I wish to congratulate the Tánaiste on his very full and interesting report on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter. Secondly, I want to refer very briefly to something that is really peripheral to the report, or certainly out of the mainstream of the report, as such. I refer to a European drugs exhibition which was a "first" for Dublin and billed as such. It was organised by the Vice-President of the European Parliament Committee of Inquiry, Mrs. Eileen Lemass, MEP, and was held in Dublin in the Exhibition Hall in the Bank of Ireland, Baggot Street, from 3 to 13 November.
The leaflet which was circulated in relation to this exhibition is very comprehensive. It sets out the problem in relation to drugs and, indeed, in relation to the AIDS problem as well. It specified what we could do and what the exhibition hoped to achieve. In relation to drug abuse and the facts, it gave very startling information. It said that within the Community 1,500,000 people — mostly young people — use heroin. A far greater number take soft drugs. The use of the no less dangerous cocaine which has already taken hold on the other side of the Atlantic is becoming more widespread. Addicts driven by the need to obtain the money to buy drugs — around £1,500 a month — commit half the crimes reported in the 12 member states. The drugs problem is now worldwide. The criminal activities which cover the whole production and distribution cycle bring in an income of $300 billion all over the world.
The reason I am referring to this is that, unfortunately, I believe this exhibition was not the success that it could have been and, in my view, that it should have been. I understand that the literature was circulated to schools. The exhibition did not get the kind of coverage in the national press that one would expect. There was one general article and a picture in one of the daily papers. I believe that the difficulty about getting coverage was in relation to the unfortunate incident of the kidnapping of Mr. O'Grady. It is a pity that such an important exhibition should, to some extent, be a failure.
I would hope that this exhibition could be taken up in other parts of the country and, possibly, even in this capital city. It was very important. At present it is something we can relate to very much. Indeed, I myself was not personally aware of this exhibition until after the event. I am sure many other people are in the same position. I appeal to those who can reorganise it to do so. Perhaps the Tánaiste would investigate whether it would be possible to have this important exhibition re-run.
I also want to thank members of the European Parliament. They do a very good job. I want to pay a particular compliment to my very good friend. Mr. Jim Fitzsimons, MEP, who is on the Energy Research and Technology Committee. He is also a substitute on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Committee. There is a lot of activity in this area and a substantial amount of money as well. The research has helped Irish universities, the IIRS and the National Board for Science and Technology. The overall provision was 6,480 million ECUs. The framework programme which was agreed in 1983 for the 1984-87 period had an expected commitment of £27.9 million for Ireland, which was a very considerable amount.
While we are debating this matter in the House it is very difficult to decide what exactly to refer to because there are so many publications and so much literature. One could go on for a very long time. Clearly, there is no point in wasting time in a general coverage of that kind. We will have to pick and choose the areas that more or less appeal to us. This is one that particularly appeals to me. Like many other Members of the House, I have been asked to make representations with regard to research and with regard to different programmes. I have been unsuccessful. It is not difficult to help in that area, but I think that there is a great necessity for more finance.
In Ireland, an island country, we could do more research on wave power, wind power and solar energy. Those are the three areas on which we could spend more money. All of us in this House have been approached at different periods about these three areas. We know that there is quite a considerable amount of research going on into wave power. As I say, being an island surrounded by seas and by an ocean, there must be great scope in this area. With regard to wind power I recall that during the last World War wind chargers were quite common around the countryside. As a matter of fact, in my own area one used at that period was taken out of use only a few short years ago.
Nevertheless, harnessing of wind power, by and large, has not been a successful development. With the expertise available for research and with the experience we have had over a long period of years, it should be possible to achieve worthwhile results in this area if sufficient funds area available. Solar energy has the same problem. Some short few years ago it was possible to buy equipment in Dublin to heat single houses through solar energy. It seemed a rather cheap option but it never became popular. At present I do not think it is possible to go into any builders' providers or any store in Dublin and buy equipment of that kind. That is unfortunate. It is one that particularly affects this country. More research could be done. Consequently, even though we have spent over that four year period the equivalent of almost £30 million specifically in relation to those areas, perhaps more funds could be forthcoming. We know, of course, that the UK held out against that programme for five years, but it was finally agreed.
In relation to the EC there has been a tendency consistently over a long period of years in the media and by commentators to refer to Ireland as having the begging bowl syndrome or the béal bocht. That is something with which I disagree. I saw yesterday in The Irish Times that the Taoiseach is making arrangements to ensure that we benefit in the areas where help is necessary. I agree with this. Mr. John Hume, in the report to which Senator Hogan referred at some length and from which I will quote one short paragraph, refers to the point I am trying to make, that Ireland could have made greater strides. It states:
The European Parliament regrets that, in the fourteen years since the accession of Ireland to the EC the Community has not done more to promote the necessary transformations in the economy of Ireland, one of its smallest and least prosperous members in whose economy and national budget Community receipts have some influence; notes that disparities in prosperity between Ireland and more prosperous regions of the Community have widened rather than narrowed, and considers that this reveals starkly that the Community's structural policies have not attained their objectives; believes that this failure results from insufficient finance and shortcomings in the operation of the Community's structural funds, aggravated by inadequate co-operation and exchange of information between Member States regarding strategies for economic recovery and development.
