Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996

Vol. 467 No. 5

Florence European Council and Irish Presidency of the European Union: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I am very pleased the House has the opportunity today for an extended debate on the outcome of the Florence European Council and the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union. This debate is a timely indicator of the importance of the European Union for Ireland as we stand on the threshold of our fifth Presidency.

I will deal with the Irish Presidency later. I will focus first on the outcome of the Florence European Council.

I was accompanied at the Council by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Spring, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell. The outcome is set out in detail in the Conclusions of the Councils copies of which I have had placed in the Library of the House.

As Deputies are aware, the lead-in to the Council was overshadowed by the BSE crisis and the related British policy of non co-operation on EU business. I am glad to say we were able to agree a resolution to this problem at Florence. This resolution is very much to the credit of the Italian Presidency which showed considerable skill in brokering the agreement.

It is my earnest wish that this episode has done no long-term harm to the Union. The many daunting challenges facing it will not be successfully tackled unless it operates on the principles of co-operation and solidarity. I am confident that with renewed goodwill on foot of the agreement at Florence it will be able to put this episode behind it. The Irish Presidency will work to ensure this.

Of more immediate concern to this country is the long-term effects of the BSE crisis on the beef industry and the economy. I am under no illusion that the formula worked out at Florence will automatically see the beef market restored to its pre-crisis levels. It creates a structure to deal with the various aspects of the UK ban based on science and proper procedures and should help to restore consumer confidence in beef.

The Government is fully aware of the special importance of the beef industry for many thousands of farmers and the economy as a whole. In this regard I am very pleased the Florence summit agreed an increased level of compensation for farmers. The total package, finalised at the Council of Agriculture Ministers yesterday, amounts to some £85 million for Irish farmers when account is taken of the retention of the beef deseasonalisation premium. The objective will be to get this assistance paid quickly and efficiently to farmers.

Compensation, while welcome, is not a long-term solution. Consumer confidence must be restored and markets for beef regained. The Government will ensure that all the relevant agencies direct their efforts in a co-ordinated fashion to assisting Irish beef to penetrate European and third country markets.

One immediate and beneficial result of the ending of the policy of non co-operation by the British was the resolution at Florence of the impasse over the Europol Convention. Member states will now be in a position to ratify the convention and the Minister for Justice will give priority to the enabling legislation in this jurisdiction. The establishment of Europol will greatly facilitate the Europe-wide fight against organised crime and drug trafficking, the problems we have been so tragically reminded of the past few hours.

The Florence Council also discussed at length the situation in the Union. It had before it the paper from the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, entitled Action for Europe: A Confidence Pact. On foot of the Santer pact the Florence Conclusions include a number of decisions in regard to the completion of the internal market, adoption of a new action plan for small and medium-sized enterprises and an action plan on innovation.

Regrettably it was not possible to agree at Florence the Commission's proposals for bridging the funding gap in the development of the Trans-European Networks, TENs. This issue will be considered further during the Irish Presidency.

Ireland was in favour of the Commission's proposals on TENs. Although the projects in question would not directly benefit Ireland we recognise the need for improvements in European infrastructure to enable the Union to compete better in the global market. We will work closely with the Commission during our Presidency to try to resolve the issue.

The working dinner at the summit was devoted to consideration of the Union's external relations with particular reference to Russia. The Tánaiste will deal in detail with external issues in his statement. The general feeling was one of optimism about the durability of economic reform and democracy in Russia.

The European Council adopted a declaration on Russia which acknowledged that the holding of the first round of the presidential elections in Russia demonstrated a firm commitment to democracy. This, in turn, provides a better basis for the continued development of relations between the Union and Russia. These relations will remain crucial to the security in Europe, not least in the former Yugoslavia where Russia is playing an important role in the implementation of the Dayton-Paris peace agreements and through its contribution for IFOR.

As Deputies will be aware, the Florence European Council considered it would be desirable to hold a special meeting of the European Council in October. I indicated in the course of the discussions that the Irish Presidency would be very happy to organise and host such a meeting. The intention was that such a meeting would be particularly useful in order to keep up the momentum of the Union's business in view of the range of issues facing it in the coming period.

The broad intention of Heads of State or Government is that this special European Council would be a relatively informal meeting offering an opportunity for a strategic think-in on the major issues facing Europe in the runup to the year 2000 and beyond. Foreign Ministers will also be present.

The convening of the meeting reflects to a considerable extent the positive experience of the Formentor meeting during the Spanish Presidency last year at which Head of State or Government had a very useful opportunity to have a free ranging exchange of views without focusing on specific texts or conclusions.

We will be in touch with our partners about the arrangements for the meeting with a view to confirming a date. The meeting will offer an opportunity to address the range of issues facing the Union and, among other things, to take note of progress at the Intergovernmental Conference. It is not envisaged that there would be a formal agenda or formal conclusions. This could be considered later if discussions or progress on one or more of the issues on the Union's agenda should so require.

The normal ongoing business of the Irish Presidency will be decided at the December European Council. It is probable that work on many of the key issues such as employment, crime, Economic and Monetary Union, and a draft Intergovernmental Conference Treaty would not be advanced enough for decision for the special European Council. Nonetheless the latter will, I believe, be a valuable political orientation session which will help the European Council to deal at the appropriate time with the specific challenges and issues raised.

I will turn now to the Irish Presidency of the European Union which will commence on Monday next. The Presidency will undoubtedly be a demanding one at a time when the Union has a full and challenging agenda. I can assure the House that planning for the Presidency from both a policy and administrative standpoint has been thorough and meticulous. The key agency for the administration of the Presidency will be the Ministers and Secretaries Group which I chair. This will co-ordinate the pursuit of the policy agenda during the Presidency with particular reference to the priorities we will set.

There will also be intensive, ongoing consultation at political and official levels during the Presidency with the Commission and other member states. I have already had a round of bilateral meetings with many of the other EU heads of state and government and with President Santer. Further such meetings will take place as necessary during the Presidency. There will be a meeting between the Government and the European Commission in Dublin on Tuesday next to discuss the Presidency agenda.

The Minister and Secretaries Group will also overse and monitor administrative and logistical aspects of the Presidency. Co-ordination will also take place at offical level. In addition all Departments have been engaged for many months in internal preparations for the demands of the Presidency. Overall I am satisfied that the preparations made and the structures put in place will ensure an effective and efficient Irish Presidency.

The central requirement of the Irish Presidency will of course be to progress the agenda of the Union. We will certainly be ambitious in this regard but we will also be realistic. The six months of the Irish Presidency, no more than any other Presidency, will not see a resolution of all the issues on the Union's agenda. The Government is however determined that this Presidency will be viewed as significant in terms of a substantive response to the challenges facing the Union.

In my view the challenges facing the EU and the resultant priority objectives for the Irish Presidency can be summarised as follows: a peaceful Europe in a peaceful world, secure jobs, sound money and safe streets. The policy agenda which Ireland has inherited and the Presidency priorities we have set ourselves all fail to some degree under one or more of these four headings.

The objective of a peaceful, secure and prosperous Europe must above all guide the deliberations at the Intergovernmental Conference. The Florence conclusions underline this by confirming that the Intergovernmental Conference must bring the Union closer to its citizens through addressing their expectations in relation to internal and external security.

Citizens are not overly interested in the complexities of matters such as institutional balance, important as they are for the effective functioning of the European Union. Citizens want to know whether the Union will be equipped to play its role in providing jobs, tackling crime and securing peace in Europe and among Europe's neighbours.

All the participants in the Intergovernmental Conference must bear in mind that the outcome has to be acceptable to and understood by the citizens of Europe. The experience of the referenda on Maastricht in Denmark and France is a salutary reminder against complacency in this regard.

The Florence conclusions have man-dated the Irish Presidency to produce a general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties for the December Dublin European Council. This will be a major task of our Presidency and one in which we will need the support of all member states. Our objective is that the Irish Presidency will make significant progress on the road to eventual agreement at the Intergovernmental Conference and in a way that will assist public support for the outcome of the conference.

Apart from the Intergovernmental Conference, tackling the ongoing European agenda in the key areas of employment and crime will be major priorities of the Irish Presidency. Employment is primarily a matter of national competence. This makes it difficult to agree substantive initiatives at European level. President Santer is to be commended and supported for his efforts in this regard. As the Santer paper indicates, the unemployment problem facing Europe is enormous. The rate of structural unemployment is increasing regularly and since 1991 aggregate employment has fallen by over 4 per cent in Europe. It has, incidentally, risen here.

This European problem demands a co-ordinated European approach. We will strive to help achieve this during our Presidency. In particular we will seek to progress those elements from the Santer pact highlighted in the Florence conclusions and we will discuss how this might be done at the meeting between the Government and the European Commission on Tuesday next. The Dublin European Council will take stock of progress on the Santer initiative.

The December Dublin European Council will also consider the second annual report on member states' employment policies as part of the procedures agreed at the 1994 Essen European Council. The key to employment creation is economic growth built on monetary and fiscal stability complemented by moderate income growth and structural measures to boost competitiveness. Ireland's employment creation performance in recent years is testimony to this. The active commitment of the social partners has also been crucial to our success. It is significant that the Santer pact proposes a similar strategy for Europe. President Santer's proposals recognise the need for special measures to tackle long-term unemployment. Ireland has much to offer in this regard, especially from our experience of the operation of local partnerships.

Achievement of economic and monetary union on time and in line with treaty requirements will be a significant force for the creation of the correct economic climate for employment growth. It is worth nothing that there is much debate in Europe centering on criticism of the effect of the criteria for economic and monetary union as far as employment is concerned and criticism of the whole concept of economic and monetary union. The criteria in terms of limits on borrowing, inflation and interest rates are just common sense and are things that any sensible Government would have to do anyway, regardless of whether we were to have a single currency. The single currency is going to save a very large amount of money in transaction processes and is going to make Europe more efficient by saving much unproductive expenditure in the area of exchange of currencies from one denomination to another.

It is the Government's policy that Ireland qualify for European Monetary Union from its commencement. The Government's fiscal and economic policies are and will be built around that objective. These policies have delivered excellent results — the highest growth rate in Europe, increases in employment well above the European average — employment has fallen in Europe where it has risen in Ireland — and historically low rates of inflation and interest rates.

