Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996

Vol. 463 No. 6

Turin European Council: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the special European Council in Turin on Friday last. I was accompanied by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell.

The main purpose of the special European Council was to formally launch the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. The Council also offered an opportunity for the Heads of State and Government to have a brief exchange of views on employment and on Europe's economic and social direction into the next century. Finally, as Deputies will be aware, the Council took place against the background of the European beef crisis and this issue was also addressed by the Council.

In regard to the Intergovernmental Conference I stress at the outset that the Turin European Council was not a negotiating session for the conference and was not, therefore, a forum for setting out national positions. The function of the European Council was to agree an outline agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. The first session of the Intergovernmental Conference conducted by Foreign Minister commenced after the European Council concluded.

The Conclusions of the European Council, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, set out an outline agenda for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. I would stress that this does not in any sense limit the scope of the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference because the Treaty on European Union allows any member state or the Commission to raise any item they wish at the Intergovernmental Conference.

Nonetheless the Turin conclusions undoubtedly encompass what will be the key issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. The conclusions follow very closely the model set out in the report of the Reflection Group and indicate that the issues to be tackled fall under three general headings, namely, bringing the Union closer to its citizens; reforming the Union's institutions in the context of achieving a more democratic and efficient Union and against the background of enlargement, and strengthening the Union's capacity for action on external issues.

In regard to bringing the Union closer to its citizens, the negotiations at the conference will have to result in an outcome which tackles the real concerns of the citizens of Europe. There can be no repeat of the Maastricht experience when many sections of the Union's population were alienated by an outcome which seemed to them obscure and unconnected with the real problems which they face in their everyday life. The people's verdict on the outcome of this Intergovernmental Conference will be governed by one simple criterion; will the Intergovernmental Conference enhance the prosperity and security of the citizens of Europe?

A good start has been made through the reference in the Turin conclusions to the need for the Intergovernmental Conference to examine how the Union can deal with everyday concerns such as unemployment and crime, including drug trafficking.

No one is suggesting that the problem of European unemployment will be solved by writing provisions on employment into the Treaty on European Union. As the Turin conclusions state, better employment opportunities require a stability oriented economic policy, greater competitiveness and sound economic growth. The policies to achieve this are and will remain primarily the responsibility of national governments. What is required at Union level in the area of employment is better co-operation and co-ordination to ensure the maximum positive employment impact of the appropriate domestic policies. It will be a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference to examine how this can best be achieved.

In the area of crime and drug trafficking, the need for ever closer co-operation between member states is patently obvious. Internationally organised crime transcends national boundaries. The havoc that is being wreaked on society by drugs must be tackled on a co-ordinated basis. The pace of progress on this and other issues under the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar of the Treaty has not been satisfactory. A critical task of the Intergovernmental Conference will be to see what Treaty changes are required to give a better focus, direction and efficiency to the work of the Union in the Justice and Home Affairs area.

The second general heading for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference will be to make the institutions of the Union more democratic and efficient against the background of future enlargement. The White Paper makes clear that the Government welcomes the prospect of EU enlargement. We fully subscribe to the conclusions of the December 1995 Madrid European Council that enlargement is a political necessity which will offer both the applicant states and the current members of the Union new prospects for economic growth and general well-being. In my bilateral contacts with the leaders of the applicant states, most recently with Prime Minister Klaus of the Czech Republic. I emphasised Ireland's support for enlargement and I will do so again when I visit Poland later this month.

The White Paper on Foreign Policy indicated that Ireland will be determined to protect our interests when the next enlargement negotiations commence after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference. In this we will be no different from other member states or indeed from the applicant states seeking to protect their interests in the negotiations. The people of this country realise fully the benefits that flow from our EU membership, and expect the Government to be vigilant in protecting them. This wholly justified stance should not, however, be construed as designed to obstruct enlargement.

There was no debate at the Turin European Council on the specific institutional issues which will have to be tackled by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Irish position on these issues is set out in the White Paper on Foreign Policy. I would like to emphasise two points in particular. First, Ireland does not believe that the current balance in the decision-making process between the large and small member states needs to be tilted in favour of the former. The Irish approach is to view the European Union as a co-operative venture involving the pooling of sovereignty between all member states. Excessive concentration on the distinction between large and small member states militates against the fostering of the required Community spirit. When it comes to individual issues there is generally no large versus small state divide. I wish, in this context, to also underline the Government's determination that we will continue to retain the right to nominate a member of the Commission.

