These reports give us an opportunity to discuss developments in the Community. Because of the elections this year many of the developments in the Community were discussed publicly. There was an opportunity during the election campaign to highlight many of the areas of development in the Community which have been referred to in the report. A lot of what is in the report has been decided on. It would be useful for us to look ahead rather than looking back over reports of recent years. It would be more useful if we discussed future prospects for the Community bearing in mind what has transpired in recent years. It was interesting to note that in spite of the public debate on development in the Community in the course of the campaign the turn out at the polls was very poor. It makes one wonder if our people have become disillusioned with the Community and feel that developments in Europe are not relevant to them. It is important that we take note of the fact that the turn out in that election was a lot lower than we anticipated. Part of the reason was that even at this early stage of our membership the Community is becoming more remote from the people.
It appears that our people are not as familiar or involved in Community discussions as they should be. We have an opportunity this afternoon to keep up the momentum of interest in the Community. Some recent events will no doubt make people more aware of the importance and significance of the Community. They will bring home to the people the relevance of the Community to our economic and social position. With the help of the newly elected members of the European Parliament I expect that our people will become more involved in Community developments and I do not think we will see a repeat of the disappointment in the election turn out. It was unfortunate that many people considered their vote in that election to be irrelevant.
I should like to deal with the question of fisheries, the developments that have taken place in regard to that industry and the importance of them to the Common Fisheries Policy. Those involved in the negotiations are aware that it was difficult to conclude an agreement on a Common Fisheries Policy. Discussions took place over five or six years involving not only member states but other countries who had arrangements with member states. That resulted in complicated arrangements being hammered out. It is unfortunate that a short time after that policy has been agreed, and as it is working successfully in the Community, an application for enlargement will disrupt it. That disruption will have serious consequences for the Irish fishing industry.
Since negotiations commenced to establish a Common Fisheries Policy the hopes and expectations of those involved in the industry here rose. As a result many invested heavily in boats, fishing gear, modernisation and training. Those people find now that because of the proposed enlargement there is the possibility of a threat to their livelihood because 17,000 Spanish boats are waiting to take advantage of some suitable accession arrangement. All the investment and training that has gone into the building up of our fishing industry is seriously threatened by the negotiations. Indeed, the Common Fisheries Policy is threatened. The enormous Spanish fleet will seek certain rights and quotas within the Community. That was not a problem up to now. It appears that the Common Fisheries Policy will be thrown into disarray unless the negotiations are handled carefully. Those negotiations will have a significant impact on our industry. Our national interest must be protected. The rights of the Irish industry must be safeguarded in any arrangements made to enlarge the Community.
The question of limits on quotas, the introduction of new structures and the provision of funds for modernisation of our industry, which were firmly established in the Common Fisheries Policy ratified in 1983, must be dealt with. There is a danger that that agreement will be undermined and rendered irrelevant. Those involved in the industry here, and many of the interests in the Community, are not satisfied that proper procedures will be adopted to protect their position and ensure their viability and expansion in the future. All the investment that has been put into building up our industry and the efforts to have an effective policy in the Community to ensure maximum development of fishing is under threat because of the pressure to enlarge the Community. Many people question the need for such an enlargement.
I do not have a big objection to the enlargement of the Community provided such a move is in the best interests of the Community and that the various interests are not adversely affected. From the point of view of fisheries I cannot see any advantage resulting from an enlargement. In fact it is apparent that in the negotiations that have taken place to date Ireland will be at a disadvantage following the enlargement. That has not been helped by the secrecy surrounding the negotiations that have taken place so far. Many fears are being expressed because of the lack of information on a clear cut policy statement from the Government or the Taoiseach in regard to enlargement proceedings.
It is disgraceful to think that the Taoiseach in the course of his statement on the summit did not mention anything about a fisheries policy to be adopted by the Community on the enlargement of the Community. We can only rely on newspaper reports and we understand that they are fairly reliable. Is it true that the position is that there will be a ten year transition period with the possibility of a further five year transition period being negotiated during that time? Is it true that after that time there well be an abolition of the Irish box which protected our industry from the threat of Spanish boats?
We have only to look over the last year to see the number of breaches of existing regulations and the difficulties experienced by our protection services to control the activities of the Spanish boats within our 50 mile limit, and to recognise how enormous the problem will be for them in an enlarged Community. When negotiations are taking place on the transitional period the applicant countries may claim that they will be able to systematically fish in our waters. That would be disastrous for our fishing industry.