The Europe wide fight against organised crime and drug trafficking has been given a major boost by the clearance of the way at Florence for the ratification of Europol. Deputies will be aware of the priority which the Government intends to give during the Irish Presidency to the drugs issue. We have already signalled our intent in this regard by tabling proposals at the Intergovernmental Conference for treaty changes to better enable the Union to counter drug trafficking. The Government has also decided on a number of specific initiatives in the drugs area which it intends to promote during the Presidency, notably, the following: A review by member states of the adequacy of co-operation in protecting the external borders of the EU with particular reference to combating the problem of the importation of drugs by land, sea or air, the introduction of arrangements for co-operation between national forensic science laboratories as an aid to law enforcement in consultation with Europol, a declaration aimed at the introduction of sentences for serious drug trafficking offences in the national laws of each member state, which come within the range of the severest penalties imposed in that member state, a Community-wide initiative to be launched to encourage member states' customs administrations to enter into memoranda of understanding with relevant trade bodies and companies in the private sector, with a view to enlisting their help in the fight against drugs, and the conclusion of the conciliation process between the European Parliament and the Council of Health Minister to ensure that the Community Action Programme on the Prevention of Drug Dependence in the field of public health (1996-2000), which includes health and education action items is adopted. In addition we will also seek to advance implementation of the report of the EU Expert Group on Drugs which was approved at the Madrid European Council.

The priority we attach to the drugs problem stems from our concern at the corrosive effect it is having on European society. Ireland has not been immune from the havoc and misery which this modern day scourge has wreaked on whole communities across the European Union.

Clearly action at EU level against drugs raises the issue of more funding for such action at EU level. Putting it bluntly, given the scale of the European drugs problem the current level of EU spending on direct action against drugs is very inadequate, I would like to see more being done on EU funding for action against drugs and the Irish Presidency will be exploring possibilities in this regard.

On the external relations front we will be required during our Presidency to progress the structured dailogue process with the applicant states as well as coordinating the Union's position in its various international relations. In regard to the next enlargement of the Union we will be anxious to ensure that the strategy for accession by the applicant states is kept on track so that the overall scenario for the next enlargement as set out in the Madrid Council Conclusions can be realised.

The next round of enlargement will for the first time create a real prospect of pan-Continental peace, stability and prosperity. Ireland welcomes this prospect and I look forward to meeting the Heads of State and Government of the applicant countries at the December European Council as we met them in Florence last week.

During the Presidency I anticipate that there will be EU Summit meetings with Russia, Japan and the US. The outcome will, I hope, be closer relations between the Union and these crucial actors on the world stage. The goals of peace, security and prosperity are as relevant internationaly as they are to Europe. Co-operation with the other great political and economic powers is the only way to deal with the challenges of globalisation especially unemployment, social and environmental degradation and the fight against international crime.

I have endeavoured to outline in this statement the key priority areas of the Irish Presidency. As Deputies will appreciate there will be a vast amount of other work progressed through Ministerial Councils during the Irish Presidency. This includes important work in the following areas: The Irish Presidency will concentrate on a number of related topic in the sphere of education, namely school effectiveness, lifelong learning and in-career development of teachers. As 1996 is the Year of Life Long Learning, particular significance attaches to this topic. A major objective of the Irish Presidency will be achieving political agreement on the 5th Environment Action programme which involves a review of the Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development. Deputy Burke will be pleased to hear that as he has raised that topic here every time European matters are discussed. An important feature of the work of the Irish Presidency will be the finalisation of the Union's 1997 budget. The Irish Presidency will continue to encourage further debate on the work programme attached to the White Paper for the European Union Energy Policy. A key issue here will be the development of a strategy for the promotion of renewable sources of energy.

Ireland will conduct its forthcoming Presidency, as we have done in the past, in an impartial manner. It is worth making the point that, as Members know, when one is in the Chair one is not necessarily able to directly promote one's national interests in the way one would be able if one was not in the Chair. Obviously we are committed to carry through the work of the Union in an impartial way that respects the interests of all countries. Nonetheless we will be concerned to ensure that the interests of smaller countries and the interests of rural and peripheral areas are adequately protected and in that we will have substantial support.

I thank Members for their patience in listening to this outline of the subject. Unfortunately I may have to leave earlier than I had anticipated and I may not be able to hear all of Deputy Ahern's speech. I trust he will understand that there is no discourtesy intended in that regard. Unfortunately tragic events have caused a change in the programme for the Dáil but I hope that my contribution will be useful to the House. I can assure Members that we will pay careful attention to this more extensive than usual debate. The Opposition have been calling for some time for a debate on the Irish Presidency and more speakers are being allowed in on this occasion.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am conscious that we have had a debate and an expression of sympathy and I will understand if the Taoiseach must leave.

The European Council in Florence will be remembered principally for the ending of Britain's policy of non co-operation with Europe and the adoption of a framework for eliminating the BSE epidemic in Britain. This House should not be greatly concerned with arguments about who won and who lost. The British policy of nonco-operation was a failed tactic and was wound up in Florence — I am glad, not least for the sake of our Presidency. The experience and results will not encourage the British Government or any other Government to adopt the tactic of systematic non co-operation in future. Inevitably there is always a price to be paid in terms of loss of influence by the Government concerned which resorts to such tactics. The red carpet treatment accorded to Tony Blair in Bonn recently tells its own story.

At the same time, Ireland should be wary of endorsing proposals to systematically bypass or to make next to impossible legitimate opposition by member states in relation to their vital interests. The larger the European Union becomes, the more costly a stand-alone policy tends to become, and it should be left to each member state to make its own calculations.

There is a certain temptation that frequently surfaces among some of the bigger member states in these situations, simply to want to steamroll their way through, to establish the conduct of European affairs by big power directorate. That should not be allowed to happen.

I am sure the Government will be attentive to the rights of small member states in the Intergovernmental Conference. Proposals for institutional reform should be carefully reviewed in the light of whether they are intended to enhance genuinely the functioning of the European Union by democratic consensus, or to marginalise the influence of the medium and smaller member states, which are becoming more numerous. A responsible and constructive contribution by a country such as Ireland during our Presidency will help to reinforce the case for maintaining the rights of smaller member states, and not disturbing the institutional equilibrium.

The Italian Presidency has already come to the conclusion that there is no basis for extending in a sweeping way majority voting. The small member states do not gang up on the large ones. With the exception of the bilateral Franco-German relationship, most of the shifting coalitions of interest in the Union are a mixture of bigger and smaller states.

One of the tasks of the Irish Presidency, it now appears, will be to produce a draft text of a new European Union Treaty. I hope such text will not be misused as political fodder in the next British general election. One of the first items — guarantees of fundamental rights and mechanisms for dealing with a member state that might decide to suspend basic rights — is important, if the democratic charcter of the European Union is to be safeguarded. I am glad that the Italian progress report has recommended retention of a commissioner for each member state. I am also glad the French idea of putting a high representative in charge of the common foreign and security policy, working in tandem with the Presidency, is gaining ground. My party has no diffculty with the framework proposed for the elimination of BSE. I fervently hope the heat will go out of the BSE question and that implementation of the framework will be strictly on the basis of best scientific advice.

The Taoiseach

They would have been better off to have stuck to that line always.

Mr. B. Ahern

I agree. There should be close monitoring of the ongoing incidence of CJD in Britain and elsewhere so that consumers can judge for themselves whether there is any real cause for concern. While public fears certainly justify the utmost precautions, including the elaborate programme to eliminate BSE, mainly in British cattle, they do not justify a boycott of beef consumption. Irish beef is an excellent product which is benefical to health rather than the contrary. We must ensure there is no misappropriation of Irish labelling and stand ready to refute the whispering campaigns against Irish and European beef by interests in Britain that have been hurt by this affair, some of whom want to make it as bad as possible for everyone by suggesting we are all cheating or hushing up the true incidence of BSE.

Does the Taoiseach share the British Prime Minister's optimism that the European Union ban on British beef exports will be lifted by November? I will give him until October to state his views on that.

The Taoiseach

A timetable has not been set.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Taoiseach may not have set one, but somebody has dug a very deep hole. I hope the Irish Government will be among the first to support the early lifting of the ban on beef exports from Northern Ireland which would save us £400,000 per week in additional surveillance costs. I am disappointed the Taoiseach, who can be very concerned about other matters relating to Unionists, has shown little interest in the practical concerns of Northern Ireland farmers. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has been positively aggressive towards poor Unionist farmers and Deputy Burke and I have been left to defend them.

Mr. R. Burke

With a heart and a half.

Mr. D. Ahern

They are not that poor.

The Taoiseach

Their grass is green.

Mr. B. Ahern

Many people will have found the zealous partitionsim of the Government without any obvious regret in relation to Irish beef from the North distateful. While I recognise the interests of farmers in this jurisdiction, for whom the Government is responsible must be of paramount concern, we must be more helpful and sensitive towards those in the North who have made a fair case.

From the autumn there may be serious marketing difficulties for Irish and European beef generally. The Irish Presidency will be in charge of handling the whole issue at European level. Restoring confidence in beef between now and then and reopening closed markets will be a major challenge. Careless statements are capable of causing serious economic damage and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry should be aware of that. We should not have a repeat of defeatist statements from the Minister that in 20 years' time half the country will be under trees or that a mass cull across Europe might be necessary for economic reasons. If more compensation is needed nationally, the Government should consider converting CAP fines into EU assistance, as Spain was allowed to recently with its £230 million CAP fine.

The Taoiseach has adopted a series of snappy sound bites as priorities for the Irish Presidency, a peaceful Europe, secure jobs, a sound economy and safe streets. I note that a clean environment is not included in his list and this will not be another green presidency. It will be difficult to fulfil these general aims with real substance. While the Taoiseach is entitled to be ambitious, he should avoid creating unrealistic expectations of what the European Union can achieve, under the Irish Presidency, in a six month period. It will be difficult to get things moving until September.

The lead-in to the Irish Presidency on jobs is not promising. The substance of the principal employment measure proposed by President Santer, the so-called confidence pact, was rejected, or at least deferred, by the European Council. On the employment front, the Union has not advanced much since the European Council in Essen in December 1994, before the change of Government.

I note the European Council failed to agree additional funding for the Trans-European Networks under the Union's employment initiative. It appears to be Chancellor Kohl's view that employment policy is primarily a matter for national governments and that it is not the task of public administrations to create jobs. It is also argued that the Union should not spend money freely when most countries are tightening their budgets. I also note the documentation published recently is similar to that which has been around for a number of years. While it may have been compiled in a more comprehensive manner, the contents have not changed much since President Delors' time. The new documentation merely contains pious aspirations about what can be done.