The second specific institutional point I would like to address relates to what has been termed the introduction of a flexibility clause into the Treaty. Deputies will note that this is referred to in the conclusions which asks the Intergovernmental Conference "to examine whether and how to introduce rules either of a general nature or in specific areas to enable a certain number of member states to develop a strengthened co-operation, open to all, compatible with Union's objectives, while preserving the acquis communautaire, avoiding discrimination and distortions of competition and respecting the single institutional framework”.

The conditions in the conclusions attached to any development of a general flexibility clause are welcome. Ireland's position on this issue is governed by our commitment to a European Union founded on shared values and interests and adopting and implementing common policies to the greatest possible degree. We believe that with political will this approach can accommodate distinctive national positions and can survive future enlargement. An unrestricted á la carte Europe is one which contains the seeds of its own destruction. The common policies and institutional framework of the European Union are the glue which holds the Union together. If these are eroded then the erosion of the Union might well follow. This is not to deny that provision for member states to approach the same objectives at different speeds, as in the case of European Monetary Union, should be considered where necessary on a case by case basis. The starting point for the Intergovernmental Conference should, however, be what we can achieve together rather than how we can achieve things separately.

The third and final general heading of the Intergovernmental Conference agenda is the capacity for external action by the Union. The Tánaiste will deal with this area in more detail in his statement. I would, however, remind the House that the provision for a review of the Union's common foreign and security policy was written into the Maastricht Treaty by the heads of Government at that time. That Treaty also set the objective of implementing a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence. Those are the words of the Maastricht Treaty.

Ireland cannot, therefore, stand back from the debate on these issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. Account must also be taken of the changed security situation in Europe. Policies that were appropriate for the Cold War era may no longer be appropriate. The six underlying principles of the Government's approach in the security area are set out in paragraph 4.114 of the White Paper on Foreign Policy. These principles include a requirement that a common defence policy should have as its primary objective the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international security in accordance with the UN charter and OSCE principles, and be relevant to the broader role of the United Nations which has a unique legitimacy in the area of international peace and security. These principles, in conjunction with the Government's commitment to put the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy to the people in a referendum, provide the necessary safeguards for any concerns that might arise in this area.

After concluding its deliberations on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda the Council had an exchange of views on the economic and social situation in Europe. The basis for this discussion was the presentation made by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, on his initiative for a European Confidence pact for employment and the proposals submitted to the Council by President Chirac on a European social model.

The discussion did not go into any of the details of the proposals of Presidents Santer and Chirac. There will be a comprehensive overview of employment and related issues at the Florence European Council in June next and the Dublin European Council in December. It was clear from the discussion in Turin that all the heads of state and government are concerned about the economic and social future of Europe in a global economy characterised by fast changing and mobile technology and widely different social systems. The importance of ensuring Europe's competitiveness without undermining its human values and system of social protection was stressed.

The discussion pointed to the need to formulate a long-term vision of the economic and social direction of Europe. The view was expressed by some heads of state and government that this issue could best be addressed through an informal meeting of the European Council, not distracted by the decision making on day to day issues that arises at a normal European Council, something like the meeting held in Formentoe during the Spanish Presidency.

Such an informal meeting, properly prepared and structured, could be a valuable exercise in helping to map out a desired vision for Europe's future. I would certainly be happy to convene such a meeting during the Irish Presidency if that was the wish of the European Council. It is my intention to consult further on the issue with my colleagues in the European Council and with the President of the European Commission.

As Deputies are aware,the Turin Council was overshadowed by the crisis in the European beef industry. There was recognition at the Council that while the beef crisis may have resulted from events in one member state it was a crisis for the European Union. The scale of the problem was underlined by the evidence adduced as to the collapse in the consumption of beef across Europe and the ban on imports of European beef into key markets. As President Santer noted, over one million farmers in Europe are dependent on beef production and this statistic alone is a measure of the scale of the crisis.

The solidarity displayed on the issue by the European Council was truly impressive and reassuring. The consensus was that as a European problem it demanded attention at European level and all member states were willing to contribute to the solution. The European Council sent a strong signal to this effect to the special Agriculture Council which convened yesterday and is still discussing the issue today in Luxembourg.

I have no doubt that positive and decisive action will be taken by the Agriculture Council to restore European consumers' confidence in beef, to stabilise the beef market, to support producers and the industry and to provide assurances to our trading partners. More specifically, the Minister for Agriculture. Food and Forestry has pressed very strongly for supports for the market in the form of an immediate resumption of beef intervention at an appropriate level while the present situation lasts, including the waiving of the 340kg intervention weight limit. I was informed by the Minister shortly before I came into the House that the Council has now agreed to restore beef intervention up to a limit of 50,000 tonnes over the next month with an increase in the weight limit to 380kg.

