councils have discussed this problem and our Taoiseach has been very much to the forefront in seeking concerted action on this major problem within the Community. While national governments can introduce specific schemes to alleviate the problem within their own territories, our Taoiseach — and I would concur fully with him — has stated repeatedly that in his opinion, and he has gained support for this among his Council colleagues, the only really effective way to do this is at Community level, that it is really a Community problem and that individual states have not the capacity to deal with this problem on their own. It is really a problem that must be faced on a Community basis and the funding, the ideas and the schemes must be Community based.
One of the primary areas concerning the accession of Spain and Portugal is one with which I had direct involvement. That is the area of fisheries and fisheries policy. This particular chapter of negotiations was left to the very end of the accession negotiations, not because it was deemed to be unimportant but because it was deemed to be so intricate: it was felt that it would create so many problems that it would take some time. There were difficulties with commodities like olive oil, fruit and wine, but everybody regarded fish as being of crucial importance and of great delicacy. It was left until the end and it was only in March last that the real down-to-earth discussions took place in relation to this chapter of negotiations.
I agree with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I can say that in my honest opinion, having been involved directly in this, we got what I regard as the best deal possible in relation to our fisheries involvement. Indeed, when one considers the enormous pressure there was on Spain itself as an acceding state and on Portugal to fight every inch of the way for what they could get at this early stage, knowing that if they did not get it then things tend to become tablets of stone as time goes on in EC terms, one cannot but say that we have been very successful in getting the best deal possible. Spain sought, as did Portugal, immediate and full integration into the Common Fisheries Policy. When one considers that what we have done and the concessions we have succeeded in holding on to despite their accession next January, one must realise that we have succeeded in getting a good deal. We have succeeded in getting the total exclusion of Spain inside the 50 miles box for a ten year period up to 1996; and that is the best known, I suppose, of the positive elements which we succeeded in holding on to.
There are other positive aspects also. Of the basic list of 300 vessels authorised to fish in Community waters only 150 of 700 horsepower are on a periodic list and will at any one time be allowed fish in Community waters simultaneously. In other words, of the 300, 150 will be allowed to fish simultaneously. Of this 150, 93 vessels will be allowed into our 50 to 200 mile limit. That particular element of the agreement will continue for the ten years transitional period.
Senators inquired what number of boats we had of that calibre. We have 40 boats which would have that kind of capacity. I got the impression at some stage during the debate that some Senators might have thought that this is 93 extra boats in for the first time on 1 January to our 50 to 200 mile limit. That is not the case. There are in existence for some years agreements with third countries in relation to fisheries policy and Spain obviously up to now has been regarded as a third country. Under the Community/Spain framework agreement Spanish boats have been licensed to fish in that area for a number of years; and this year, for example, 65 Spanish boats of that calibre are fishing already and have been for some time in that band of sea. Basically we are talking about west of and south of this country. We are not talking here of 93 additional boats. The 65 are there under licence, the 93 will be there by right under accession terms. So you are talking about an additional 28. Positive elements of accession would also include in our case, for example — we were discussing this only last week in Brussels—larger quotas in species such as hake, monkfish and megrim. As my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, mentioned, there is an opportunity here for us to avail of the enormous Spanish market for fish. The species I have mentioned are basically fresh fish for the fresh fish market. That is a big market in Spain and it is a question of our exploiting that market.
People might get the impression that the Spanish fleet will descend on us overnight, but 60 per cent of the current Spanish fleet of 17,000 vessels operate in the waters of third countries with whom they have bilateral agreements. In fact, the vast bulk of the fleet operate in these waters — the South Atlantic, off Madagascar, west Africa and so on. The reason they are not operating here is very simple: they are in more lucrative waters and they will probably stay there. They have bilaterial agreements with third countries and it will now become part of the function of the Community to renegotiate these third country agreements which will be handed over by Spain on the last day of this year.
