Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Jan 1985

Vol. 355 No. 1

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1984 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill, is to amend the European Communities Act, 1972, so as to make as part of the domestic law of this State the treaty which amends as regards Greenland the treaties establishing the European Communities. This treaty, which has been laid before Dáil Éireann, was signed by all member states of the European Communities on 12 March 1984.

Deputies will be aware that Greenland, a part of the Danish Realm, joined the European Communities in 1973. The result of a referendum held in February 1982 — by which time Greenland had been granted home rule status within the Kingdom of Denmark — was that a majority of the island's population favoured Greenland withdrawing from the Community.

The treaty between the Community and Greenland provides for Greenland's withdrawal from the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. A protocol to the treaty provides that, once the treaty comes into force, Greenland will be associated with the Community, having the status of an Overseas Country and Territory. As an Overseas Country and Territory, Greenland will be entitled to certain preferential access to Community markets. In addition to the benefits conferred on it by its status as on OCT, the protocol to the treaty also provides that Greenland shall be granted free access to Community markets for its fisheries products. This is particularly important for Greenland given that fish is one of its few natural resources.

It had been intended that the Greenland treaty would enter into force on 1 January 1985. However, the treaty provided that, if all the instructions of ratification of member states had not been deposited by that date, the treaty would enter into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the last Signatory State to take this step.

In order to cover the possibility that national ratification procedures might not have been completed by the end of December, it was proposed that an interim regime governing the relations between the Community and Greenland should be put in place, pending the entry into force of the treaty. Under this arrangement, Greenland, while remaining, dejure, part of the Community for a short time, would have been treated, for practical purposes, as if it had withdrawn from the Community.

Mr. MacSharry

Excuse me, but it is very hard to hear the Minister. I know it is not the Minister's fault. There must be something wrong with the microphone.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I regret that a lot of people are still talking. I appeal for quietness.

Mr. MacSharry

It is not that. The system is not working properly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will make inquiries.

Mr. MacSharry

I could hear it better on the floor than I can through this microphone.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will make inquiries.

Mr. P. Barry

The entry into force of the treaty on the 1 January 1985 was, of course, the option preferred by the Danish Government and the Greenland Home Rule Authorities; but I understand that the short-term interim regime would have been generally acceptable, pending the coming into force of the treaty. Unfortunately, however, when the issue was considered in the last days of 1984, agreement was not possible among the member states of the community to the putting in place of these interim measures.

As far as our national ratification procedures are concerned, I had hoped that the Bill which is before the House today could have been passed by both Houses of the Oireactas and promulgated as law before the end of December 1984. Reflecting our commitment to minimising the delay in completing the ratification procedures, the Bill before the House today was introduced and passed by Seanad Éireann on 19 December 1984.

The European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1984 will translate into the domestic law of this State the clearly expressed desire of the Greenland Home Rule Authorities to withdraw from the European Communities. Their wish is that this should be realised as soon as possible. Therefore, I am confident that Deputies will be able to give the Bill their full support.

Mr. Lenihan

This Bill is a necessary piece of national legislation to comply legally with what has already been agreed upon by the Council of Ministers and the Community generally. However, what is rather perturbing so far as concerns the conduct of affairs by the Government, and in particular the conduct of affairs in Europe while occupying the Presidency, is that we are the country responsible for not allowing the new regime agreed on to come into effect from 1 January 1985. The withdrawal of Greenland from the Community and the setting up of a new association of relationship had been agreed by the Community but the new regime could not come into effect on 1 January because we did not order our business in this House in a proper way.

The Government carry the responsibility for not bringing this legislation before the House in the last session. During our period of Presidency we were the only country in the Community that did not bring in the necessary national legislation to give effect to a Community decision. In showing that kind of incompetence we incurred disagreeable comment within the Community, reflecting on the capacity and ability of Ireland to hold down the Presidency in a proper way. We also caused considerable trouble to a small and friendly country in the Community, namely, Denmark.

