The Deputy can be assured that any opportunity in the Community is fully availed of by the Government. I will not comment on the performance of the last Government and I will not deal with any analogous comments either.
Referring to the Regional Fund Deputy Collins said that we need a more effective regional policy for the Community including higher levels of funding. I fully agree. Consequently in any of the Councils in which I am involved in Brussels, whether General Affairs or the Budget Council, I constantly make that point. I assure the House that my colleagues at the other Council meetings also make every effort to present this point of view in Brussels.
Another point raised during the course of the debate related to the manner of the Minister's distribution of the funding. I appreciate that direct payment to local authorities could be beneficial in terms of an increased awareness of the great benefits derived from the Regional Fund. Receipts from the Regional Fund are used to increase the overall level of resources available to finance development projects under the public capital programme. In practice the payment of Regional Fund money directly to local authorities would entail a corresponding reduction in the level of Exchequer expenditure on the public capital programme.
There is a view in response to this which suggests that direct payment to the local authorities would not bring a national financial gain. Indeed, an argument suggests that it would lead to a fragmentation of the administrative arrangements for dealing with the Regional Fund which could result in reduced efficiency. This could make it difficult for us to maintain our excellent record of drawing down promptly and in full the money available to us from the Regional Fund.
It has been claimed that there are substantial additional sums of money available from the fund which we are not taking up. This is not the case. In recent years, Ireland has been able to extract its optimum share of benefits from the fund. The most recently published reports from the European Commission for 1984 show that Ireland received more per head of population than any other member state of the Community from that fund. The amount of the funding overall is insufficient, but we must bear in mind the fact that in 1984 we received that level of support from the Community.
Deputy O'Hanlon mentioned the 1980 Special Border Areas Programme due to expire at the end of this year. It is proposed that the programme will be replaced by another Community programme for the Border areas. This is the Commission's proposal to assist us in the extension of the gas pipeline to the Border areas. This proposal which would involve increased Community aid over the 1980 level is at its final stage of discussion in Brussels. The Government are confident that the measure will be adopted by the Council in the very near future, hopefully within the next few months.
Deputy O'Donnell referred to the possibility of a programme similar to the IMPS which would be specifically designed for the north-western peripheral area of the Community. We have not seen as yet how the IMPS will operate in practice, but we will be monitoring their implementation closely to see whether they provide any lessons in the field of regional development of the future.
I am aware of and understand Deputy O'Donnell's strong interest in that aspect of Community policy. No doubt, wearing his other hat in the European Parliament, he will also follow the developments there closely. However, I make the point that in devising a programme of this kind the availability of additional financing is necessary if the operation of the programme is not simply to amount to a coordination of what is there already. That point must be borne in mind. Simple coordination of funding from existing structural funds would not really lead to any great additional advantage overall for the country.
I would like to thank Deputy Durkan for his very useful contribution last week. I checked one point which he raised, that is, the availability of funding to assist with drainage projects. I am glad to be able to confirm to him that assistance of this kind is available through the Department of Agriculture.
Deputies on both sides of the House referred to the CAP. Let me once more re-state the Government's commitment to ensuring that in any discussions on the future of the CAP in the context of both enlargement and the Commission's Green Paper on reform of the CAP, full account has been taken of our dependence on agriculture and the importance of its role in our economy. In the preliminary discussions on the Commission's Green Paper, my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, has already apprised his Community counterparts of our view that any revision of the CAP must recognise that that is a fundamental policy of the Community, one of whose objects is the maintenance of a viable rural community based on the family farm.
Deputy Treacy raised the point about our take-up of grants under Regulation 35/77 for projects relating to processing and marketing. Over the period 1978-84 grants amounting to £67.6 million have been awarded, £36 million of these have been claimed, claims for a further £7 million are with the IDA, and FEOGA aid grants amounting to £4 million have been renounced or under-claimed. This leaves approximately £20 million or 30 per cent of total grants awarded to be claimed and most of this relates to grants awarded in 1983 and 1984.
It must be said that the take-up of funds is not entirely satisfactory but it can also be said that it has improved significantly in recent years. However, it should be appreciated that many of the projects aided involve significant investment and take several years to complete. Work has commenced on most of the projects and it is expected that any outstanding grants will be claimed over the next couple of years.
During the course of the debate a number of Deputies expressed disappointment at the lack of a comprehensive Community forestry policy. There are a number of reasons why the Community has not been able to develop a common forestry policy, the primary one being that, unlike agriculture, forestry is not within the scope of the Treaty of Rome. The absence of a treaty base is compounded by the fact that a number of the larger member states are opposed to the creation of a common forestry policy.