Senators have expressed concern about our ability to control the fishery and ensure that Spain stays within the regulations governing membership. The fears expressed are understandable in the light of our past experience on the issue of controls. In fact, we have been quite successful here. In 1984 we did succeed. One must remember that we are operating with limited resources in this area. I would like to pay tribute to our Naval Service for what they have done with these resources in apprehending Spanish vessels fishing illegally, that is fishing without having licences, or, if they have licences, fishing the wrong species or, if not, fishing within the 50-mile limit. In 1984, for example, fines imposed amounted to a total of £.9 million and so far this year we have imposed fines of about £1 million on Spanish trawlers found fishing illegally.
We must realise that as and from 1 January next year Spain will be a full member of the EC. As a full member we expect that we will get full co-operation from Spain; and, indeed, their Minister for Fisheries, Senor Romero, gave this undertaking a few weeks ago at a meeting in Brussels at which he was present as an observer. After the accession of Spain the Spanish vessels will be subject to Common Fishery Policy controls and regulations, and I would agree with the views expressed today by some Senators that possibly it will be somewhat easier to control the situation once Spain is within the EC simply because we will be able to draw on the resources within the EC. There is a monitoring facility and an inspectorate there that have powers to inspect and indeed take remedial action if after inspection something has been found to be wrong. At the moment we have a licensing system under which 65 Spanish trawlers operating off our west coast invariably discharge their cargoes of fish in their home ports or on to bigger vessels which then discharge them. The transfer takes place either at sea or at a Spanish port where, as of now, we have no powers to inspect. On their assuming membership our inspectors will be able to go into La Coruna, Vigo and the major fishing ports just as they go to Killybegs or Castletownbere today, inspect their catches, establish where these catches have taken place and see whether they have followed the regulations or not. If they have not, they will have broken the law and they will be fined for that. There is probably a better chance of controlling the problem of the Spanish as a member than there is otherwise. There is strict monitoring in relation to the 150 boats on the provisional list. They will have to report on entering the fishery and on leaving the fishery. They will also have to report their catches in volume and in species terms. This is applying the same concept as there is in the Shetland box which is already part of the European Common Fisheries Policy. Also, we have a new box created for the purpose of conserving mackerel — the mackerel box in the English Channel. The same concept will apply here where they report on arrival and on exit showing their catch for inspection.
The question of maritime surveillance has been discussed specifically in the context of the accession of Spain and Portugal. There was a Council declaration made at that time on foot of a proposal by the Commission and introduced at the behest of this Government. It was that, on the accession of Spain and Portugal and because of the increased surveillance needed, the whole area of our capacity to carry out maritime surveillance would be looked at. It was at our request that this Council declaration was introduced. I am glad to have played a part in that because, while our Naval Service are doing a fine job, they have limited resources; and when you are talking about a band of sea of about 150 miles in length or in width you are talking about a big area for surveillance purposes. Obviously, much of it will have to be done by air, so we will need help to do that job properly.
Senator McDonald complained about the slow progress in relation to a comprehensive transport policy. I agree that the progress has been slow, but one must realise that we are talking here about different economic and geographic conditions, taking the EC as a whole, and that is resulting in different transport networks; and co-ordination of these networks is not easy because of different legal requirements and different networks. The Treaty of Rome provided for a common policy in relation to transport and the Community looks on a common transport policy as a very important element in the European Community context. Work is being done on that and the Community is pursuing the establishment of a framework to achieve that aim. Much has been done and, despite what one might think, some progress has been made. For example, there has been the harmonisation of social legislation in relation to road haulage and that is one step along the road — if one excuses the pun. There is also in course of preparation a master plan whose elements include such important sectors as the planning of infrastructure access of Community interest, transit and cross-Border problems, organisation of the transport market and transport safety.