All in all we have here an example of incompetence. A small country can show its competence in the Community in the handling of its affairs, particularly when occupying the Presidency, as we did during the latter part of last year. By not introducing the legislation in time to have it passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and due to our incompetent handling of the Presidency, we have caused considerable difficulty and annoyance and we have impeded the introduction of an agreed Community measure which cannot be implemented until this Bill is passed.

Of course we support the passage of the Bill. There is no fundamental opposition as far as we are concerned but certain points will be raised by other Fianna Fáil Deputies during the course of the debate, particularly concerning fish imports from Greenland. However, I wish to concentrate on this single aspect of inefficiency and incompetence on the part of the Government and which is doing them no good. I do not mind that in itself but I object when it is doing the country no good. The ineptitude, inefficiency and incompetence that has been displayed is quite the reverse of the way a small country should proceed in the Community. A small country must concentrate on being efficient and effective and must show an example in that respect. In that way a small country such as Ireland can command respect from other member states and from the institutions of the Community.

The malfunctioning of the Government in this respect has caused much adverse comment in the Community. I have read it in the various Community journals such as Agence and other journals. Every other country had passed its domestic legislation well before 31 December. The overall decision taken by the Council of Ministers and by the Community to allow for this quasi-separation of Greenland from the Community, to remove it from full membership and put it into the association category, was put to the various Parliaments all of whom passed their legislation before 31 December to enable the regime to commence on 1 January. The only country that stuck out like a sore thumb was the country occupying the Presidency at that time, namely, Ireland. This was due to the inefficient and ineffective handling of our business in the Community.

It is very much our business that we handle matters effectively and efficiently and many people here may not realise that. This matter was not of great and direct concern to Ireland but the ineptitude of the handling of the matter by the Government put us in a bad light diplomatically and affected the image and reputation of this country in the Community. I hope it will not happen again. The Minister in his reply should be honest enough to deal with the matter. He should admit that a very grave error was made. He should not try to slide over the matter, as he did in his opening remarks when he did not refer to it. What I have said is the truth and the Minister is well aware of that. He should apologise to the House, to the Community and to the Danish Government for the Government's incompetence and ineptitude in this matter. He should make it plain that other matters of far greater importance will not be handled with equal ineptitude during 1985 and he should make a resolution for this year to that effect.

This is only one part of the general picture of ineptitude and incompetence that has characterised this Government's handling of Community matters, not just during our Presidency but also during the agricultural price negotiations last year. Very grave errors of computation were made which have now emerged and they considerably distort the case presented by Ireland in regard to the levy and other price arrangements made by the Government within the context of the annual agricultural price review in 1984. Therefore, I would like to conclude on the note that it is all important that above all else a small country must handle its affairs competently and effectively and this Government on any criterion in this matter we are discussing today show very serious incompetence, as they have shown in other areas such as the agricultural price negotiations to which I have referred. Other than that there is no objection to the various Stages being taken here today.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I would like to put a few questions to the Minister rather than to say anything very formal. There is not much meat in this legislation.

Mr. Lenihan

There is fish.

Mr. G. Mitchell

In view of the fact that Greenland are taking this step, will they be accorded favourable status outside the EC and, if so, on what terms? It seems to me that a number of countries have a "bob" each way, particularly former colonial countries which have a traditional relationship with Britain, and while they cannot join the EC because they are so far away, or do not wish to join the EC, they have a favourable trading status and we must compete with that favourable trading status, as a member of the EC, particularly in dairying. Is favourable status to be given to Greenland and, if so, on what basis and why? Is it permissible for Greenland to have the benefits of coming out as they may be for that country and yet to have favourable status from within if they are to have favourable status?

I see the words "fishing" and "maritime production" printed here in heavy letters. I presume that this will not put our fishing and maritime production in difficulty, that it will not cause any unfair competition for them if this happens.

Finally, I am not sure what the population of Greenland is. I do not think it is great. Will it affect the representation of the Danish group within the European Parliament? If this population number is significant what will be the situation of Greenland's representative in the European Parliament? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in this reply.