The task now is to restore consumer confidence in beef and to restore access to key third country markets. The decisions to be taken in Luxembourg today will enable the Government to build on the initiatives it has already put in place to reassure consumers and third countries. In regard to the latter, I was particularly pleased that arising from my telephone call last week to President Mubarak of Egypt Irish cattle were allowed disembark in Alexandria at the weekend. I assure the House that the Government will continue to do all in its power to convince third countries to lift the ban on the import of Irish beef. No political or diplomatic effort will be spared in this regard.

The European beef crisis represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the European Union. The challenge is to preserve a highly important European industry and the livelihood of millions of people who depend on it. The opportunity is to show the citizens of Europe that the Union is relevant to their every day concerns and that it can deliver result on these concerns. If, as I am confident will be the case, the Union achieves its objectives on this issue the long-term benefit for European solidarity and integration can be considerable.

Given the brevity of this European Council there was no time for formal bilateral meetings with other heads of state and government. This was a comparatively short European Council which nonetheless achieved its objectives of launching the Intergovernmental Conference, underlining the commitment to action on employment and, most importantly, tackling the beef crisis. It is clear that a formidable agenda will face the Irish Presidency from 1 July next. Planning on the policy and administrative aspects of the Presidency is well under way. I can assure the House that this Government is determined our Presidency of the Union will be efficient, effective and successful.

Mr. B. Ahern

The European Summit at Turin was intended to be a festive opening of the Intergovernmental Conference but, as the Taoiseach said, in reality it was dominated by the BSE crisis. The summit should have concerntrated on the problem of streamlining the Union so that it could cope with enlargement and become more effective and coherent. At this summit, instead of the usual situation of Europe being Britain's problem, Britain was Europe's problem.

The negligent handling of BSE over a number of years by the British authorities, compounded by the crass handling of the belated public acknowledgement that there was a potential human health problem, has created a huge crisis of confidence not just for the British beef industry but potentially for the whole European beef industry, unless prompt counter measures are taken. It is a problem that requires action and solidarity both at national and European level.

As I said here last week, consumer safety and confidence are the paramount considerations. While I believe we have a safe product here, there are further measures that can and should be taken to reinforce consumer confidence. It is important that we take these measures not only for their own sake but also so that we can report to our European partners and to our third country customers that there is no atmosphere of complacency here and that the maximum is being done.

Some measures are being taken but more needs to be done. I am glad the Minister announced that all the meat from any herds containing a BSE animal will be destroyed. I am also glad that on a voluntary basis the pig and poultry producers have decided to exclude bonemeal and related products from their rations as a precautionary measure. This was a concern I raised here last week, which had been bothering many people. The producers' decision should be underpinned by law or statutory order. An Bord Bia needs to have consumer representation and not just be representative of the producer. The Minister needs to take action on this. In this House and outside it, we as leaders of opinion in this country should show we have confidence in Irish beef, not by engaging in frivolous photo opportunities that have diminished credibility, because of their misuse across the water, but by sober statement and example. Then we need vigorous marketing.

Some 200 years ago, in 1796 at the time of the Bantry Bay expedition in which Wolfe Tone was involved, the question of provisions for the French invasion force arose. The French Minister of War told General Hoche: "There is plenty of beef in Ireland; if you cannot get bread, you must eat beef". Could that scene not be the basis of a marketing campaign in French, appealing to French patriotic traditions? I am told the Taoiseach has turned down the suggestion of a commemorative stamp for the Bantry Bay expedition, which is a great pity given the importance of the European dimension. Perhaps the Taoiseach would confirm if that is correct. He should not let his distaste for the past get the better of him, if that is the case, because a commemorative stamp seems like a good idea.

There are other things we need to do to protect our good name. There must be strict enforcement of veterinary regulations. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry must acquire a reputation as a body with teeth, which will ensure that wrongdoers will be vigorously prosecuted. We cannot afford any laxity. Heavy fines and imprisonment must be the punishment for using angel dust or other illegal hormones or for involvement in smuggling or fraud. We may well need to enact stiffer penalties. There should be regular reports on the success of enforcement.