Senator McDonald also mentioned the appointment of new commissioners, and the individuals nominated for offices on the accession of Spain and Portugal. Senor Marin has been nominated by the Spanish Government as one of its commissioners. It has not yet named the second commissioner to which it is entitled. The man nominated is very familiar with community affairs and I am quite sure he will make a positive impact in the Commission when he assumes office on 1 January. The Portuguese for their part have yet to nominate the one commissioner that has been allocated to them. Senator McDonald also inquired about the allocation of portfolios within the Commission. That is a matter for the President of the Commission when he has his team presented to him. The allocation of portfolios is strictly a matter for him.
Senator Higgins referred to problems in relation to the disadvantaged areas and the underdeveloped areas of the west. In relation to that, could I say that the Government undertook reclassification proposals and submitted them to the Commission who accepted them in total. The Senator also referred to areas in France which on the face of it got special treatment from the agricultural development point of view, despite the fact that they did not come within the criteria for mountain areas. They did, however, fall within the ambit of other criteria which would have made them eligible anyway and brought them into line with assistance which this country is getting.
Senator Dooge gave a very clear expression of his view and where he stands in relation to Europe and we all know his track record on that. He is a European. He also mentioned, of course the difficulties. Very briefly he gave us a resume of what the European concept is and he gave us the background to that whole concept. I would like to thank him for that and also for his kind words in relation to the fishery negotiations. As he has said — and I would be with him on the idea — it will probably be easier for us to control the fisheries policy with Spain as a member.
Senator Fallon mentioned the Regional Fund. I referred to that already. He did make the point, which I think is worth mentioning, that he saw himself as a Member of this House, as being obliged to support the efforts of this Government or of any Government within the context of the EC. I thank him for that expression.
Senator Ferris mentioned Spain and Portugal as being infant democracies. That is true and I am quite sure that if they had not been democracies in the first place they would not be coming into membership of the European Community. I suppose they will expect, as we did, great benefits to flow to them from membership and we have had many advantages accruing to us, as the Senator said, at a price. I think it is fair to say that for any benefits one gets one pays a price. It is a question of the price you pay. Some people might think the price is too high. Personally, I do not. I think that one of the things we can be proud of is that the people of this country overwhelmingly saw fit to join the Community and, having joined it, they have lived up to their expectations of being able to compete albeit in some cases in a rather ragged way. But I think we are learning quickly and ten or 12 years in the life of a Community like the EC is a very short period. There are areas in which we have yet to get our act together but slowly but surely it is dawning on us that nobody owes us a living, that we must go out there and, first of all, be conscious of quality, go into the market-place and compete with people who are operating within much more affluent economies than ours and be able to compete with them successfully. Slowly but surely that is dawning on us and we must take that positive approach.
As Senator Ferris said, a formula was adopted at the time of negotiation of the accession of Spain and Portugal to deal with the Regional and Social Funds. While it might not be to the satisfaction of everybody, there was an undertaking given by the Commission that beneficiaries from these funds would not be victims of the accession of Spain and Portugal, in that adequate funds would be provided to look after them and their demands specifically. Some of the cynics would say "wait and see". We are waiting and seeing what will happen to that.
Going back to the idea of the begging bowl, Spain and Portugal will be major drawers on these funds but we have experience of 12 years within the EC. We have benefited enormously from that experience both in social and economic terms and I think in political terms also despite the fact that we are not talking about a political entity. We have come to know how political systems work elsewhere in our neighbouring democracies. We are able to sit down with our Western European colleagues week after week and council after council and discuss common problems logically and sensibly with them.
I do not wish to mention this to any great extent but I think that the debate taking place at the moment in the Oireachtas must also be put into that context. I feel that that debate is taking place in the Dáil in the knowledge that many people participating have had experience of dealing directly with others in democratic forums, for the past 12 years — which is no harm at all. I think it will be to our benefit and the level of debate in the House reflects that experience over the past 12 years.
Senator Ferris also mentioned the enormous cultural importance of Spain and Portugal. We are aware of this. We all know of the long historical ties there are between those countries and ourselves, that their wealth and richness of culture will be reflected within the Community and that it will be the beneficiary in time to come.