Money spent in Ireland to develop this country, to develop our road network for example, not alone will benefit the people of this country but will also benefit the EC by reason of the fact that transportation will be assisted and, consequently, costs will be reduced. There is a duty on anyone who is in a position to make representations for more funds for this country to do so and to see that we benefit to the extent that we should.
The Single European Act was mentioned as a very important development during the period under consideration. I hope that this will be a benefit as it was supposed to be and that we will achieve the results that we expected before this was passed. One of the first great developments in the period under consideration was the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC. This added, as Members have already stated, an additional 50 million people to the market opened for this country. From a Community report for January 1986 I would like to quote a very short paragraph to make a point which I think is of some importance. It is as follows:
Please remember that what is called the European Economic Community is basically a supra-national infrastructure designed to facilitate and encourage trade between the member states themselves and between the European Community as a whole and all other third countries in the world. Therefore, the use Ireland makes of Community expansion is, at the end of the day, a matter for the Irish entrepreneur whether he — or she — is in industry, agri-business or services. It is in his — or her — hands to take this new opportunity to further promote Ireland's economic growth with a resultant opportunity to increase employment in this country.
I wonder if we have availed of the additional market to the extent that we could and should. That paragraph sets the problem in perspective. There are many small firms and small businesses who, perhaps, would not be in a position to avail to the extent possible of that additional market of 50 million people. In a debate of this kind on a motion it is difficult, or maybe pointless, to make a plea. In so far as it is of any worth, I appeal to the Tánaiste to be very conscious of the difficulties of the small — and I mean the very small — firms.
Some of the literature we have received on developments in the EC speaks of the new poor and the new faces of poverty. This is an important dimension. It is set out fairly clearly in the European File 4/87 February 1987. It is not necessary for me to go into it in detail, but it differentiates between the traditional poverty which affects many of the under-developed European areas — an under class composed mostly of unskilled workers, emigrants and people in vulnerable categories — and the new poor. Their poverty is born out of the recession and the economic and social changes whereby people have lost their employment. This caused sudden alterations in the standard of living they were used to. We have those two areas. I am not too sure in what way the EC on the ground, in a tangible way, helps those people.
We have heard about direct aid to farmers which is contemplated in the CAP programme. This is something we would all welcome. Food stockpiling created many problems of cost. There were many complaints about the stockpiling. I am not too sure how exactly the direct aid will work. It seems that at this point in time the EC may not be too clear on the way it will work. Appeals were made before in this House with regard to areas where it would be possible to help farmers in a direct way, for example, lands that might be considered to be in need of reclamation. It has been pointed out many times that there are places and countries in the world where fortunes are spent to create conditions which are suitable for wildlife, flora and fauna, shooting and fishing. It seems that in the general context of land requirements it would be possible to have surveys carried out in that whole area in relation to wildlife. Farmers might be compensated for that type of land as if they reclaimed it to harvest crops. This is an area that could be looked at. It would affect many people in the country.
The report by Mr. John Hume was referred to at some length by Senator Hogan. I will not refer to it in any detail except to say that it is my understanding that an integrated approach is required for the whole country based on the nine regions which are intended for development. This is set out very clearly in the report. An integrated approach is the only approach. At the same time, I have heard complaints by members of local authorities that they would like to be in a position to go to the EC independently to have their specific proposals funded. I do not know how this would relate to this problem. Local authorities would be in a better position to do so if they got greater autonomy and powers. The problem at present is that they must go to the Government, make their case and take their place in the queue. In the long run this is the proper approach. There are members who feel strongly that they have schemes which, because of the present arrangements, do not get the priority which they deserve.
There is a marked improvement in relations between the Soviet bloc and the EC. This is very promising. Delegations have already been named. I hope more success will be achieved in this area.
With regard to radioactive levels in food, a survey was conducted after the Chernobyl accident which has now ceased. France and England had very high levels of radioactivity and the other ten countries of the EC had relatively low levels.
Unemployment is comprehensively covered in the documentation which we have received. The position is becoming progressively worse. This is an area where there is a commitment but, unfortunately, the success we hoped for has not been forthcoming. We can only hope that in the immediate future some improvement will become evident.
The cross-Border situation was referred to also by Senator Hogan. He mentioned the assistance in third level education. This has helped many of our young people. Hopefully, in the years to come it will assist many more. From every point of view, it is a welcome development. I hope we will achieve greater success in this area.