It is clear that the ability to prevent cattle smuggling from Northern Ireland is of most concern to our European partners and third countries. Security needs to be visible around the clock and extra resources may need to be drafted in. I do have a concern for the position of Northern Ireland farmers and I sympathise with their position. As I outlined in the House last week, I am prepared to accept their contention that their beef is not British. They and their authorities will have to decide whether they wish to adopt our higher standards and harmonise their regulations with ours and seal off the North Channel from cattle imports from across the water. Given the significantly higher incidence of BSE in the North, they might have to take additional measures as well before they can enjoy the full health status of Irish beef. This is the one issue where they may have to choose and not expect to be able to get the best of both worlds.

It is a step forward that Irish beef brands labelled as such are now appearing on British supermarket shelves. Despite getting some consignments landed in Egypt, intensive work is required if we are to keep Middle Eastern markets open. Both national and European diplomatic efforts are required. I am glad an EU delegation is going to Cairo. I support calls that the Tánaiste should travel to Iran, as this is a matter that will be decided at the highest political levels. We have only just agreed to the opening of an Israeli embassy in Dublin. It would be ironic if this were to be marked by a ban on Irish beef in Israel.

The present crisis has brought home to Britain how they need European solidarity in a situation like this. Such solidarity is in all our interests. We would certainly agree to generous financial aid being given to whatever is the most effective means of quickly eradicating BSE among the British herd. It is unrealistic, however, to expect an early and precipitate reopening of the British market before confidence is re-established. The reopening of the British market should only take place when it can be done without prejudice to the marketability of other European beef and consumer confidence in it.

The European Union should also be sponsoring, as a matter of urgency, medical and veterinary research on the links between the human CJD disease and BSE. We need to know how much meat needs to be consumed to catch the disease. We need more certainty about the incubation period. We need to know quickly whether there is any serious danger of a galloping epidemic, as some British scientists claim. Methods of detecting the disease in cattle at an early stage need to be developed. We need research into the possibilities of inoculation or cure. What action is taking place on this front, both nationally and in Europe? There seems to be a void in this area. Our own people are trying to come to grips with that research.

I am glad that temporary intervention is being reopened for a limited period, as announced today from Luxembourg. It would not be desirable for the beef industry to go back to a systematic heavy reliance on intervention and every effort must be made to avoid that.

In regard to the launch of the Intergovernmental Conference, I broadly support the terms of the Presidency Conclusions, which set the agenda for the most part in very general terms. My reading of the conclusions is that they are carefully balanced in areas where there are major differences of opinion. The Union faces many challenges: international, economic, employment, crime, migration, the environment. Enlargement also presents a major challenge to the institutional operation of the Union.

The conclusions are correct to put citizens first. Crime and drugs are high on the agenda. The action being taken by the Union is not very visible. It needs to undertake a more vigorous campaign to stop at source drugs traffic from some of the producer countries with which the European Union has Association agreements.

I am glad that, thanks to a French initiative, the fight against unemployment is described as the Union's priority task. More is needed than sound policies and respect for the Maastricht criteria. There is a sentence which states: "The Intergovernmental Conference could also address the question of the compatibility between competition and the principle of universal access to essential services in the citizens' interests". This is a concern of the French, who are proud of their state companies and are worried about the effects of the type of artificial competition that we see in Britain being introduced, for example, to break up the French electricity company. The concerns of the ESB would be similar to those of the French.

The conclusions say the Intergovernmental Conference should examine the question of the island regions of the Union. As Ireland is clearly one such region, I would like to know what imaginative proposals the Government intends to put forward in that regard. The White Paper has very little to say on that subject, as pointed out in the debate on that issue a week ago.

Enforcement of the principle of subsidiarity is important. We must not overload our small businesses with unnecessary regulation from Europe and huge administrative burdens. Improving standards is one thing, unnecessary bureaucracy is another. I notice that, again under the influence of President Chirac, the value of a social Europe is evoked. This strikes a middle path between an overregulated social democracy on the one hand and the more capitalistic free market Anglo-American model on the other and stresses the importance of social consensus.

On defence and security, the conclusions leave open Fianna Fáil's preferred option, which is that the European Union would take over from the Western European Union direct responsibility for certain peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks as the foundation of a common defence policy. If the conference is going to look at arms industry co-operation, it should equally look at much stiffer control of European arms exports, so that they are not used for genocide, as has happened in Iraq and Rwanda.