Senator Hussey expressed the view that the accession of Spain and Portugal would create new markets, particularly in the area of the Common Agricultural Policy. This is correct. He also made the point that should not be lost sight of: that, while we had to fight our corner in relation to fisheries, we were not the only country that had reservations about how the accession of Spain and Portugal would affect them. Particularly, there are the wine producing countries, France and Italy. They saw enormous problems with the accession of Spain and Portugal for their respective economies. Yet, while they went in there and fought their corners, at the end of the day there was a generosity to be seen: these were neighbours who were naturally part of the European land mass and whose rightful place was within the Community. In that spirit of generosity they felt, rightly, prepared to take on these two additional countries and to negotiate with them once they were inside the Community. The Spirit of generosity and of challenge is there. The only area where it affected us to any great extent was fisheries.
The problem of unemployment was also mentioned by Senator Hussey. I have referred to it already.
Maidir leis an Seanadóir Browne, thosaigh sé as Gaeilge, agus dúirt sé go raibh an-bhaint againn leis an Spáinn leis na céadta bliain anuas. D'ólamar a gcuid fíona ar feadh na mblianta. Go deimhin, mar a dúirt sé agus is rud suimiúil é seo, tá tairiscint againn ó Mheiriceá faoi láthair go mbeidh cúpla céad milliún dollar ag teacht chuig Tuaisceart na tíre seo ó Mheiriceá agus chuir sé an cheist, an mbeadh sé sin amhlaidh mura mbeadh na Spáinnigh ann agus mura mbeadh na Spáinnigh sásta breathnú amach agus dul amach na céadta bliain ó shin agus tíortha eile a bhunú. Tá sé sin déanta acu agus táimid ag fáil fiúntais as a bhfuil déanta ag na Spáinnigh.
Senator Browne said that the accession of Spain and Portugal makes political sense. It also makes geographical sense in that they are part of the land mass and in close proximity to the centre of European affairs.
Senator Hourigan, also in the spirit of generosity, said that it was not the time for insularity, that we should be objective and that the addition of 48 million people to the Community was a beneficial factor which would be of advantage to us. He made the point, which is correct, that the funding of the EC, with the new countries having acceded, even at the increased rate of 1.4 per cent to the own resources system, will not be sufficient to meet the demands of the enlarged Community. As the House is aware, getting the figure from 1.0 to 1.4 per cent involved a lot of discussion and debate and the people directly involved in this — and indeed the people who were causing some problems — must have known that even agreement on the 1.4 per cent level would not be sufficient to meet the demands of even the existing Community at the time, never mind an increased membership. We are not in a position to affect this to any extent except to pay our share as good Europeans, which we have been doing.
Senator Hourigan also made the point that the accession of Spain and Portugal would reduce the negative trade balance with these countries. He sees this as one of the benefits accruing to us. This is correct, and I fully agree with him.
Like Senator Hourigan and the Senators whom I have heard speak in the House, I welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. When on 1 January 1986 they join the European Community of 320 million people that Community will be enriched by two new members who are culturally, historically and geographically part of Europe and without whom the European Community would be incomplete. The challenges which face us are increased by the accession of Spain and Portugal. This is not the time for lying down and calling "foul". From the very beginning we agreed to the accession of these two countries because we felt that it was, as one might say, their natural home. From 1 January we will be sitting down in council with them, discussing their problems and fighting our corner at the same time to ensure that their accession will not unduly upset the delicate balance within the Community in relation to the different funds from which we benefit.
It is essential to make the Community more relevant to the solution of the real problem of our time, which is unemployment. It is the Government's view, and the Taoiseach has reiterated it time and again, that the problem of unemployment must be confronted squarely at Community level. Of course, national governments must also make every effort within their jurisdictions to create imaginative policies that will absorb the unemployed into gainful employment. The overall problem must be dealt with at Community level.
We must use the opportunity of enlargement to recharge the Community with the vitality that inspired its founders, who were very far-seeing people, not only so that we can make the enlargement a success but through it to give a new impetus to the further development of the Community as a whole.