The trans-European Networks are relevant to Ireland because of our geographical peripherality and we should support national efforts to bind the European Union through better communications. One of the stated aims of the networks is to facilitate the development and reduce the isolation of the less favoured regions in the Union, from which we stand to benefit.

Most of what the European Union can do for employment is indirect. The flow of Structural and Cohesion Funds was negotiated during my period as Minister for Finance and has contributed to raising the level of employment here. I note the German Government intends to continue to seek Objective One status for the former east German provinces whose per capita income is well below ours. That confirms the urgency of developing differentiated regional statistics here before negotiations begin for the post-1999 period. I referred to this matter on a number of occasions during Question Time and I hope somebody is doing something to compile that data.

The £240 million in support measures from the EU for the peace process, of which the southern Border counties are due 20 per cent, was also tied up before I left office and should create employment in those areas. This matter was raised by a number of my colleagues on Question Time today. If the Government can unblock the proposed funding agreed for the Trans-European Networks in the next six months it will have done a good job. I wish it well in that regard.

In so far as sound money is concerned, the Taoiseach will again tread in his predecessor's footsteps. The criteria for such money was established under the Maastricht Treaty, although that had to be subsequently modified following the currency crisis in the summer of 1994. The Government inherited a small current budget surplus and an economy that fulfilled that criteria. All the Government has had to do is to maintain that position and keep public expenditure under firm control. As far as Europe is concerned, monetary union and a single currency is on track for 1999. There is a determination to proceed and I am pleased to note American banks are no longer rubbishing the idea of a single currency. I note from various magazines I have time to read that their view has changed fundamentally in recent months.

The Irish Presidency can lead by example. The recent European Union Commission report on the economic and financial position in Ireland in the transition to European Monetary Union is critical of the pro-cyclical nature of Irish fiscal policies in the 1990s. Whereas the Taoiseach has a habit of criticising expenditure increases for being too high during the international downturn in the early 1990s, the Commission criticises our fiscal management at that time for being too tight and points out that the reversal in the expenditure trend in 1990 to 1994 was modest in comparision to the cuts in the preceding years. I am glad to note this reflects the policies I advocated.

The cyclical adjusted deficit improved despite low growth whereas it deteriorated since during high growth. The report states that in the current strong phase, the expenditure plans of the 1995 budget, together with the post-budget commitments, imply that future revenue growth is being committed. In other countries this has often proved troublesome. Unfortunately the Taoiseach stated the Government does not believe that. Its policy is to continue to spend. I am sure people who believe in tight fiscal control will have something to say when they read those reports.

The annual economic report for 1996 states that the favourable cyclical conditions and the need to further reduce the debt ratio warrants greater efforts to reduce the budget deficit. The stability pact agreed between ECOFIN Ministers commits member states to achieve a budget balance or a surplus in the medium term to allow the automatic stabilisers to work in times of recession.

The European Council recommended that budgetary consolidation centre on reducing expenditure rather than increasing revenue. That was weaker than the position of the European Social Partners in the Tripartite Conference, which in a document put before the Europe Council, said that lower taxes are more favourable to growth than an increase in public spending. That is not the philosophy of this Government.

Two points should be made about this — the first is a purely political one. Much political comment and comparative budgetary performance under different Governments does not refer to the stage of the economic cycle. For the Taoiseach to make jibes about the rate of increase of expenditure during a serious international downture under a Fiann Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in the early 1990s is economically illiterate. The Commission, if anything, is of the view that we operated too tight a regime in 1991-93 and that the present Government is too lax. This is a precise reversal of the picture which the Taoiseach presents when he is trying to score a cheap policical point, as when he ranted on today despite the Ceann Comhairle's best efforts to control him.

The more serious and substantial point is that we need to leave ourselves an adequate margin of safety. The incoming Government in 1997 should not have to face vast IOUs consisting of a lot of unpaid promises made by an outgoing Government, which is what we are seeing at present. Ministers are racing around the country making promises, knowing that they will not have to deliver. We all remember the house improvement grant, initiated by a previous Minister from a similar type coalition, which obliged us to spend about £200 million at the end of the 1980s. The stability pact proposing a maximum borrowing level of about 1 per cent of GDP in times of prosperity leaves a safety margin for dealing with periods of recession, which anyone running a household or living on small means would understand.

Another important function of the Irish Presidency will be the setting of the relationship between participants and non-participants in relation to currency. A new exchange rate mechanism is proposed. I regret the British Government has already ruled out joining it. Article 109 of the Maastricht Treaty lays down that non-participating member states are required to treat their exchange rate policies as a matter of common concern to avoid any distortion of the Single Market.

We all wish to see secure streets and I welcome the clearance given to Europol. It was ironic that British retaliation in relation to the BSE crisis was holding up joint action in the fight against terrorism, among other things. I hope Europol will be given sufficient resources, powers and co-operation to become effective. While a European dimension in the fight against drug trafficking is vitally important, the brunt of the responsibility will continue to fall on national police forces — the Garda Síochána in our case.

Last week's conviction of a major drug dealer who received a long sentence is welcome, but its not reassuring to know he was continually out on bail and that this Government had done nothing about the operation of the bail laws. We do not know how many unresolved crimes have been committed by those on bail. No amount of European co-ordination will be an adequate substitute for a lack of political will by the Government.

In the economic sphere, European solidarity can be of great assistance to member states determined to do everything possible. This was part of the secret of the success of our national recovery post 1987, which people should not forget. I hope the European fight against crime will go beyond routine exchanges of information, conferences, documents and the few speeches which have been made ad infinitum over the years. If people were around as long as I have been, they would get tired listening to them. I hope it will provide a fast and effective co-ordination of effort and regular human exchanges, which might mean something. Countries like Ireland which have to police a disproportionate share of European waters relative to population should get some European Union assistance in mounting regular air-sea coastal patrols. That is a real test for our partners in Europe. If they believe we should do something about the drug situation, they should help to fund it.

Like the United States, the EU should vigorously tackle the producer countries in North Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. Recently I pointed out how drugs are transported across Europe from areas where opium is grown and how the industry operates. The Garda Síochána is very aware of this and I would like to compliment it on its research and the efforts it has made to understand how these third countries operate. We must see if the political leadership in Europe will do anything other than issue a directive. The EU should work out co-operation programmes with the relevant governments so the problem is tackled at source, with appropriate financial resources if necessary. This requires active foreign policy.

As regards a peaceful Europe, this is an area where we must act primarily at home. The biggest contribution to a successful Irish Presidency would be to secure a renewed end to violence here. Before coming to that, I would like to consider peace in Europe in its general political context. I have followed closely the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Intergovernmental Conference, which is a major concern for a country like Ireland which is attached to its tradition of military neutrality. I note with alarm pressure coming from the Greek Government for guarantees of territorial solidarity — in other words, trying to commit the EU to involvement in future disputes with Turkey even in relation to uninhabited islands. I do not see why we and our partners should accept an obligation to be drawn automatically into war in such a scenario.

I welcome the incorporation of the so-called Petersberg task of humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management missions into the EU Treaty. I have made it clear that Fianna Fáil can support that proposal even if implementation is left to the Western European Unions as long as observer countries can take part on a case by case basis, as we do with the UN. Ireland has a good deal in common with Britain in terms of our wish not to see the Western European Union annexed by or subordinated in to the EU. We would prefer necessary co-operation to be on a more arms length basis. We note that this is strongly the view of the Western European Union Assembly. I had the opportunity to talk to the President of the Assembly about that and to insist that the Western European Union must remain an autonomous organisation, something with which we agree.

The Western European Union wishes to define a future European nuclear strategy which is not something in which the EU, as such, should get involved. The smoothness of the EU's future expansion may depend on it not being perceived as a nuclear superpower but as a largely political and economic organisation.

As regards the White Paper's ill thought out proposal that Ireland should participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace, which represents an astonishing about turn by the Labour Party, I welcome the statement by the NATO Secretary General, Javier Solana, that it wants no new semi-detached members and that the free choice of alignment must be the foundation on which post-Yalta Europe is built. The Tánaiste, who is seeking semi-detached membership of NATO, through its Partnership for Peace proposal, has made no commitment to giving the people the free choice of military alignment or non-alignment.

Europe must use its influence to help the Middle East peace process back on the rails. I welcome the clear statement by the Europe Council that the honouring of the agreements which underlie the peace process is essential. We must also ensure that the parties to the peace process are not discouraged. Any renewed conflict could badly affect vital European interests, apart from any higher considerations.

I would like to have seen the European Council issue a stronger statement on Tibet. The European Council weakly looked for more committed respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. The Chinese armed occupation of Tibet and its ruthless suppression of the people and religion of that country is an affront to humanity and a flagrant violation of the right to self-determination. I look forward to the day when democracy inevitably comes to China and when the Tibetan people are set free so the terrible injustice of the past 40 years will be partially set right. Our foreign policy has been far too timid and weak kneed on that subject. No doubt parties like Democratic Left will oppose any criticism of former Chinese comrades. We should take courage from the example set by the German Parliament which recently passed on all-party resolution on human rights violations in Tibet. The German Government was even prepared to sponsor a special conference. Every parliament in Europe, including this one, should pass similar resolutions. I would like to see Europe under the Irish Presidency taking a far tougher line on this subject, with European solidarity ensuring that the Chinese Government cannot single out any European country for economic retaliation.

I do not want to distract proper attention from European issues by discussion at length of Northern Ireland, which was the subject of bilateral conversations between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and would normally be included in a debate such as this. Like everyone else, I am dismayed by the recent deterioration in the security position and the ill-natured political wrangling of some of the parties in the North at the early stages of the multiparty talks. I am also depressed by the apparent breakdown in any meaningful relationship between the Government and the Republican movement after recent IRA actions, a relationship which was fundamental to obtaining the August 1994 ceasefire. Whatever we might say in hindsight, the ceasefire was a huge and inspiring achievement.

I hope the Taoiseach, with help from other quarters, including ourselves — Deputy Ray Burke, myself and our colleagues have consistently tried to be as constructive and helpful as possible to the Government in these matters and I am glad most serious commentators acknowledge that fact even if the Government refuses to do so — will be able to persuade the Republican movement to have the ceasefire restored, as is the people's wish, and to further consolidate it if that is possible. I fervently hope we will not see it finally disappear, as many of us fear.