The reaction to last week's debate on the White Paper was, in many respects, ill informed because our peacekeeping and humanitarian operations are worldwide. The Western European Union and NATO are strictly limited to the European theatre. Whether we join a closer relationship with them has absolutely no implications for our peacekeeping or humanitarian missions in the Middle East, Africa, Asia or Latin America. Some people argue our neutrality is outdated and ask if we do not realise the Cold War is over. Is it not the reality that many of the NATO and the Western European Union defence doctrines are clearly obsolete? Why is that not more clearly acknowledged in public debate instead of urging us to get closer to them? If it is acceptable for countries to hold on to nuclear weapons of mass destruction for which there is no obvious justification, is it acceptable for Ireland to hold on to its military neutrality? I would like Ireland to take a stand on Article J4 of the Maastricht Treaty which acknowledges the specific character of member states' defence policies and argues that the European Union take a direct role on the Petersberg tasks, with which we will gladly co-operate.

The Government should openly and vigorously defend Ireland's ideals at the Intergovernmental Conference and not leave the running to the larger partners. Our valid viewpoints should be argued with vigour. We look forward to the success of the Intergovernmental Conference, unfortunately it was overshadowed by other events last weekend. During our Presidency we look forward to co-operating with the Government on matters of interest to this country. We hope it will keep us informed on matters because at present we depend on parties in the North for public briefing documents on issues relating to Northern Ireland. I hope Fianna Fáil Front Bench spokespersons, in particular, are briefed on what is happening so that we can make fair criticism if necessary.

I wish the Intergovernmental Conference and the Presidency success and assure the Government of our co-operation on matters of importance to Irish citizens.

Miss Harney

The formal launch of the Intergovernmental Conference in Turin last weekend was overshadowed by the BSE-CJD controversy. It is appropriate that Europe would show solidarity with Britain in its time of crisis. I support the aid package that is being negotiated in Luxembourg to aid British farmers who have to slaughter their cattle. I hope this act of solidarity convinces the sceptics, particularly those on the Tory backbenches, that rather than diminishing its sovereignty, integration in Europe is in Britain's national interest. Community solidarity is as appropriate now as it was in 1993 when the German aid programme for the eradication of swine fever was also supported by the Community. This is the way it should be.

We have benefited enormously from Europe. Ireland is one of the largest aid recipients in the world, receiving in net terms approximately £1,800 per family, or £700 per person, per annum. We receive one of the largest packages of development aid per capita in the world. In political terms Europe has been much more acceptable in Ireland than in Britain, but I hope it is now accepted that, together, we have an enormous amount to gain from Europe. As the Community expands eastwards and the balance of power moves from Brussels to Berlin, I hope people realise it is in our interest to show Community solidarity and not to engage in triumphalism when a country is faced with a crisis.

While only 15 per cent of our gross beef output is consumed on the domestic market, if it is not successful on that market we cannot expect to sell it on international markets. It is regrettable that it took us a week to consider the interests of the consumer when the link between BSE and the human equivalent, CJD, came to light. This country, particularly the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, is so producer driven that it does not realise the link between consumer and producer interests. If consumers are not satisfied or are in doubt and leave out, to quote the well hackneyed phrase, producers and those who work in that sector will suffer.

There is a case to be made for the separation of consumer and producer interests. A separate agency should be established to deal with the safety, health and quality aspects of our food industry. I am not advocating more Government, I am merely talking about establishing a separate agency with the sole purpose of examining quality, safety and health related issues. That would be in the interest of consumers, producers and, in particular, exporters.

In its current information campaign An Bord Bia should avail of the services of high profile individuals associated with this country to help sell the high quality and clean image of Irish beef. That would have much more credibility than An Bord Bia simply stating that Irish beef is of top quality. I hope it notes my suggestion. I am sure many of our sports stars would be delighted to be associated with such a campaign and they should be asked to do so.

The Intergovernmental Conference will be one of the defining moments for the European Union. Ireland will have the privilege of holding the Presidency later this year and, while I do not agree with everything in the White Paper, I am pleased to compliment the Tánaiste for at least spelling out a vision of Irish foreign policy which is long overdue. In the context of European enlargement, no country, particularly a small one, will be able to take an appropriate stand at that defining time unless it has a vision of where it is seeking to go.