Mr. MacSharry

While this may not be earth-shattering legislation, nevertheless it is sad that the Governments of the Ten were obliged to introduce such legislation. Greenland joined with Denmark and ourselves in 1973. I am sure that they, like the Irish people, looked forward to great things as members of the EC, but in Greenland's case when they got their opportunity and their freedom they had a referendum and decided to withdraw.

The reason I am prompted to speak in this debate on this legislation is because of the way things are developing in recent weeks in so far as our membership of the EC is concerned. The time has come for us in this House and for the Government of the day to give some consideration to preferential access rather than total membership. We all recall that many of us, in fact probably all people who are representatives in this House at this minute, went all over the highways and byways encouraging the people to support a referendum to join the EC, rightly so at the time from what we were told would be the case. We were told that under the CAP we would have free access to all markets, unlimited supply, guaranteed prices, etc. We were told that we would have a huge, expanding Regional Fund which would transfer the resources of Germany, France and England right through Ireland, including Dublin. We were told also that social policies would be developed that would leave social schemes in operation here the likes of which we would never dream of. Of course, recently in regard to our fisheries we were told that we would be protected. Also we were told that because of competition for more efficient and more greatly experienced manufacturers there would be some job losses in the manufacturing sectors here, and that has been the case. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost in many sectors of this economy. While we have had some benefits, many under the CAP and some under the Regional and Social Funds, they are nothing like what the people of Ireland were led to believe 12 years ago.

If, as I have said, we are going to witness over the next two years the kind of policy decision that has been taken in the last two years, then the time has come for us to consider very seriously whether we are best served as full members of the EC. We joined basically because of the benefits of the CAP, because for the first time after being plundered for 700 years by our neighbours we had now free access to a world market at guaranteed prices for our major industry, the agricultural sector. We have seen what has happened to that in recent months. We have seen levies imposed on excess production while at the same time our farmers have not had the opportunity of getting to the level of production, or anywhere near it, of our partners in Europe. That is discriminatory, wrong, and the Irish people will not tolerate it for long.

As far as the regional policy is concerned, we were told in 1973 that it would be a massive help to all of the developments that we could not afford to do ourselves. What is happening now? Of the Regional Fund 25 or 30 per cent goes to England and 36 per cent goes to Germany, the wealthy countries of the EC. What comes to Ireland? About 5.5 to 6 per cent. I am not blaming any Government for that or taking the opportunity to have something to say about Deputy Barry or his Government. I am posing the question to all of us who are honoured to represent the people of this island now because another island of small population has felt obliged to vote to come away from the EC, and matters are heading in that direction as far as we are concerned. While all of this is happening and decisions are being taken that are adverse to the people of Ireland and particularly to the economy of Ireland, day by day our contribution to the EC budget is increasing massively. Three or four short years ago it was less than £50 million or £60 million. I am sure it is in the hundreds of millions now. I am not asking the Minister to give a figure in that area.

Therefore, while on the one hand many of the dreams of 1973 have not been realised or even come close to being realised and the horizon on the reality is very much dimmed at present, now we find ourselves contributing so much more than we ever expected. Most tragic of all, we find that many of the traditional employment outlets in this country now no longer exist here. We have suffered all the consequences that we knew would ensue and that we said to the people in 1973 would happen, without the advantages that we were told would accrue.

As I said, this is sad legislation. On the one hand, we have two major countries joining the EC and on the other hand an island with, a population smaller than our own, is deciding to leave. That is why I took the opportunity not in any way to criticise Governments or the present Government, but to sound a note of warning because such a country has decided on this action and it may not be too long before we have to put the same question to our people in a referendum, as to whether they would like to continue on as at present or be just associate members of the EC. We see day in and day out the many advantages promised to us being taken away or undermined. We are not there with a begging bowl looking for what we are not entitled to. We are there to play our part as Irish men and women in the European context because we are part of what we are told is a European economic community the philosophy and policy of which were to transfer the wealth and resources of major states to the poorer regions so as to have equalisation with the number of countries making up the Community. The reverse of that has happened. I am taking this opportunity to raise the flag with regard to this issue, which will be a very live one in the months and years ahead so far as we are concerned.