As I reminded the Taoiseach yesterday, his predecessor, Deputy Reynolds, denounced the IRA bombing at Heathrow in the strongest terms in this House on 10 March 1994. He made a demand for a clear decision on peace and for an end to prevarication and procrastination. He stated:

Democracy is indivisible. If parties want to play a full part in the democratic process and to take part in direct negotiations, armed struggle by associated organisations must be definitively disowned and ended clearly and unambiguously.

Despite such clear and forthright statements, which it was sufficient to say once and not endlessly repeat, the lines were kept open, productive contact was maintained and a ceasefire was obtained in August 1994 which lasted for 17 months — it should have lasted for good.

The present political stand-off on all sides is profoundly depressing. There is no sign of the skills needed to solve serious disputes, of which I have experience in the industrial area, as all sides criticise each other over the airwaves. None of this will be of assistance in the incoming Irish Presidency during which I wish the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers involved every success. They have a formidable reputation, acquired by the Irish Presidency under Charles Haughey and Gerry Collins in 1990, to live up to. That is the standard of performance against which they will be measured in terms of issues resolved by the Irish Presidency.

As an Opposition we intend to be constructive and helpful during that important period for the country. I am aware from the Whip that there are about 30 people from here in Europe today and we have not even taken over the Presidency. There is not much point in having all my colleagues present when half the Government is in Europe. Perhaps the Government will inform the Whip when those people will be back to that we will have a useful sitting here. We will assist the Government in every way possible, particularly Deputies Ray Burke and Davern who will be primarily involved in European issues in the months ahead. That does not mean parliamentary democracy will stop functioning. We will try in the European spirit not to undermine the Government but to encourage and spur it to greater achievement. We will highlight to our domestic audience and to Europe at large the areas where we believe it is falling down. It is in the interests of the country that the Presidency is a success. I hope that matters of the Intergovernmental Conference, employment initiatives and Protocol and justice issues, will be completed before the December summit.

Miss Quill

In his address to the House, the Taoiseach set lofty, although not in all cases very defined, objectives for the forthcoming Irish Presidency. I wish him and the Government well during the Presidency and hope those six months will be fruitful ones for all Europeans.

Nobody would quibble with his decision to put employment at the top of the European agenda for the next six months — it should have been there for the last six years. Equally, there will be general support for the Taoiseach's commitment to tackling the drugs issue on a continent-wide basis. It is important, however, not to exaggerate the potential of the Irish Presidency, or of any country's presidency. To Irish Ministers and officials will fall the honour and duty of chairing hundreds of important EU committee meetings over the next six months. We will not, however, be dictating policies to Europe in relation to employment or any other matter. Europe's White House will not be moving to Dublin.

It is a pity that somebody is not in a position to dictate policies to the Governments of Europe, because Europe is now the disaster zone of the developed world in terms of its employment performance. The figures speak for themselves. There are now 18 million people unemployed in the European Union, half of whom have been out of work for more than a year. Unemployment figures in the major EU economies are truly depressing — Germany 10 per cent, France 12 per cent, Belgium 13 per cent, Spain 23 per cent. Of the bigger economies, only Britain at 8 per cent and the Netherlands at 7 per cent have a single-digit unemployment rates. Contrast that with the position elsewhere in the developed world. New Zealand is perhaps the most isolated and peripheral economy anywhere on the globe yet prudent economic management and brought its unemployment rate down to a respectable 6 per cent. Unemployment in the United States is running at 5.5 per cent, half the European average. In Japan the rate of unemployment is less than one-third of the European average. The message must surely be getting through to the Governments of Europe at this stage and high unemployment is not some act of God but the inevitable result of pursuing particular policies.

In an era of global competitiveness over-taxation and over-regulation are indulgences that no country can afford if it is seriously committed to reducing unemployment. I will give one example. Dramatic improvements in telecommunications, coupled with relatively free international trade in goods, services and capital means that one of Ireland's main competitors for international software projects is not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but India. The implications of this have not yet been taken on board by policy-makers in Europe.

Jobs are flowing out of the German economy at an alarming rate. There are four million people out of work in Germany now and the number is rising. Six years ago Germany was perceived as a free-market economy with a socialist neighbour, the then Czechoslovakia. Today, many Germany industrialists see these roles as having been reversed, such has been the enthusiasm and dynamism with which the new Czech Republic has embraced the free market. German companies are transferring labour intensive manufacturing activities out of their own country into the more hospitable climes of the Czech Republic as fast as they can. Belatedly, the German Government has come to the painful realisation that its traditional policies no longer work and is beginning to effect a major change in direction.

Recently Mr. Gunnar Uldall, the economic spokesperson for the Christian Democrats Party, came forward with one of the most radical tax plans Europe has ever seen. He has proposed a top rate of personal tax a 28 per cent with much lower tax rates applying to annual incomes below £13,500. These proposals have not yet been translated into practical action but I advise this Government to study carefully the German proposals and the reasoning behind them in the hope it might see the light and follow suit. If the Germans, the inventors of partnerships policies, have finally come around to recognising the essential link between high taxation and high unemployment, why is it taking our Government so long to do the same?

Chancellor Kohl has set in train a major reform of Germany's expansive and expensive welfare state. He has set in train also tight controls of public sector pay and the liberalisation of its over-regulated labour market. His target is to reduce unemployment from four million to two million within five years. It is unfortunate that Ireland does not appear to have any target in relation to reducing unemployment. I do not wish to be parochial in the context of this debate but in my city unemployment has risen by 10 per cent in the past three years.

We all wish Chancellor Kohl well in his efforts. Adding two million people to the German workforce would be the equivalent of admitting a new member state to the Union, such would be the increase in purchasing power it would deliver. The Kohl initiatives are designed to restore German competitiveness. They would be greatly helped if other European countries, were to set about simultaneously improving their own competitiveness. That might seem an unlikely scenario but it is already happening.

The Brussels bureaucracy continues to spew out new labour regulations at an alarming rate. Those regulations will have the opposite result to what Chancellor Kohl is trying to achieve. Effectively, this involves imposing on other European economies the non-wage labour costs which are currently crippling the Germans.

The Social Charter, for example, imposes a considerable burden on European industry and commerce and is bound to have a dampening effect on employment growth in the countries where it is now to be applied. It is ironic that Ireland, with one of the worst unemployment records in Europe, signed on enthusiastically for the Social Charter while Britain, one of the most successful employment generators in the European Union, decided to opt out. The more regulations we impose on industry in Europe, the greater the likelihood of that industry moving elsewhere.

Companies do not have to move out of Europe to avoid excessive labour regulation. Employers here can increase their use of casual labour if the State attaches heavy burdens to employing full-time permanent staff. This is becoming particularly obvious in Ireland where there has been a dramatic increase in the use of casual labour in recent years.

Ironically, tens of thousands of Irish workers would probably be better off if there were no labour regulations. These people, working on nine month or on zero hour contracts, miss out on many of the benefits of being in employment. It is almost impossible, for instance, for such workers to secure loans or mortgages from financial institutions. That puts home ownership beyond their means and makes it virtually out of the question.

Casual employment in Ireland is no longer confined to traditional service sector areas such as catering or contract cleaning. Casualisation is now a growing feature of the manufacturing sector also, where the number of casual workers has doubled from approximately 12,000 to 24,000 in recent years. That is a sad example of the law of unintended consequences at work. The bureaucrats in Brussels set out to protect and enhance employment but they have achieved the exact opposite. For those working in the exposed sector of the economy, overregulation can lead to underemployment.

What kind of policy will the Taoiseach advocate for dealing with the problem of unemployment in Europe? Will he favour tax reform and the creation of an enterprise culture as he did when he was in Opposition or will he favour the high tax high spend approach of the rainbow Government he leads? Will he tell his European colleagues that the market creates jobs or that government creates jobs? There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches. It would be useful if we could agree on an answer to these questions at home before setting out to tell Europe how to deal with their employment problems.

One of the most complex issues with which the Irish Presidency will have to deal over the next six months is enlargement. Enlargement will transform the shape of the whole European Union and, in doing so, it will have important consequences for Ireland. Plans are now well advanced to expand the European Union eastwards and southwards. This process of enlargement could bring in up to ten new member states, stretching the Union from the Baltic to the Balkans.

The five countries at the head of the queue for admission are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia, although questions were raised recently about the quality of democracy in Slovakia. It is estimated that the cost of bringing these five countries into the EU would increase the overall Union budget by over £20 billion per year. Of this, agricultural spending would account for up to £10 billion.

Enlargement would dramatically alter Ireland's position in the European league table. The arrival of the new entrants would push Ireland into what soccer pundits would call a comfortable mid-table position. As a nation we have prospered by parading our poverty in Brussels but all of the new entrants will be much poorer than Ireland. In the wealthiest of the five aspirant countries, the Czech Republic, GDP per head is less than half what it is in Ireland; in Poland it is less than one-third.

These countries are likely to have a much better call on EU Structural and Cohesion Funds than Ireland. Accordingly, we should now prepare ourselves for a fall-off in European funding. It is important to realise how dependent our Government spending programmes are on the availability of European money. The Department of Education, for instance, will receive no less than £128 million to support its spending programmes in the current year. FAS, the State training and employment service, receives £71 million, or a sixth of its total budget, from the EU.

In the infrastructural area, the fall-off in funding will have major consequences. The level of EU support ranges from 48 per cent of the total expenditure for developments at commercial seaports to 75 per cent for national roads projects. Our total net receipts from the EU amount to £1.85 billion. This is the equivalent of £35 per week for every household in the country, making Ireland the largest recipient in the world of development aid on a per capita basis.

This money may not disappear entirely when the current round of funding ends in 1999. However, the prudent approach would be to budget for a significant reduction in the moneys that will be available from the end of this decade onwards. The taxpayers of Germany largely pay this European largesse to Ireland. They contribute about 80 per cent of the EU budget, roughly £10 billion per year. Reunification is already putting a strain on Germany's public finances. It is estimated that the former West Germany is currently channelling about £85 billion in Government aid to the former East Germany. The Germans will not go out of their way to pump millions into a developed country such as Ireland, which is constantly boasting about its strong economic performance.

The implications of a cutback in funding are particularly serious for the agricultural sector. This country benefits to the tune of £1,400 million per year in agricultural subsidies. The aspirant member states from central and eastern Europe are substantial food producers and food exporters. However, farming in those countries is much less developed than it is in Ireland. Their claim for preferential treatment over Ireland will be strong.

We must also be conscious of the inexorable drift towards worldwide free trade in food commodities. Food exporters such as New Zealand and Australia have already positioned themselves well for this challenge. Ireland, by contrast, is ill-prepared for a move towards free trade in food. On the contrary, our food industry has grown inordinately dependent on subsidies and this cannot be good for the country in the long-term.