While security and an Irish Commissioner are important matters for us, there are many other matters which are equally important from an economic point of view. The enlargement of the Community eastwards — within a decade the Community could have 27 members — will have a much greater impact on our economy than our accession in 1973. The Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia are much poorer than Ireland. The per capita annual income of the Czech Republic, the richest of those countries, is US$8,000 compared to $17,000 in Ireland. The per capita income of the others is approximately one third of that in Ireland. In net terms we receive almost £2 billion per annum in aid and even with that huge injection of resources from the European Union, we had to borrow £1 billion last year to run our economy. We must realise that we will not be able to avail of those resources in an enlarged Community. Given its problems with unification, the German economy, which funds the European Union to the tune of 80 per cent, will not be in a position to continue to provide such funding. For example, it will cost approximately £10 billion per annum to extend the Common Agricultural Policy eastwards. Therefore, Irish farmers and our food industry will have to accept a reformed CAP and to cope we will have to be much more market driven. As the massive reduction in subsidies in the next few years will have a dramatic impact on jobs in our economy we must prepare the way now.

The Government owes it to the public to spell out in clear terms the implications of enlargement for Ireland. While we all assume enlargement is good, it will have significant economic consequences for our economy. The last round of enlargement, which involved Sweden, Finland and Austria, did not present problems because of the resource base of those economies. We cannot assume that because, up to now, enlargement has not had an adverse effect, this will continue.

In 1995, 40 per cent of gross agricultural output, involving direct payments to farmers, was made by way of direct aid from Brussels. We receive £1.4 billion per year in terms of agricultural supports, as approximately 50 per cent of cattle disposals by way of carcases and live trade go to third markets, it would be difficult to imagine the country trying to live without these supports. The cost of the current controversy in terms of jobs would be nothing in comparison to what the diminution of CAP would cost Irish agriculture and farming. Rather than feed the old habit of reliance on subsidies and handouts from Brussels, we must educate the farming community to move towards a market approach with less dependency on subsidies and grant aid.

The question of nuclear power is another issue of concern to the public. The frequent calls in this House for the closure of Sellafield will not achieve very much, greatly as it may be desired. We need to move in a different direction in the context of the EU Presidency later this year. We must ensure there is a review of the EURATOM Treaty to provide an independent monitoring service and a European-wide independent inspectorate which can be called on when adjoining countries have concerns. At present under the treaty, for example, the UK must invite authorities to inspect and monitor matters. This is unsatisfactory; it is not reassuring for the public.

This is a sophisticated, complicated industry and this country does not have the resources to deal with the kind of problems that arise by way of public concern. I hope the Government puts this issue on the agenda. It is an unanswerable case and one that can win us support and friends, even from those nuclear powers that may be reluctant to pursue matters at present or listen to the usual calls to close down the industry.

Over the next few months there will be much talk about some member states taking the fast track. It is especially in the interest of a small island nation to ensure that everybody moves together and that there is not a two tier Community. The citizens of Europe, whether they live in Ireland or on the mainland, have the same set of concerns and live in a Community that approaches the issues on the same basis.

The question of unemployment has not been seriously addressed by the EU. This has been its greatest failure. The EU has an unemployment problem equivalent to the combined populations of four of its member states. It is not in the interest of the Irish economy for Germany to export its problem by ensuring that everybody else has the same regulations.

In a world where capital, labour and trade are all free and mobile, jobs will only be created if we are conscious of labour costs. While I do not advocate slave labour, we must, when considering unemployment, look at costs in this economy, especially those of taxation. It is 50 per cent more expensive to create a job in the Republic than in Northern Ireland.

The Programme for Competitiveness and Work is due to expire in the summer for the public sector and at the end of the year for the private sector. The successor to this programme must be tax based. It must realise the connection between high taxes and unemployment. We should seek to create a single island economy in Ireland to ensure tax harmonisation between North and South so that existing disincentives are eliminated. If we do not do this we cannot expect employers in Dundalk to expand their employment when it is 50 per cent cheaper for them to move across the Border, 12 miles up the road in Newry.

National policies must be compatible with our European responsibilities. Ireland should not be to the foreground in looking for more regulation, which is not in our economic interests. More regulations are not in the interests of people who have been marginalised and isolated and who live in many of our cities — Dublin, Cork and Limerick — where in some places over 50 per cent of the population is unemployed.

The challenge for Europe as we move into the next millennium, review the Maastricht Treaty and approach this defining moment is to ensure that it is a place where all its citizens enjoy equality of opportunity and the opportunity to participate in the economic, social and community development of their own country. Isolating people to a life of unemployment does not give them this opportunity. We spend over £1 billion per year paying people unemployment benefits. This is an indictment of our internal policies. It is also a poor indictment of a Union that offered and gives us so much. Our challenge is to play our part in ensuring that Europe can, as a trading bloc, be as competitive as America, Japan and some of the Pacific rim countries which are more successful in job creation than Europe.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

The Taoiseach reported on the Turin European Council of last Friday at which we both represented Ireland. I also attended, on the same day, the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference. The opening was a formal occasion and did not involve negotiations. It marked the first stage in an intensive process which will involve negotiating sessions once a month at ministerial level. Ministerial negotiating sessions will be prepared at official level by a working group scheduled to meet weekly in Brussels. My personal representative on that group is the former Secretary of my Department, Mr. Noel Dorr.