We fully support this legislation, but are sad that Greenland has decided to withdraw. I pray that this will not come about as far as Ireland is concerned. I sound the note of warning that, if there are not massive improvements on the policy decisions which have been taken in recent times, that question will have to be raised, and raised very seriously here. If we are not given the rights to which we are entitled as members of the European Community, on the periphery of Europe — an island community at the very end of Europe — this question will have to be raised. I hope that it will not come to that and that whoever speaks on our behalf at ministerial or government level — and I am honoured to be a member of the European Parliament — will highlight these very important problems and use this opportunity, when another island has seen fit to withdraw, to let our partners in Europe know that we are not happy with developments in the last 12 years. We are prepared to battle on and play our part, but we want at least equal opportunity. That is all that Irish men and women want — the same opportunities as their counterparts in France, Germany, the United Kingdom or any other part of the Community. I hope all of us involved in comment on the European Economic Community will raise every opportunity to highlight the difficulties which will present themselves to us in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Daly

Like other Deputies, I feel that it is regrettable that this Bill should be before the House. It is to some extent an indication of the failure of the member governments to convience Greenland that it should stay within the Community. This must be a major embarrassment for the governments of the Community at a time when negotiations are taking place for enlargement of the Community. It is also an indication of a growing disillusionment on the part of many people with regard to the Community and the way it is performing. The poor turnout in our recent European elections indicated that here there is a certain amount of disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the manner in which matters are shaping up within the Community. The one lesson to be learned from the decision of Greenland to leave the Community must be brought home to the governments of the Community at a time when they are planning expansion and enlargement — that there must be a greater commitment to resolving the major problems within that Community.

It is regrettable that we should have had to wait so long for this Bill, a delay which caused a certain amount of embarrassment because of the ineptitude of the Government in not introducing this legislation sooner, when the decision by the people of Greenland had been made to withdraw. I regret that the Minister for Fisheries is not present. I should like some indication from him, in particular, as to the serious implications for our fishing industry of this new arrangement. I am particularly concerned about the salmon fisheries. As many of the Deputies know, it has been the experience that most of the salmon feeding grounds are off Greenland, the Faroes and in that general area. It was through the goodwill and organisation of the Community that it was possible to make arrangements with Greenland and the Faroes to restrict salmon fishing which was damaging our stocks to an unprecedented degree.

It has been established that because of recent developments in salmon fishing in the Greenland and Faroes area enormous damage was done to salmon stocks and that such damage will be done in the future. It was possible, with Greenland part of the Community, to arrive at a regime by which salmon fishing, which is a relatively recent development in that area, was curtailed to a certain extent during our membership of the Community. We had hoped to further restrict salmon fishing in that area, which would be to the betterment of our salmon stocks, which are in a very critical state.

I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Greenland is leaving the North Atlantic Salmon Convention Organisation. He will be aware that within that organisation some of the detailed negotiations in relation to conservation of salmon stocks between the Canadians, the Greenlanders, the Faroese and the Community themselves are worked out. I ask if, in leaving the Community, Greenland is planning also to leave the North Atlantic Salmon Convention Organisation. That would be very serious for us and a matter which should be taken up almost immediately by the Minister for Fisheries within the European Community.