In the beef and cattle sector about half of total exports go to heavily subsidised third country markets such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Russia. It is an artificial trade which would not be sustainable without EU subsidies. This might be an opportune time for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to set out his strategic view of where the Irish food and agriculture industry is going over the next five to ten years. It would be unrealistic for the Irish Government to oppose eastward enlargement in order to protect agriculture. It is apparent that the Germans are determined to shift the centre of the European Union eastwards from Brussels to Berlin and I doubt that anything we attempt will stop that process. It is time our Government concentrated its resources on preparing Irish agriculture for the challenges of enlargement rather than trying to stop the inevitable process of enlargement itself. Europe is at a crossroads. During the next few years the Union can go in one of two directions. It can remain a community of democratic, independent nations bound together in a single market or it can develop into a fully fledged federation, the united states of Europe. Europe is thus on the verge of a momentous decision which will have important long-term consequences for Ireland. However, there has been virtually no debate on that subject in this country. We pride ourselves on being good Europeans and on being enthusiastic supporters of the Brussels agenda. We look down our noses in a patronising fashion at the truculent British and their endless squabbling over European issues. A little realism is called for. Our attitudes to Europe have been heavily influenced by the fact that as one of the poorer member states we have been significant beneficiaries of European largesse over the past 20 years or more. What will happen when we cease to be a significant beneficiary of EU funds? How would be fancy, in seven or eight years' time, becoming net contributors to the EU budget to help finance road building in Bulgaria or education in Estonia?

It is time we engaged in serious debate about the future of Europe and our part in it. Are we to be minimalists like the Danes and the British or are we committed to a federalist model with Brussels as the European equivalent of Washington and Dublin the equivalent of Little Rock, Arkansas?

Mr. Dukes

Where would that leave Cork?

Miss Quill

Kinsale is now the best town in Ireland and perhaps in Europe. It will probably set itself up as the cultural and food capital.

During the next three years the Taoiseach will face momentous decisions and I wish him well. However, I am gravely disappointed at the importance the Taoiseach's agenda places on environmental issues. I had hoped that Ireland's Presidency would act strongly for the "greening" of the Maastricht agenda. One of the greatest problems facing Europe in the next ten years is how to deal with the disposal of nuclear waste. Ireland as a non-producer of nuclear energy and of nuclear waste should attempt to put the safe disposal of nuclear waste at the heart of its agenda. It should attempt to establish, in the course of its Presidency, an independent multi-member state agency to supervise the safe disposal of nuclear waste. I had hoped that would have been sought.

This Government, particularly its leftwing elements, constantly calls for the closure of THORP. About 8,000 jobs are dependent on that facility in Cumbria and I do not envisage the British Prime Minister taking such calls seriously and putting all these people out of employment.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy should talk to Deputy Molloy about that.

Miss Quill

As a realistic first step, we ought to try to put in place an independent inspectorate to police the transport and disposal of nuclear waste. The east coast of our country is very vulnerable. We should at least attempt to establish such an agency in the course of our Presidency. It would be a practical achievement for Ireland. If the Government succeeds in the meantime in getting THORP and Sellafield closed down, I will not shout stop. We will have squandered an great opportunity if we do not put key environmental issues at the heart of the agenda for the Irish Presidency.

I am glad the Taoiseach has placed such huge emphasis on drugs. It is unrealistic that this country, with such an extensive and open coastline, should be called upon to provide all the resources necessary to prevent the importation of drugs. The Presidency is an ideal opportunity, which we should grasp, to seek aid from Europe to enable us to play our part in controlling the trans-boundary tranfer of lethal drugs within and outside the EU.

I hope Ireland's Presidency will be fruitful for this country and for all Europeans.

Mr. Dukes

Missionaries are wonderful people who have a great conviction that they are here to save people from the darkness which went before. The Progressive Democrats are missionaries in the House——

Miss Quill

I am glad the Deputy realises that.

Mr. Dukes

——but like all missionaries they tend to underestimate totally the value of the old religions and practices which existed before they woke up. I am delighted to tell Deputy Quill that contrary to what she thinks there is already a very vibrant and acrimonious debate taking place in Ireland about the future of the European Union, our future participation in it and the shape of it. This debate is taking place in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs — I am sure Deputy Burke, the vice-chairman of the committee, will agree that the debate in this committee is lively — and in the Joint Committee on European Affairs. A member of Deputy Quill's party, Deputy O'Malley, is a frequent and valued contributor to that debate. The Progressive Democrats Party does not seem to be having that debate and I strongly recommend to Deputy Quill that she inform herself about the debate which is taking place. If she does this she will find that there is less reason to feel pessimistic about the shape of the debate and more reason to get involved more deeply in the details of it.

The other parties are getting on fine with the debate and we would like to have the Deputy participating. Undoubtedly she has a wonderful contribution to make from the equivalent of whatever it is down her scale of estimation from Little Rock, Arkansas. I do not know if South Bend, Indiana, comes into this but somewhere way down south of Memphis there is some place for Deputies from her city.

Miss Quill

I give the Deputy's patronising comments the charity of my silence.

Mr. Dukes

Thank God for that, long may it last.

Earlier the Taoiseach identified the four priority objectives of the Irish Presidency. He characterised these as a peaceful Europe in a peaceful world, secure jobs, sound money and streets safe from crime and drugs. I agree wholeheartedly with the identification of those four priorities and hope we will examine them in greater detail during the course of the ongoing debate on these issues. The House will agree that the Government has taken a constructive step in that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has agreed to make arrangements so that the two Oireachtas joint committees principally concerned about these matters, the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs, are briefed regularly by him and his officials on issues arising during the course of the Presidency and in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference. This essential, proper and open approach to the discussion of these issues will help to prepare both parliamentary and public opinion in a much more complete way than was the case on the last occasion we had an Intergovernmental Conference which led to the Maastricht Treaty and what was characterised at the time as the democratic deficit which caused so many problems in several other member states.

Looking at the priorities as defined by the Taoiseach, we can see there is a good deal more reflection and straightening out of thinking to be done. The first priority identified by the Taoiseach was a peaceful Europe in a peaceful world. The first reflection this inspired in me was the simple one that the peace has to be kept. If we have that as a priority, and I believe that we should, it behoves us to take whatever steps are necessary to prepare for the keeping of the peace for as long into the future as we can foresee. This means we should be prepared to play a more active role than we have in the past. I hope that that active role will be supported by the Government acting in its role as President of the European Union.

Although a debate is raging on those issues, it has not yet come to any conclusions. I find it rather puzzling that a good many Deputies — many of them on the Opposition side and some of them on the Government side — have difficulties with the concept of our participation in the partnership for peace. Some Members misguidedly characterise this partnership as being in some way a back door entrance into NATO. However, the contrary is the case as the partnership for peace has the potential to turn into a partnership which will avoid the isolation of Russia — let us call a spade a spade — by creating the occasions and means by which that country can work with its neighbouring states in a mutual enterprise to improve its security. It is all very well to say we can work together in the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, but we know perfectly well that neither of those organisations has any executive means at its disposal to make sure the peace is kept, other than the means that members agree to make available at any given time.

The partnership for peace is conceived as being a framework within which there can be co-operation for peace on a far wider basis than is available in NATO and which can make of that organisation and its members a clear and constructive tool in maintaining and enhancing security The great strength of the formula put forward in the partnership for peace is that Russia has already joined in and is working with countries which were in an opposing military bloc to the Warsaw Pact in operations which it can select, the scope of which it can define and work in a mutual endeavour to enhance security.

That is a very laudable development and it would be a great pity and mistake if Ireland, for totally artificial and utterly cosmetic reasons, were to be led to stand aside from that very reasonable process which aims to bring together elements of what were previously two opposing military blocs. I hope that those Members who were misguided enough to wrongly characterise the partnership for peace as an abandonment of anything we ever held precious will think again and see the strong merits in it.

I am confirmed in that view by the many discussions I have had with politicians and other people from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have applied to join the European Union and who see in their membership a continuing political guarantee of their independence and new-found freedom. They want a real guarantee of security from the West. They do not regard as real any guarantee that does not include the Americans, which is why they all want to join NATO. If they all join or have a very close association with NATO, there will be an immediate reaction from Russia. If NATO can design a separate framework for mutual security operations, which will include rather than exclude Russia, that is a formula that should commend itself to all who want to see a peaceful Europe in a peaceful world, one of the priorities set out by the Taoiseach.

Later the Taoiseach said:

On the external relations front, during our Presidency, we will be required to progress the structured dialogue process with the applicant states as well as co-ordinating the Union's position in its various international relations.

That is true. There is one point of the Union's external relations I suggest the Taoiseach and Government take up during the course of its Presidency. It has to do with a structured dialogue with Cuba. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs recently sent a delegation to Cuba in reciprocation of a visit here last year by a delegation from the Cuban Parliament, when we continued the discussions we had been having with its Members. My colleagues on that committee would agree, that one of the most satisfactory, achievements of that committee was to persuade our Government to vote against the continuation of the United States embargo against Cuba at the last General Assembly of the United Nations rather than simply abstaining, as Irish Governments had done up to then.

Having had two discussions with Members of the Cuban Assembly and participated in the visit to Cuba, I can say without the slightest hesitation that the continuation of the United States embargo on that country is utterly unjustified, without any political foundation and is an act of the gravest injustice against the 11 million people who live in Cuba who are not a political threat to the United States or to any of its neighbours.

For some time the European Union has had a kind of "on again""off again" relationship with Cuba. I would like to see the European Union, under the Irish Presidency, bringing that dialogue into a much more active phase, taking the kind of steps the European Union is in a position to take, both in trade and political relations, to end the unjust isolation of 11 million people from the world trading scene and from world politics outside of the sphere of the former communist regime.

The second priority the Taoiseach identified was that of secure jobs, with which we all agree. His statement on this subject was most important:

The key of employment creation is economic growth built on monetary and fiscal stability complemented by moderate income growth and structural measures to boost competitiveness.

To my mind, that says all about employment growth. However, I am not so sure that is exactly what President Santer of the Commission or various other people have in mind when they say they want to incorporate an employment Article or reference into the Maastricht Treaty. I am not against doing that but, in all the discussions I have had here, in Brussels and elsewhere since that idea was first mooted, I have come across something that worries me. People readily admit this is cosmetic, a matter of perception. They say they want to insert some provision in the treaty so that they can be seen to be concerned with employment. If that is all it is, it is not worth the bother. If it is to be a kind of umbrella under which we bring within the scope of the treaties and Community funding, a whole series of measures to merely massage away some of the unemployment figures, it will not be worth the paper on which it is written. I was about to say "it would not be worth a penny candle" but that phrase has been thoroughly discredited.