The opening session provided an occasion to outline the requirements of member states for the Intergovernmental Conference. In outlining the Irish position for the conference, I suggested the following requirement for its success. In the first instance, the Intergovernmental Conference must address all the key points but no more than those. It will fail either if it lacks the resolve to address the main challenges on the agenda or if it dissipates its energies on issues which are better dealt with in a different context on which there is no prospect of agreement. The conclusions of the European Council, which of course do not limit the scope for member states to bring forward ideas, will help to guide the work of the conference.

The second requirement is that the participants in the conference must all be prepared to listen to one another. We must not allow the Intergovernmental Conference to develop into a dialogue for the deaf. That would be a recipe for its failure. There are many issues to be considered at the Intergovernmental Conference which will have to be resolved with respect for the concerns of all member states. The Union's ethos of listening and trying to accommodate the concerns of all will be essential if the Intergovernmental Conference is to be a success.

The third requirement is that we must ensure further enlargement of the Union is accompanied by a deepening in the process of integration. Facilitating enlargement at the expense of integration would be in the interests of no one, least of all applicant countries which do not wish to join a Union which has lost its sense of purpose and coherence of action. Having been sustained through the difficult process of economic and political reform, it would be a cruel irony if their reward was membership of a Union virtually devoid of the very characteristics which persuaded the applicant countries to seek membership in the first place.

Fourth, we must ensure that this is an Intergovernmental Conference which brings the public with it. It must be transparent and comprehensive as an Intergovernmental Conference. I am thinking especially of an approach which gives priority regarding unemployment and international crime, particularly drugs.

Where the Intergovernmental Conference addresses institutional issues it must demonstrate that any improvement in the functioning of the institutions is not an end in itself but a way towards a more effective and accessible Union. If the Intergovernmental Conference can take effective steps in areas of direct concern to the public, it will be a success.

The Irish Presidency will devote all the energy, abilities and commitment at our disposal to ensure that these requirements are met. It will be a major priority for the Presidency and we will seek to advance its work as expeditiously and constructively as possible. It is timely and appropriate that the European Union should examine ways and means of strengthening its capacity for external action at this Intergovernmental Conference. The European Union has not only become a pole of attraction for countries in the European area but, increasingly, it is expected by its citizens and by the wider international community to act as an instrument of positive change in the world. The conclusions of the European Council amount to a balanced and realistic mandate for the forthcoming negotiations. They avoid prescribing specific outcomes which are for negotiation at the Intergovernmental Conference and, equally, avoid unrealistic expectations.

Ireland will play a constructive role in the review. The Common Foreign and Security Policy occupies a central place in the conduct of the foreign relations of all member states, including Ireland. The Government believes that member states can exercise a more effective influence for the development of a stable, just and peaceful international system by acting in concert than they could accomplish individually. An effective CFSP is in Ireland's interest and at the Intergovernmental Conference the Government will work for practicable and sustainable ways to improve its functioning.

The Intergovernmental Conference will consider proposals for modification of the present CFSP decision-making process with a view to facilitating effective EU foreign policy action, particularly in an enlarged Union. The tasks facing the Union are growing considerably as its engagement in international issues intensifies. Ways in which the international profile of the Union can be enhanced are likely to be considered, including the possibility of a single High Representative for the CFSP.

Decisions on sensitive foreign policy matters have to be underpinned by broad support in the member states if they are to be sustainable and effective. This aspect must be taken into account in considering any proposals to adjust CFSP decision-making procedures. More use could be made of the provision in the Maastricht Treaty for qualified majority voting on decisions which implement the foreign policies decided by consensus in the Council of Ministers.

The basis for efficient decision-making is good preparation and a shared analysis of the issue. We consider that priority needs to be given to strengthening the mechanism available to the Union in these areas. There is no parallel in the CFSP to the role played by the Commission in policy development and impulsion in Community matters under the First Pillar. To meet this need the Government has advocated the development of a planning and analysis capacity in the Council Secretariat of the European Union and we are pleased that this idea has attracted broad support. A central planning and analysis capability, which would be at the service of the Presidency and the Council, would facilitate the identification of the common Union interest in international issues and the formulation of EU responses to these challenges. It would also provide greater support for the rotating Presidency and contribute to greater continuity between Presidencies.