There has been no indication from either the summit or in the statements by the Minister in this House that there is any recognition at Government level of the seriousness of the situation, the damage that is likely to be done to the Irish industry and the way development in the industry will be halted and reversed in the enlarged Community if negotiations continue along the present lines. As the Minister said, these discussions did not start yesterday or even during the summit. They have been going on since last summer. In the original discussions it was anticipated that a transitional period of 20 years would be sought before the entry of Spain or Portugal. In that 20 year transitional period efforts would be made by the Community to help the Spanish Government to restructure and rationalise their fleet because everybody agrees there are not the stocks to justify such a big fishing fleet. If Spain did not reduce her fishing fleet it would pose a major threat to our fishing industry.
As the discussions develop it has become obvious that there has been a weakening in our position. Already the 20 year transitional period is being reduced to ten years, with a possible extension of a further five years, but there is a demand from the Spanish Government that there be no transitional period except for a phasing from year one, coming into the 12 mile limit, the six mile limit and, if necessary, the three mile limit. This would spell ruin for the Irish fishing industry. This move must be resisted. There is no evidence so far that the Government are taking this seriously. At the summit issues, such as wine, which have no relevance to this country seem to have been given prominence rather than issues of vital national interest to Ireland which we, as President of the Council, should have been putting forward.
The fishing industry is left in a hopeless situation. The framework agreement agreed by the Community in Spain, ratified and signed in 1980-81, sets out the systematic reduction of Spanish fishing off the Irish coast. Now two years later Spanish fishing off our south west coast has been reduced by over 50 per cent. In the discussions taking place now there is a complete reversal of that position, with concentrated efforts being made by the Spanish boats to come into our six mile limit and establish rights they claim they had under the London Conventions before the Community was established. We are not satisfied, and neither are the fishing interests, that our fishing interests are being protected in the present negotiations. We fear that the Irish fishing industry will not be able to expand in the future if negotiations continue along the present lines.
Since we joined the Community our fish catches have increased enormously and this has helped to stabilise our industry and offered hope for the future. There is a genuine fear that the enlargement of the Community will put the Irish industry back ten to 15 years if negotiations continue along present lines. We have seen strenuous objections to the Norwegian application for access to blue whiting in our north west waters. I acknowledge that the present Minister for Fisheries fought against this application. We see a fairly valuable potential for supplies of blue whiting in the future. We must continue to strenuously oppose any efforts by the Norwegians or others to gain access to blue whiting and other stocks which might not have been traditionally fished here in the past.
Everybody in the fishing industry knows that expansion in traditional areas of fish is limited. Everyone admits that if our industry is to develop and expand we must get involved with the non-traditional quota species. We had discussions about dogfish at Question Time today. The Norwegians are prepared to fight strenuously, even though they are outside the Community, to gain access to our blue whiting stocks because they can see the benefit of these stocks to their industry. I acknowledge that the Minister fought the Norwegian attempt to gain access to our blue whiting stocks and he must continue to do that. He must also continue to fight the pressures to reduce our mackerel quotas. Mackerel is very important for the Irish industry and the mackerel export refund was abolished in January 1983. We expected to see some positive results since then, but they have not materialised. Our fishing industry lost up to £25 million or £30 million because of the abolition of that refund. The Minister did all in his power to re-establish that export refund which was very important to our industry but he did not succeed. I should like to bring home to the Minister the urgency of pressing ahead with the campaign which he undertook to have that export refund restored for the mackerel fishing industry and that he will continue to do that within the Community, especially now when that industry is so important for the development of our fishing industry here.
All these areas are very important for the future development of the Community. We do not feel that the interests of the Irish industry are being protected. Fish which could be processed and developed here is being dumped. It is intolerable that we go abroad seeking outlets for fish and fish products and at the same time we are importing huge amounts of fish which could be processed here. There is a crying need for investment in processing industries. There is also a need for investment, through European funds, of more money into the development of the processing industry so that we can not only catch the fish here under the policies laid down by the Community but that we can also develop them into primary and secondary processing plants in order to provide jobs as well as having the value of the catch.
The cheapest varieties of fish are being imported at enormous prices while our fish is being dumped. The market here in relation to fish is totally unexploited in so far as job creation and revenue for the State are concerned. When are we going to do something through the institutions of the Community for the development of processing in this vital area, because the fishing industry has a very big impact in regional areas and in smaller coastal regions? This has been recognised not only by the Community but by the Canadians and others. There must be investment in coastal areas and the way to do that is by basing it on the materials which are available. It makes common sense to do this by basing it on our own resources, by processing our fish and feeding ourselves with that fish rather than exporting it and reimporting it when it has been processed abroad. In that case the benefits and jobs accrue abroad and we are the losers. It is a crazy system which must be tackled with the help of the Community.