Notwithstanding the absence of a common forestry policy, there are many individual Community action programmes and measures affecting the forestry sector. Various forestry measures have been initiated by the Commission on an ad hoc basis, for example, the forestry element of the western package in Council Regulation 1820/80 aimed at encouraging afforestation by farmers in the west. More recently discussions have taken place in the Community on proposed measures to provide forests in the Community with increased protection against fire and acid rain.
Another example is the Commission's proposal currently being considered by Council for a Community action programme regarding forestry and forest based industry. From these three examples Deputies will see that, while the Community has not yet developed a common forestry policy akin to the CAP or the Common Fisheries Policy, it is nontheless active in the forestry sector. The Government will for their part continue to encourage extension of Community activity in the area of forestry.
I take the opportunity to remind the House that in the forestry area the present Community is less than 50 per cent self-sufficient in its forestry needs. It seems to me in the context of restrictions in other areas from the point of view of land usage that there must be more usage in the forestry sector in the years to come. Certainly the grant aspects at this stage are very attractive indeed, running up to 85 per cent of the cost of developing plantations. I add my voice to those who are advocating strongly that those with surplus or marginal land should consider actively the attractiveness of these grants and join in the development of private forestry. It is sad to see us with forestry covering only about 5 per cent of our land area as opposed to over 22 per cent in Europe, and even that small proportion is made up almost totally of State forests; the figure is about 85 per cent. I see a great opening here for developments in the private area and I encourage strongly the developments in that sector and the usage of Community and national support for the development of private forests.
During his wideranging contribution Deputy McCartin took a very broad view, as one would expect from an MEP, and talked about the need for more effective decision making procedures in the enlarged Community. It is necessary for us to stand back and realise that the present decision making process was designed for a Community of six whereas we will be talking shortly about a Community of 12. The inter-governmental conference launched at the Milan Summit last June is at present considering some aspects of this complex issue. These principally are the use of qualified majority voting where this could facilitate the achievement of a single internal market, the enhancing of the role of the European Parliament and increasing the executive and management powers of the Commission.
It would not be appropriate for me to go into the question in detail now. This conference is going on and it will be resumed in Luxembourg on Monday next. However, I can tell the House that the Government are taking a positive overall approach to the work of the conference while seeking, of course, to have account taken of our reservations in certain areas of particular sensitivity to us.
A number of Deputies raised the question of the need for an adequate level of own resources in the Community. At the beginning of the debate my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, pointed to the fact that enlargement and the increase in the Community's own resources level from 1 per cent to 1.4 per cent of the VAT base were matters that were inextricably linked. He emphasised again the Government's commitment to secure a further increase in own resources at an early date on top of the 1.4 per cent in January next. There can be no doubt about the Government's position on this. Indeed, last June, in the course of the debate on the Dooge Report, the Taoiseach clearly stated that an own resources level of 1.6 per cent of the VAT rate would itself be only a fraction of that needed to make European union a reality. Increased own resources are the key to more effective Community action in those policy areas which Deputies have highlighted, regional development and the major area of unemployment. It also applies to the development of new policies.
From the beginning of the enlargement negotiations, various Irish Governments have shared a strong political commitment in favour of the accession of Spain and Portugal. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in introducing the Bill said that the fundamental ideal of the Community was the enhancement of peace and liberty in Europe. Consequently, the Community's charter affirms an openness towards other European countries who wish to join it in pursuit of its objectives. The day to day economic activities of the Community with member states protecting their interests and advancing their own views often appear banal and at times, unappealing. However, we must never forget the historical context in which the Community was established and the generous and conciliatory principle which inspired its birth.
When we as a relatively underdeveloped country applied for membership of the Community, our present partners did not view this application in the narrow perspective of economic profit or loss. On the contrary, a generous response was determined by the ideals enshrined in the Treaty. It is partly as a consequence of this generosity that we now in turn extend a welcome hand to Spain and Portugal. After an aberration in their history when they were somewhat isolated and inward looking, Spain and Portugal have now resumed their rightful place in Europe. The fact that these negotiations lasted more than six years is evidence of the complex and difficult problems which had to be overcome before the integration of the economies of the member and acceding states could begin.
During this process each State negotiated in a hard-headed and determined manner for the protection of its legitimate national interests. At times, it should be said, these issues seemed intractible. However, the force of the Treaty ideal and the long term interests of the Community alway seems to be a guiding hand pointing towards a resolution. We can derive considerable satisfaction from the fact that, during these long and difficult negotiations, Irish interests were successfully protected. We can derive even more satisfaction, however, from the knowledge that the end of the process brings Spain and Portugal within the European Community.