Article J.4.2 of the Maastricht Treaty provides for the EU to "request the Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications". The Maastricht Treaty also provides that this Intergovernmental Conference review the relationship established between the EU and Western European Union with a view to furthering that Treaty's objectives, which are fully shared by Ireland, and in view of the approach of 1998, which marks the end of the 50 year span set out in the Western European Union Treaty.

A central question to the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations will be to determine how the CFSP provisions, including the EUWEU relationship, can best be developed to enhance the EU's contribution to European and global peace and security. There is an emerging consensus that the EU should be better able to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management tasks in such areas as peace-keeping and humanitarian operations, the Petersberg Tasks. It is possible that these peace-keeping and humanitarian tasks could provide a focus for the further development of the EU-WEU relationship, as the Turin conclusions state, in comformity with the UN Charter. As the White Paper has made clear, this is an area where I see potential for Ireland, in view of our accumulated expertise in peace-keeping and humanitarian work, to make a contribution.

The Turin conclusions also suggest an examination as to whether and to what extent closer co-operation in the area of armaments should be promoted by the Treaty. This is a complex issue which has arisen many times over the years in a number of different contexts. The tentative nature of the conclusions on this point indicates that the issue has lost none of its complexity. Ireland's primary concern will be to ensure that any developments in this area include a strengthening of the arms control policies that exist at the level of the European Union.

At the Madrid meeting of the Western European Union on 14 November 1995, which I attended as an observer, I commented on the acceptance by the Western European Union members in their contribution for the Intergovernmental Conference that a comprehensive definition of security is required rather than an exclusively military one. The Western European Union members explicitly acknowledged that the Intergovernmental Conference will need to harness to the best effect the diverse contributions to security and defence that European nations are able to make and the national security and defence positions of each country must be respected. There is an understanding that the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference must be acceptable to people in each member state. The Government's approach to the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations and the Western European Union will continue to be in harmony with our outlook and traditions and at the same time responsive to the new and still evolving challenges that face us in promoting peace, security and progress at the European and global level.

We are, naturally, preoccupied with the Intergovernmental Conference and the upcoming Irish Presidency. However, the Union's agenda over the next few years is very extensive and demanding. This was set out at the Madrid European Council and it is worth recalling at this stage as we start on the first step of the process, the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations.

After we complete the Intergovernmental Conference we will have to prepare the enlargement negotiations. This will probably involve intensive negotiations among the Fifteen, from the second half of 1997. The Commission is engaged in an intensive analysis of the conditions required for successful enlargement. I assure the House that Ireland wants successful enlargement and that we are very well aware of the eagerness for a successful enlargement on the part of the applicant countries. In ensuring the adequacy of the Union's preparations we are not placing obstacles in the way of the process or lacking an appreciation of the needs of the applicant countries. All previous enlargements were based on careful analysis of what was in the Union's interest, as well as that of the applicants, and all of them have been to Ireland's overall benefit. With the right approach to the negotiations, I am sure that the result of the next round of enlargement will be equally positive.

Enlargement inevitably brings in the question of cost and links in with the review of the Edinburgh Agreement setting the budget allocations through to 1999. Related important issues are the situation of the Structural Funds after 1999 and the continued funding and scope of the CAP. A key part of the larger agenda is, of course, the achievement of Economic and Monetary Union on schedule from 1 January 1999. All of these matters are of vital significance to Ireland. The Government will monitor very carefully the Council's and Commission's preparatory work. While devoting all necessary energy to the Presidency, we are taking care to keep an eye on the larger agenda.

The White Paper, which we discussed last week and which will be the subject of further debate after Easter on the floor of the House, in the Seanad and in committees, gives a clear outline of the Government's approach on all these issues. Not since our enlargement negotiations began more than a quarter of a century ago has an Irish Government gone on to a round of negotiations with its position so clearly set out in advance.

I will consider carefully all constructive criticism of the Government's approach to the Intergovernmental Conference and the related agenda issues I have already outlined. I will be very slow to accept the allegation that we needlessly delayed setting out our position. We have, for the first time in a generation and over a much wider spectrum, set out a basic approach to our European and foreign policy at the outset of a negotiation. If it takes slightly more than 12 months from the time the public consultation process was completed to prepare and produce a document touching on vital issues with huge implications for domestic policy then that is a reasonable timeframe.