As the Taoiseach said, the key to employment creation is "economic growth built on monetary and fiscal stability complemented by moderate income growth and structural measures to boost competitiveness". Anything more amounts to pure cosmetics. I do not mind the cosmetics but, after a while, they tend to get in the way and must be paid for. The process of paying for them destroys moderate income growth and reduces the chances of taking structural measures to boost competitiveness. When we look at South East Asia, Japan, even at the United States, we see that whenever cosmetics get in the way of boosting competitiveness, they create an injustice for people currently unemployed within the European Union or its citizens who will seek jobs in the near future. I strongly counsel the Government and others involved against inserting provisions in the treaty for cosmetic reasons because very often they are a snare and a delusion.

The Taoiseach identified sound money as another of his objectives, with which I agree. The late Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan would have been delighted to have seen that as an objective of an Irish Presidency of the European Union.

Mr. R. Burke

Under Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Dukes

While in the past Fianna Fáil did not have any patience with that objective, having been converted by the then Deputy Ray MacSharry, they now agree with it. I am delighted they appear to have the zeal of even recent converts in this regard because that is an enterprise worth working for.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy continues to agree with almost everything the Taoiseach had to say.

Mr. R. Burke

This is coming from someone who was involved in doubling the national debt between the years 1983 and 1987.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy reprimanded me because I did not advocate spending or borrowing twice as much. We have been around that track so often, I will not bother with it.

The Taoiseach referred to the drugs problem and its resolution as being one of our priorities. I entirely agree with him. It is significant that the Florence Summit managed to overcome the difficulties obstructing the ratification of EUROPOL. Within the Irish Presidency, I hope we shall be able to build further on that. I invite Members on all sides of the House who fundamentally agree with that objective to go one step further, to agree with the proposition — this will be important within the context of the Intergovernmental Conference — to bring the measures and areas of activity required to combat drugs and other crime from what is now called the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty into the first pillar. It is a pity Deputy Quill did not remain to hear that. We should federalise the powers at our disposal within the nation states to combat crime. The criminals do not worry about frontiers, they do not ask whether the next place they will go, or the next customer to whom they will sell drugs was party to the Schengen Agreement. They do not ask to see a passport or identity card. All they want to know is whether one has the money or necessary resources to buy drugs; now the only true federalists are criminals. Until we properly federalise law enforcement and the activities of our law enforcement agencies we will not have any chance of matching them at European level.

I had much more to say but I would hate to try the patience of Deputies opposite, or you, Sir any more.

Mr. R. Burke

With the permission of the House I intend to share my time with Deputy Davern.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is quite satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. R. Burke

We debate the future position of democracies within the European Union, the outcome of the Florence Summit both very important issues, democracy being vital to the future of all our people, on a day on which there has been a savage attack on democracy.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a constituent and a friend, Veronica Guerin, who lost her life today. I extend my deepest sympathy to her husband, Graham, her son, Cathal, her mother, Bernie and the rest of her family on her murder. She was a fearless journalist. Democracy depends on a fair, balanced, informed and fearless Fourth Estate, the journalistic profession, of which Veronica was a fine example. She was wounded and threatened in the course of her work as a journalist, but she continued her work and her murder is a great loss. I extend sympathy to her colleagues in the Independent Group, in the Sunday Independent and to members of the NUJ generally.

I congratulate the newly elected Italian Government on the successful conclusion of the Italian Presidency at the Florence Summit. It is a tribute to the negotiating skills of the Italian Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister that we have seen an end to the British policy of non co-operation and a European support package in response to the ongoing crisis in the beef sector. Now that the EU is hopefully on an even keel it should be possible to address the challenges facing Europe.

A degree of political uncertainty in Italy and Britain's obstructive approach has meant that many issues were not fully addressed during the Italian Presidency. As a result Ireland has inherited a formidable agenda from our Italian colleagues and much is now expected of us by our fellow member states. Critical issues such as crucial talks on the proposed enlargement of the EU and on Europe's tactics to fight the growing crime wave were again relegated and treated almost as peripheral issues by the attendant politicians and, as a consequence, by Europe's media.

In the wake of Britain's use of vetoes in recent weeks, the Florence Summit at least agreed that a special summit will held in Ireland next October. I hope the agenda will have moved on by the time we approach the latter quarter of this year. It is critical for the future of the EU that the agenda moves ahead with renewed pace and vigour with the attendant hope and will that issues affecting all Europe's citizens will be effectively and efficiently tackled. It is important that issues such as social welfare, the fight against drugs, the Maastricht Treaty Review Conference and preparations for the World Trade Organisation's ministerial meeting in December will be addressed in Dublin in October.

The purpose of the Irish Presidency can be seen as twofold: it allows Ireland to put its stamp on the future direction of the EU and to play a central role in devising fundamental EU policy; the Presidency offers us the opportunity to illustrate to our partners Ireland's particular interests and concerns.

The Irish Presidency will witness the countdown towards completion of the path towards economic and monetary union. It is anticipated that the December Summit will bring to finality single currency technical preparations, which include the design of legal tender for the Union. On the monetary union front, the Florence Summit gave EU leaders an opportunity to reaffirm their determination to meet the timetable for the launch of a single currency on 1 January 1999, not much more than two years hence. While the Florence Communiqué indicated that technical preparations may well be brought to a conclusion in December, there was little mention of countries which may opt in or out of the single system. Will such decisions be resolved in Dublin in December?

Notwithstanding the gravity of this question for our EU partners, that is one of the critical questions on which businesses, unions and employees would like a definite answer by the end of the year. Will Britain join the European Monetary Union? What are the real implications for Ireland of a British decision? Does the Government propose any back-up or contingency plans if a decision requires them? The proposed European Monetary Union is fast looming. Two years is a short period. Is Ireland prepared for what lies ahead?

Florence bore witness to the Taoiseach expressing the hope that Europe's escalating crime and drugs problem would be tackled during Ireland's Presidency. The lifting of the British veto in Florence on the role to be played by the EU Court of Justice has once again laid the foundation of inroads to be made in establishing a firm basis for Europol. As part of our Presidency, Ireland must ensure that all member states ratify the Europol Convention as a first step.

We must also ensure that we achieve EU funding to protect our exposed coastline, a matter raised by a number of Members. While it is laudable that Europe's crime and drugs wave is being tackled, it is regrettable that the Government continues to refuse to take some fundamental justice-related decisions here at home. I refer, in particular, to a referendum on bail.

Continuing high levels of unemployment must be urgently addressed, not least in Ireland. There has been little concrete action at EU level and that must change. The political effort harnessed to create the Single Market must now be applied to job creation policy and it will be the task of the Irish Presidency to act as a catalyst for this major change. We firmly believe it is the Government's duty to ensure a positive outcome from the Irish Presidency and the Intergovernmental Conference for all member states of the Union.

The Maastricht process, while it was enthusiastically endorsed in Ireland did not secure as much confidence as it should have with the electorates of other member states. Subsequently there has been something of a lack of direction at EU level and it is now time to bring this period of introspection to a close. The Forence Summit has charged Ireland with the objective of preparing a draft treaty for the Intergovernmental Conference and that is undoubtedly an onerous task. We must ensure that any future treaty agreements bridge the gap between the citizens of Europe and the decision-making institutions of the European Union. If Europe is to continue to grow and develop, we need the confidence of all our citizens. We must strive towards a jargon-free Europe.

A positive outcome from the Intergovernmental Conference must not result in any dilution of Ireland's position on military neutrality. This side of the House firmly believes that military neutrality does have a value today. While we recognise that many of the old Cold War arguments no longer exist, nonetheless military neutrality is still an important signal that a small country such as Ireland is not motivated in its international activities and in its relations with third countries by any selfish, strategic or economic interest of its own or of the EU to which it belongs.

As I stated during recent months, Fianna Fáil believes that the Irish Defence Forces should be at the disposal of the EU under the auspices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy for the purposes of helping in peace-keeping and crisis management, but such involvement should happen only on a case by case basis and never as a standing concept that would demand automatic involvement. We utterly reject and will continue to reject any arguments that edge Ireland closer to full participation in any existing military alliance, NATO or the Western European Union. We strongly oppose membership of the partnership for peace and believe that joining it would amount to second class membership of NATO.

In recent months the Tánaiste presented a thinly veiled proposal to pursue a policy of involvement in the nuclear weapons based armed forces of NATO through the Partnership for Peace. The Government attempted to reassure the public that there are no implications for our neutrality and while that may be technically true at this point it will undoubtedly be seen by other countries as a gratuitous signal that Ireland is moving from its neutral status towards gradual incorporation in NATO and the Western European Union in due course.

Lest there be any misunderstanding about Fianna Fáil's position, we are not isolationist. We want to involve ourselves fully in Europe, but we do not see any need to join NATO, the Partnership for Peace or the Western European Union. We are willing and keen to participate, as we have at UN level, in the EU through the Common Foreign and Security Policy on tasks, such as peace-keeping and peace enforcement, without getting involved in standing arrangements. Let us look at each task on a case by case basis. We are in favour of the tasks laid out in Petersberg but not their implementation as a full member of the Western European Union. Deputy Davern is an observer at the parliamentary tier of the Western European Union.

The Tánaiste's approach to this core aspect of our foreign policy could, most charitably, be described as misleading. The proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference should not be clouded in any such misleading statements. It is the bounden duty of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to ensure that, in the interests of all Irish citizens, the positive value of Irish military neutrality is maintained.

We firmly believe that the EU must be a union of nations open to new members with a generous and, where appropriate, flexible approach to the needs of applicant countries. This enlargement must proceed at a pace which not only reflects the interests of the EU but those of would-be members.

We fully support the present institutional balance within the EU. We also believe that the retention of a Commissioner from each member state, even in the context of further enlargement, is essential to the continued confidence of the Irish people in the European Union.

This matter is of common interest to all the smaller member states of the EU. It is the duty of this administration, therefore, to ensure that, at both the special October Summit and the December Summit in Dublin, the confidence of the Irish people is maintained and that critical issues, such as the retention of a Commissioner, are vigorously pushed by this Government.