I should like to hear also from the Minister for Fisheries in what way the duty free access which is now an advantage to Greenland will affect our market situation here, bearing in mind that our fish market is in a chaotic situation at present, with hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of fish having been dumped in the first few weeks of this year off the south west coast in the Celtic Sea because of the unavailability of markets. Greenland now has access to markets and would appear not to have the same responsibility with regard to compliance with Community policies in relation to conservation and regulations on fish management in general. These are just a few of the matters on which we need clarification. The situation is now critical in our fishing industry, with the threat of Spanish accession to the Community and the likely damage therefrom. Unless our fishing industry is to be totally wiped out, we need to ensure that the new arrangements with regard to Greenland, bearing in mind in particular that country's very close association and agreements with Denmark, will not be to our detriment. I am sure that this matter is being watched by the German Government who have a very deep interest in this area also. We need to be vigilant in the Community to ensure that no further damage is done to our markets by the new arrangement because our market situation is at present in crisis. Even now I am more concerned about our salmon stocks. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication here this afternoon, or if not at least to communicate with us later, whether once Greenland leaves the Community we will be in a position to have some supervision and control either through contact with the Community or the North Atlantic Salmon Convention Organisation to ensure there will not be irreparable damage done to our salmon stocks.

It is regrettable that we should now be talking of countries leaving the Community at a time when consolidation within the Community is needed, when there is need for resolution on the part of all member governments to tackle the serious problems obtaining within the Community.

Mr. Taylor

I was interested to hear the comments of Deputy Ray MacSharry, a Member of the Fianna Fáil Party representing this country in Europe and a member of a party who campaigned for and advocated most strongly the entry of this country into the European Community, express here today his reservations about the results of our accession and the position we now find ourselves in as a member of that Community.

I am a member of a party and was personally involved in campaigning against the accession of this country to the EC. As the years have rolled on since then I have increasingly come to the conclusion that the view the Labour Party took of our intended accession at that time was the correct one, that as an economic entity, as a country endeavouring to provide the best possible standard of living for its citizens, as we stand today we would have been better off had we never acceded to the EC. For us it has turned out to be a disappointment in so many respects, a sentiment for the first time echoed here today by Deputy MacSharry. I was pleased to note that perhaps at long last the doubts and forebodings we expressed and the forecasts we gave at that time are beginning to be seen and recognised for what they are. We were told this would be the great bonanza, for this country to enter the EC, a great bonanza in the first instance for our farming community. For the first couple of years the farming community did well but that was not long lasting. The sheen soon disappeared and we find now that the anticipated permanent bonanza for the farming community, which formed the major argument in favour of our accession, has disappeared, receded by the wayside.

What has become of our industries as a result of our accession to the EC? For example, we have many skilled and experienced motor car assemblers with a long tradition in that trade. They no longer assemble motor cars. We have paper makers of skill, with traditions for generations, who no longer manufacture paper. In every one of those industries we have skilled people on the dole queues. The fact is unavoidable, that our traditional industries have been very largely decimated, in all probability never to return as a result of the dumping of materials, mass-produced by wealthier countries than ours, with massive production facilities and with whom we as a small country cannot possibly hope to compete.

We have seen the prospects referred to by Deputy Daly. I agree with his concerns and fears about our fishing industry, another likely to be decimated, with serious inroads made into it as a result of the vital raw material of this country being so adversely affected by these powerfully geared-up trawlers and fishing interests from Europe. The whole artificial set-up that the EC involves has proved a disaster for this country. It is not a matter that we would have to cease trading with the EC countries if we were not a member. It was argued that the whole of our trade would dissipate, that we could not trade with the vital European market unless we were a member of that Community. Over the years that has proven to be an utter nonsense. We have seen that countries who opted to remain out have experienced no problem at all in negotiating trading agreements with the EC from the outside and that they have done very well out of them. European countries and others further afield than the Middle East who are not members have experienced no problem trading with France, Germany and other countries. We could have done the same.

Even at this late stage the feelings of our people and the disappointment felt about so many aspects of our economic life should be made known to our fellow members in Europe. We should be pressing for a renegotiation of our position so that our industries can be maintained or perhaps reconstituted. In carrying on any economic activity it is a great benefit to be in control of one's affairs. That independent position, traditionally ours until the Treaty of Accession, has been bargained away. This means that the regulations with regard to what we can import, sell, how we sell it, what we control and how we manufacture, those rules and regulations come down to us now from Brussels and Strasbourg. These decisions are taken in the light of large interests, big, multinational interests. We cannot control, we are a very small fish in Europe in a very big pond and its results are manifest. Its results are plain in our country, in the constantly rising unemployment figures, in the fact that so many of our traditional industries have gone to the wall and which could and should have been preserved.