People here are losing interest in the Community because it does not have relevance to their needs. We should be able to turn this around if we take the initiatives which are needed and if we can build into the Common Fisheries Policy agreement policies in relation to the creation and exploitation of our own industrial projects. This would provide jobs and revenue for the State and it makes sense.
To get away from fisheries, I noticed recently in some press cuttings that huge amounts of funds were available from the Regional Fund for the development of industry in the United Kingdom. I drew this to the attention of the Minister for Finance because we seem to have lost out in relation to the funds which are available. The British Government have also given large sums to the textile industry. This was done through the EC, although I understood that there would be no assistance for that measure. Nevertheless, the British Government secured large sums from the Regional Fund to aid the textile industry. Our textile industry is in chaos. A few days ago in my constituency we had the closure of one of the major textile firms, the Burlington industry in Clonlara, with a loss of 250 jobs. The textile industry could be saved if there was investment in new plants, new machinery and new equipment. They could then make a profit and jobs could be saved.
I thought that the Community would not fund industries in the textile area because of the Community policy which laid down that funds were not available for investment in that area. The British Government and the British Minister for Industry can announce substantial funding in that area which will protect jobs in the textile business in the United Kingdom. We should be entitled to the same facility for our textile industry to ensure that there are no more closures. I am aware that some work has already been done in relation to changes in the way in which funds can be got from the European Regional Fund, especially in the non-quota section, but we must get substantial aid for our textile industry to stave off job losses.
We have also seen the closure of the ship and boatbuilding industries here. At the same time the British Government under the same Regional Fund recently announced substantial funding from that fund for the British shipbuilding business. Hardly a day goes by here without a closure of a boatbuilding yard but we were told it is Community policy not to grant-aid or assist projects in the shipbuilding area. How then can the British Government benefit in this area? Millions of pounds have been given from the Regional Fund to build up industries in the Six Counties. These are very welcome but we should also benefit. It is time that the Regional Fund was looked at very closely by the Government and by the Dáil to see if any changes can be brought about to make it more relevant to our needs and to deal with some of the problems which we are experiencing in some very important areas.
I want to refer very briefly to a point which was made by Deputy Allen. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments he expressed in relation to efforts in the Community to control and eliminate pollution in so far as it is possible to do so. I am particularly concerned about the discharge of sulphur dioxide and the effect of discharges which will be emitted from the Moneypoint station. I was amazed to read recently in one of the newspapers that emissions from Moneypoint were damaging the environment in the south-west. The writer obviously does not know that the station has not yet been completed. Chimneys have not emitted any effluent at this stage but there is a real possibility that when the station is operational, probably in mid-1985, there will be a threat to the environment from the discharges from the chimneys at Moneypoint. This can be rectified now if the equipment for the control of emissions is installed in the station.
The Moneypoint station is a huge generating station by any comparison one cares to make even in Europe. It will generate an enormous supply of electricity but it will also create a serious environmental problem unless care is taken and the necessary equipment installed to control emissions from it. I am aware that grants are available from European funds for this purpose. However, I am not certain that the Department of Energy have recognised the threat that will exist and have not availed of the money from Community funds to install this highly sophisticated equipment. I ask the Minister for Energy to use those Community funds to make sure that the necessary equipment is installed. If the station is allowed to go into production and to have these discharges it will be too late to tackle the problem. The time to deal with the problem that will arise in the future at Moneypoint is now before the station goes into production. I know that the Minister visited the site recently and he is aware of the urgency that is needed to deal with the matter now. The funds are available to do the job if the will is there at departmental level.
This report is useful in that it gives us an opportunity to debate some of the matters that have caused us concern. In the future development of the Community it is essential that we make our voices heard in relation to our specific demands. While we can look favourably at the development of an enlarged Community there are also threatening signs that that enlarged Community may damage certain sectors here and we have an obligation in the negotiations to ensure that our vital interests are protected. I am not satisfied that has been done up to now. I am not satisfied that the proper negotiating stance has been taken in relation to fisheries. I am not satisfied that there is any advantage for the Irish fishing industry from the kind of enlarged Community we will have, especially if the demands that are being sought by people who are not members of the Community are met or if our position is weakened any further in the negotiations that are taking place at the moment.
I hope this debate is an indication that we will have further debates on this topic of Community involvement in our affairs. I should like this House to be given an early opportunity to debate the question of enlargement of the Community and the effects that will have not only on the fishing industry but on the development of our economy in future years.