The Presidency will also offer Ireland the opportunity to lay down a marker regarding future allocations of Structural Funds post-1999 — the high Irish rate of unemployment must be taken into account in future allocations of funding to Ireland.

The fishing sector also needs critical handling. This sector has been asked to cut its fleet by 40 per cent, a harsh and utterly unacceptable proposal. Ireland's Presidency should be used to close off this proposal, once and for all.

The beef debate has not gone away. A support package has been put in place that will give some help to the sector but much more is required. This will include ambitious ongoing action at EU level to restore consumer confidence in beef.

An EU Presidency demands decisive, cohesive and clear-minded chairman-ship and guidance. Anything less will mean failure. Much work lies ahead over the next six months, Which will be crucial to the Union, Ireland and all its citizens. I wish the Government well in its endeavours in the months ahead and I will support it in every way possible while at the same time retaining the democratic right to criticise it in this House when necessary. It is important, in the interests of the people, that the Government succeeds in the task ahead of it. We will give it every support and encouragement.

Mr. Davern

The most important upcoming event for the Government is the drafting of a new treaty for Europe. When we last debated the European Union. I spoke of the need to humanise the Union. There has been a movement from people, a feeling that the European Union is only about regulation. A recent survey carried out in my constituency of a number of school children found that most of them thought Mr. Santer was a striker on the Spanish or South American teams or connected with the recent Eurovision song contest. Students knew every striker and mid-fielder playing in the 1996 European Championship, but they did not know who Mr. Santer was, an unelected person who has tremendous power within the European Union. It is sad he should have such power without having the confidence of the people. There is a danger that the Union and the Government are moving away from the people. I would like to see people for Europe and a Europe for people as a very strong part of the new treaty.

In his address the Taoiseach said he was not so naive as to think last night's Luxembourg Agreement would solve the beef crisis. That crisis will haunt the Government's Presidency. It is not just a disagreement with Britain but the failure of the Government to grasp the real problem, which is the continuing confusing figures and statements. Unless there is massive intervention there will be a disaster in the beef industry in September here and throughout Europe. The £18 million paid today is but one third of the losses incurred by the farming community. Lest anyone thinks I am talking about losses to farmers only, we are talking about 15,000 people employed directly in the industry, in the truck industry and in the factories throughout the Republic. We are merely tinkering with the problem by paying some moneys in compensation. What will we do with the animals ready for slaughter next September? Who will buy the finished animals and the young stock with any degree of confidence? None of this has been thought out. Nothing has been done by the Government during the past six months except to pander to what was a British problem, and by doing that the Government has made their problem our problem; when French television broadcast that British beef was being labelled as Irish beef that was not corrected. I spoke to Irish people in the Parisian community who will not buy beef labelled "Irish" because it might be British and, therefore, infected. No Minister has gone abroad, except to Egypt and Libya. Our markets in the Third World countries have been taken by Australia and recently in Libya where 20,000 cattle and 500,000 sheep were agreed to be sold. That market will, therefore, be filled for some time to come. The Egyptian market is filled. In places where we had a good name, except in Russia, we lost it because of lack of concentration by the Government.

This is not the only area where there is a problem. There will be pressure for a widening of the European Union by bringing in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries. This will put pressure on funds, and the present dissemination of funds does not allow the less well developed countries of Europe such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, to some extent, and Ireland to catch up with the others. We will be talking about a three speed Europe in the future consisting of the well developed countries, the ones lagging behind, like Ireland, and the new ones about to join. Funds will have to be disbursed to them on a fairly large scale.

I note the question of drugs is the last item the Taoiseach mentioned and that he did not mention the environment. The Minister of State must take responsibility for not including environmental policy. He did not think of Sellafield, or of nuclear waste in the Irish Sea.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is in the reflection group report.

Mr. Davern

The Minister of State did not put it on the Taoiseach's agenda. What I am referring to is what the Taoiseach said were his four priorities.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I did not write his speech.

Mr. Davern

Obviously the Deputy did not; neither had he any influence on the Taoiseach.

The last item is safe streets, crime and drugs. Is not ironic, given that somebody was, lamentably, a victim of the drug barons today, that nothing has been done in the past year to reform our bail laws? How can we presume to lecture Europeans on what we have failed to do ourselves?

I wish the Government success but not as much glory as the former Government, which was the pride of Europe during Ireland's Presidency, received for its excellent work during the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government should strive to do its best.

Kathleen Lynch

I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Gay Mitchell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Kathleen Lynch

The agenda facing Ireland when it takes over the EU Presidency next Monday is formidable. Members may have different emphases but we hope that our points of view will be taken up by those with greater influence than ourselves.

The Irish Presidency will be involved in preparing a draft treaty for the Intergovernmental Conference; completing the technical work on the single currency; preparing a major report on EU co-operation in the field of drugs and crime and preparing a review of EU taxation systems with a view to possible harmonisation. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Taoiseach has summed up the priorities of the Irish Presidency in a few words — peace, jobs, sound money and safe streets. Those are the priorities not only of the Government but of the people as a whole. I know they are also the priorities of the Deputies opposite. I hope Fianna Fáil will co-operate fully in facilitating the work of Government Ministers during the Presidency, both at home and abroad. We should remember that as Ireland holds the Presidency the majority of business will be done here.

The main news to emerge from the Florence Summit was the ending of the UK's policy of non-co-operation following agreement on the beef ban. The great British beef war was, or course, just the latest skirmish in the UK's longrunning battle with the European Union. Unfortunately, further tension has already been indicated over the 48-hour week and in the run up to the general election in the UK it is likely that the Prime Minister, John Major, will seek new pretexts to pander to his Euro sceptic lobby.

The lifting of the non co-operation policy meant that the Florence Summit was able to progress the Europol Convention. The fact that the Treaty and Protocol can now be ratified is good news for all those involved in the fight against drugs and international crime. The seriousness of the crime problem has been brought home to us today in a way that was not expected, with the callous murder of Veronica Guerin, a brave, diligent woman who was an excellent journalist. I am glad the decision on Europol has been under-pinned by the decision to hold a major review of the drugs and crime issue at the Dublin Summit.

I welcome the decision to establish a European centre to monitor racism and xenophobia. The Council of Ministers had been asked to work on a budget for the centre and I hope it will be possible to complete work on this during the Irish Presidency. Immigration into the European Union is, of course, inextricably linked with conflicts and human rights crisis outside the European Union.

In defining the objectives of the Irish Presidency, the Taoiseach referred to peace, jobs, sound money and safe streets. In its widest context these are all human rights issues, the right to a job, the right to economic survival, the right of Europeans to live in peace and free from fear are all fundamental rights which must be vindicated by Europe's Governments. I welcome the emphasis that will be placed on jobs during the Irish Presidency. It was obvious that the priority of the previous speaker was the farming community. Farmers have been dealt with very favourably by the European Union. Having received £85 million from negotiations in Luxembourg early this morning, a sum we could not have expected to get, it is still not enough for Irish farmers. I believe the reason the farming lobby gets so much is that it says it is not enough. Perhaps other sectors should learn from that. Perhaps workers who lose their jobs as a result of changes in the marketplace or because of competition from outside Europe should start saying it is not enough and they should be compensated for any bleep that occurs in life, but of course they are far more reasonable in that.

It is unacceptable that nearly 20 million Europeans should be consigned to a life on the economic and social margins. Employment has, of course, been on the EU agenda before. The Delors White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment contained numerous innovative proposals. Their implementation, however, has been long-fingered by EU governments during the past two years. The Florence Summit endorsed the Commission's proposal for a proemployment "confidence pact" and a major report on unemployment throught the European Union will be considered at the Dublin Summit towards the end of the year.

One of the central planks of the EU jobs strategy is the trans-European network. I regret that a decision on funding of the project has been postponed. I hope it can be resolved during the Irish Presidency. However, the Irish Presidency should focus not only on the needs of European citizens but also on the development of a progressive common foreign policy which is guided first and foremost by consideration of fundamental human rights.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said that Ireland is determined to use its Presidency to advance co-operation in a variety of foreign policy areas. At the Florence Summit, the Council expressed justified concern regarding the extra-territorial effects of recent US legislation regarding Cuba. I hope this will continue to be the focus of EU foreign policy during our Presidency. As the Tánaiste has said, it is essential that the actions and initiatives of individual member states be co-ordinated with those of the EU Troika. All too often in attempting to make a constructive attempt to address human rights crises throughout the world the EU was held hostage by vested interests of individual member states, in particular those states which export arms or which have strong trading relationships with various repressive regimes.

I hope the Irish Presidency will mark the beginning of a concerted effort by the EU to address the ongoing human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Indonesian regime in East Timor and in Indonesia. In this regard I hope that it will be possible to press for the following action to be taken at EU level — I have written to the Tánaiste about this — the establishment of an EU human rights office in East Timor to monitor the human rights situation there and the examination of the possibility of the EU establishing a sworn commission of inquiry into events in East Timor during the past two decades. Such a commission of inquiry would for the first time enable evidence to be gathered in a quasi-judicial manner that would provide the international community with a factual basis from which to operate. This is essential if we are to find out exactly what is happening there. Concerted action on the part of the European Union is especially urgent in view of some of the most recent reports of atrocities coming out of East Timor.

East Timor is not the only place where human rights are being trampled underfoot. Fifty-one years after the establishment of the United Nations the international community seems as powerless as ever to secure the most basic civil and political rights of people living in large areas of the world. Human rights abuses are commonplace in areas ranging from Nigeria to Chechnya. In too many cases these abuses take place with the military or economic connivance of elements in the developed world. As well as addressing the specific concerns relating to East Timor which I have outlined, I hope the EU will finally grasp the nettle of arms exports. Let us not forget that the people of East Timor may find themselves looking down the barrel of a Belgian gun while a farmer in Angola may step on a landmine wholly or partly manufactured in the United Kingdom. In the global economy we must be prepared to assume global responsibility. The EU could make a start by taking a closer look at the European arms industry and devising stringent mechanisims to ensure European arms are not used to perpetrate human rights abuses elsewhere in the world.

There is a need to review the EU position on Nigeria in view of the continuing human rights abuses in that country. There is a strong case to be made for the imposition of an oil embargo unless meaningful reforms are undertaken within a specified timeframe. The concessions announced recently by the junta amount to little more that a cosmetic PR exercise. International monitors, whether from the Commonwealth or the Oireachtas, have been prevented from visiting the country to assess the situation. Numerous human rights activists are still detained without charge or trial. The interaction group comprising eminent statesmen such as Helmut Schmidt and Pierre Trudeau recommended the imposition of an oil embargo in April. The reasons for that recommendation remain valid. We should follow suit.