If a referendum were held today as far as the EC is concerned, I wonder what would be the result. I would venture to suggest that its result and the comment of our people today on what has happened to us since our accession would be very different from what it was when the original referendum was held. The whole exercise has proven to be a disappointment to our people and has done us intense damage. We are now in that organisation but one can still get out, as the Bill before the House now shows. I do not know to what extent our reservations or concerns about what is happening are pressed in European circles, whether they fall on deaf ears, to what extent they may fall on deaf ears, to what extent they are interested in a small nation, weak economically, on the periphery of the great power bases, the great economic population centres of the Ruhr, France, Germany, Northern Italy and so on. The fact that the Greenland position has been shown up can be pointed to as an indication that small countries have their rights. We have our responsibilities to our population, our industries, to renegotiate the Treaty. That can and must achieve benefits for us under the existing Treaty situation which is proving to be an increasing disaster for our country and its people.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

This has been an interesting debate. I do not mean to insult Deputy Lenihan in saying I shall not reply to the points he raised because they were just political points. He felt he had to make them. He made a ten minute speech on the basis of a three weeks delay in a ten year period, which is not really serious, and was unworthy of him. He would have been far better off to have followed the line taken by Deputies Daly and MacSharry, and indeed to a certain extent by Deputy Taylor.

Deputy MacSharry started off by saying, and Deputy Daly reiterated, that this was a sad Bill. There is a little truth in that, but they greatly exaggerated the position. It is pity that Greenland as a result of a referendum held there took a decision to leave the Community. But they are not, in the sense that we understood it, European. They are totally different culturally. As a race they are a long distance away from the centre of the Community. They are totally dependent on one commodity. They are totally different from other European countries. However, I take the point made by Deputy MacSharry and Deputy Daly that it is sad that any body of people should decide to leave the Community. But to continue then, as did Deputy MacSharry — and Deputy Taylor also took up the point — to question our membership of the Community on the basis of Greenland leaving is perhaps something we needed to debate in this House. I do not know how representative Deputy MacSharry is of the thinking in his party. To give him his due, Deputy Taylor adopted the same line his party adopted almost 13 years ago now.

If Deputy MacSharry is representative of a body of opinion in the Fianna Fáil Party we need a debate about our continuing membership of the European Community. I have no doubt about where my party stand. I know that 100 per cent of the membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas elected on the Fine Gael ticket are for continued membership. Nobody disputes the fact that there were problems. We knew when we joined that there would be problems. In the year just ended, the net transfer into this country was £650 million as a result of our membership. That was the benefit in money terms.

Against that Deputy Taylor would write off the job losses in industry and, with some justification, Deputy MacSharry would point out that we did not have 100 per cent fulfilment of what we thought was possible under the Common Agricultural Policy and the Regional Fund. We did extremely well under the Social Fund. The disappointment has been in our industries. We were behind protective barriers. Before we joined we were in the process of lowering those barriers. We had signed a trade agreement with our nearest neighbour, at that time our biggest market. We were lowering those barriers and the advantage in the home market was being diluted. Since only two countries were involved we would have had the option of raising them again.

We have lost jobs in industry for other reasons apart from our membership of the EC. In many instances we have new industries which are orientated towards exporting to the Common Market. We have attracted capital from Japan and America. We now have industries with a potential to export all over the world. If we look at our exports over the past five years, that fact is amply underlined and borne out. The quality of the industries which replaced the industries that died is far superior. They are far more capable of holding their place in the very difficult, harsh and competitive markets to which we have to sell if we want to stay in business.

That brings me to a point of which Deputy Taylor is losing sight. We cannot hope to support our population at its present level and with the number of young people coming out of school — far more than in any other country in Europe — unless we have competitive industries exporting goods to Europe. We have a huge advantage in the European Community. We have highly trained, well educated young people. They are not available in Germany or in many other countries. These markets would not be available to us in future if we were not a member of the Community. We must attract capital from countries outside the Community to establish further industries here.

Deputy MacSharry spoke about agriculture and our experience in the past few years. The original Common Agricultural Policy was intended to ensure self-sufficiency in food in the Community. We joined on the presumption that we could contribute towards achieving that self-sufficiency and that we would derive benefit from our competitively advantageous position in the dairy sector. We have done that. Despite some disappointments in the past few years about the introduction of the super-levy and price increases which were considered inadequate, every farmer is significantly better off now in real terms than he was 15 years ago.

Deputy Daly referred to the problem about our fisheries. If there was not protection for Irish markets inside the Community, what condition would our fishing industry be in now? We could not afford to buy the necessary vessels to protect our waters. More than any other country in Europe we have far the greatest proportion of water to land. How could we protect those water outside the Community? With a Common Fisheries Policy we can control the fishing in those waters. We would have no chance of doing that if we were outside the Community.

Deputy MacSharry and Deputy Taylor questioned our membership of the Common Market. Deputy Daly had some thoughts about it as well. Perhaps it is time we had a debate in this House on whether we want to continue to be a member of the EC. I remember the referendum very clearly. When we campaigned in 1972 we were not talking merely about advantages in money terms. We were talking about political advantage. We were talking about jumping out of the shadow of a very powerful economic and political neighbour and about taking our place in the heart of Europe. I believe we have done that.

I would regret it very much if there was a movement away from that position. We have not got all we wanted. There is more to come. We suffered a trauma because of the recession and the oil crisis after the 1973 upsurge in OPEC prices. That had an effect on countries and the citizens of those countries. In the past 12 months the dangers of the effects of that on the European ideal have been recognised. Over the six months of our presidency I noticed that there is now more concern about the development of the European Community as originally intended.

We have come through a very shaky patch, particularly in the past five years. We are trying to get back to the path of growth, which is very important if we are to get work for the 13 million people in the Community who are now without work. That is a frightening figure. It is four times the population of this country. We must address ourselves to that problem and we must move towards the goal of European union for which my party and other parties worked 13 years ago.

A number of points were raised on the Bill before the House. Deputy Mitchell raised the OCT status of Greenland. Community OCT status applies to countries which for cultural, economic or historic reasons have links with a Community member state. Countries with this status have preferential tarifffree access to Community markets for their exports and normally receive aid from the European Development Fund and European Investment Bank "soft" loans. As a developed country, relatively, Greenland will not receive aid from the EDF and EIB, though it will have access to EC markets for its fishery products provided that Community fishing vessels will continue to have access to Greenland's waters under the terms of fisheries agreements. Deputy Daly wanted to know about North Atlantic salmon——

Mr. Daly

I wanted to know if we will have access at all to the Atlantic salmon. The Germans will benefit, but we will not.

Mr. P. Barry

It will be of benefit to the Community because Community boats will have access. It will have an indirect benefit for us. If we can develop our fisheries we can have access. The indirect benefit to us will be that if those waters were not available to Community boats, pressure would be on waters in the Community.

Mr. P. Gallagher

Our boats will never be able to go there.

Mr. P. Barry

There was some concern when Greenland's withdrawal was being negotiated. There was the point that Greenland should no longer be bound by international conventions for the conservation of salmon in the North Atlantic — that was part of the FCO agreement. This would have the consequence of affecting salmon stocks in Ireland because of fishing in Greenland waters. However, arrangements have been made for Greenland to accede to the convention and in the meantime the Greenland authorities have agreed to regulate salmon fishing as if they were bound by the convention. I thank the House for its response to the Bill. We may have a chance in the near future to come back on these matters.

Question put and agreed to.