In focusing on human rights during the Irish Presidency the Government will be reflecting the concerns of the people. It should also keep to the forefront the needs of those less fortunate than ourselves. We have a huge contribution to make in this respect.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Mitchell)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cullen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is agreed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

We should remind ourselves that the European Union is about peace, stability and prosperity. I hope the issues that will emerge during our Presidency, apart from the employment issue on which a report will be presented to the European Council in December, will include the issue of local development of which we have much experience which we can usefully bring to the assistance of Europe.

On the drugs issue, the Government has a number of proposals to co-ordinate the approach to the problem in Europe. Although member states are primarily responsible for dealing with it there is a need for the European Union to co-ordinate its approach. To date this has been feeble and we will try to change this.

Further moves towards economic and monetary union will be on the agenda as well as the completion of the internal market. The historic Intergovernmental Conference is not only looking at the institutions of the European Union, including such crucial questions as the future composition of the Commission and size of the Parliament, but the thorny issue of a common foreign and security policy. It is also looking at the treaties which form the basis of the European Union.

While I welcome Deputy Ahern's offer of Fianna Fáil support for the Petersberg Tasks whereby each matter will be decided on a case by case basis I was mystified by his comments on the partnership for peace. It seems he is in danger of adopting the Tadzhikistani rather than the more traditional European role.

There is a heavy external relations agenda ahead of us. The Taoiseach mentioned the summits likely to take place. These include summits between the EU and Russia, Japan and the US. Following on the Barcelona conference the Mediterranean process will have to be advanced as will the Middle East peace process now that there is a new Prime Minister in Israel. The peace accord in the former Yugoslavia will require much attention given that elections are to be held in Bosnia in September. In addition, the World Trade Organisation is to meet in Singapore, there is the ASEM process and the need for co-ordination at the OSCE and the UN.

Based on this synopsis it would seem that the external relations agenda of the Irish Presidency will be far heavier on this occasion than in 1990. This will present a great challenge not least because of the need to keep those countries which have applied to join the European Union involved and informed about the process and progress made.

There will be two meetings of the European Council, one in October or November and the other in December. We will be working on a treaty outline so that we will have some idea at the Dublin summit of the form it may take in the future.

Since this will be the first small state to assume the Presidency after four large states — Germany, France, Spain and Italy — we will be the focus of attention. We will be assuming the Presidency for the fifth time after little more than 70 years of independence at a crucial and historic time. This is a great honour. We will have a huge amount of work to do, a duty we will accept with some satisfaction. This will present not only a great challenge but a great opportunity. More than 300 civil servants or 10 per cent of our diplomats have been redeployed to meet the challenge facing us. We are proud to be Irish in Europe, proud Europeans and proud to be part of the process. The foundations have been well laid.

Mr. Cullen

I thank the Minister of State for sharing his time with me. Time does not allow me, unfortunately, to make the contribution I wanted to make. A range of issues have been dealt with by other speakers, including the BSE crisis in agriculture. I wish to deal with the unemployment crisis which, as we all recognise, Europe has to face in a far more realistic manner than it has to date. I urge the Government to keep that issue at the top of the agenda during the Irish Presidency.

In early May I had the great honour to represent my party at a public hearing in Brussels on the Structural Funds. In the course of my contribution I dealt with the question of unemployment and stated:

Indeed, while most of the recent economic indicators for Ireland can be presented in a positive light the single most important indicator, the unemployment rate, indicates strongly that the benefits of economic growth are still not being felt by a large percentage of the labour force who are still without access to employment opportunities. Ireland, clearly, has a long way to go before unemployment levels are reduced to the European average, particularly if one adds the large number of people who are not included on unemployment lists solely because they are engaged in short-term training and social employment schemes.

The persistent failure to reduce unemployment levels by significant amounts, despite the apparent positive results in Ireland's level of prosperity compared to the European average, suggests that there is a strong case for reviewing the methods used by the Commission to compare the relative prosperity of different regions of Europe. In this context the eligibility criteria for qualifying for Structural Fund aid should be reexamined before 1999 so that employment-unemployment ratios are given more weight than at present.

It is significant that Chancellor Kohl in talking about the former East Germany clearly indicated that it will retain objective one status. I can understand that a large number of factors are involved there, but unemployment levels are clearly significant factors in the current crisis in that area.

The Irish Presidency must look at the issue of eligibility criteria. I know the Minister for Finance has taken up this point and we have discussed it. Employment to unemployment ratios should form part of the eligibility criteria beyond 1999. My party sees this as fundamental to our future negotiations. I wish the Government well in making inroads on that issue and achieving some discernible changes in the criteria to ensure the consideration of employment figures is central to the Irish Presidency, for the sake of all European citizens.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

In his opening statement the Taoiseach covered a range of issues addressed by the Florence European Council, all of which have implications for our Presidency. I propose to address other issues which were considered by the European Council. All of the matters discussed at the Florence European Council have implications for our Presidency of the Union and many will feed into the Dublin European Council in December.

Ireland's Presidency of the European Union begins next Monday. The Florence European Council had a special significance for us as it has, to a degree, set the agenda of the European Union for the next semester. In particular it was the sense of the Florence European Council that it would be desirable to hold a special meeting of the European Council in October. As the Taoiseach has indicated, we will be in touch with our partners about arrangements for this meeting. I would like to convey my thanks to the Italian Presidency for the effort it put into making the Florence European Council a success.

In particular I would like to commend the Presidency and the Commission for their successful efforts to solve the BSE issue. The adoption of a framework and the lifting of the non co-operation policy is to be very much welcomed. The outcome allowed all the participants to show both generosity and solidarity. As the incoming Presidency we will seek to move further the process to ensure that full consumer confidence in beef is restored as soon as possible.

I would like to refer to the markets for Irish beef. The beef crisis has affected all member states of the Union, not least Ireland. Contrary to the impression given by the Opposition, I and my Department have been very active in protecting the continued access of Irish beef to export markets. Where restrictions have been imposed my Department has pressed to have them lifted. Within the European Union, Irish beef is of course sold freely, in accordance with EU regulations, although consumption of beef is still rather depressed. Our embassies in the Union are co-operating with An Bord Bia and the other State agencies and bodies. The embassies have also been active in countering misleading media information generated by the crisis.

Markets outside the European Union, the so-called "third-country" markets, are of vital importance to the Irish beef industry. Egypt, Iran, Libya and Russia have been significant importers of Irish cattle and beef in recent years, and other countries, especially in the Middle East, have also been purchasing significant amounts. Ireland's position in these markets must be protected and developed. The ambassadors to these countries accord the highest priority to this task. Our embassies are maintaining constant contact with the relevant authorities to reassure them in regard to the high quality of Irish beef and the priority attached to animal health in this country. Where restrictions were imposed on imports, the Department of Agriculture in Dublin has been kept informed of developments and has provided detailed information on Irish veterinary controls.

In Iran and Egypt our embassies have arranged for high-level delegations from the Department of Agriculture to make early visits in order to meet their counterparts and discuss control and certification arrangements. Similarly in the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, our ambassador made contact with the Minister responsible. He also arranged meetings with specialists, at which he was accompanied by a senior veterinary officer of the Department of Agriculture. In all cases, our representatives abroad stress that Irish cattle are essentially grass-fed, that beef exported from Ireland comes from herds which are free from BSE, that the European Union has placed no restriction on the sale of Irish beef and that the Irish veterinary authorities maintain the strictest control on the quality of the product.

Import restrictions originally imposed on Irish beef in Egypt, Kuwait and Lebanon have now been lifted. Egypt has introduced a new certification procedure to verify the health status of imported beef and cattle; the embassy in Cairo is co-operating with the Egyptian authorities and with the Irish exporters in its implementation. Saudi Arabia has also brought in new certification requirements and I am confident Ireland will be able to meet these requirements. In Iran restrictions have been imposed on imports of beef from Ireland as well as from other EU countries and we are working to have them lifted. I have been in direct contact with my Iranian counterpart to urge that the Iranian authorities send a delegation to Ireland to examine the measures we have taken to counter BSE. I am glad to say that a delegation will travel to Ireland next week. This is a very important development and I will be monitoring the outcome to ensure that it leads to a resumption of trade.

In relation to the Intergovernmental Conference, the Florence European Council marked the first opportunity for heads of state and government to review progress at the Intergovernmental Conference, which was launched at the Turin European Council on 29 March and which has been meeting regularly since then both at the level of Foreign Ministers and at the level of their special representatives. The Florence European Council had before it a progress report prepared by the Italian Presidency. The Presidency attempted in its report to reflect the views of all member states on the issues before the Intergovernmental Conference but it was not in any sense binding on member states or limitative in relation to the future work of the Intergovernmental Conference. The report will be useful to us as the incoming Presidency in helping us to progress and shape the negotiations in the period ahead. The European Council in Florence noted that the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference under the Italian Presidency had served to bring into focus the main issues at stake. That first stage essentially involved member states setting out their broad national positions on the major issues before the Intergovernmental Conference.

There was general recognition in Florence of the need for a decisive change in the pace of discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference as it moves into the real negotiating phase. The European Council set a challenging mandate for the Irish Presidency in providing that it should aim to bring forward for the Dublin European Council in December an outline or framework for a draft revision of the treaties. The European Council expects that its meeting in Dublin in December will mark decisive progress in the negotiations. As a result the Intergovernmental Conference should complete its work by the middle of next year to coincide with the conclusion of the Dutch Presidency.

Different aspects of the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations are interlinked. At the end of the Intergovernmental Conference a single package will be adopted. Unanimity will be required to achieve a final outcome. In view of this it is inevitable that the outline for a draft revision of the treaties will contain many options and issues which are still under discussion. Nevertheless the European Council has expressed a clear wish and given a clear mandate to carry forward the negotiations rapidly with a view to completing the Intergovernmental Conference during the Dutch Presidency.

As incoming Presidency, we will not be lacking in our ambition to carry forward that mandate in the interests of the European Union as a whole. The three main areas of work to be tackled by the Intergovernmental Conference are in essence to bring the Union closer to its citizens, to strengthen and enlarge the scope of the Union's common foreign and security policy and to assure the good functioning of the institutions while respecting their balance and the efficiency of the decision-making process.

At Florence the Taoiseach took the opportunity to highlight once again the need for the Intergovernmental Conference to address the concerns of ordinary people. In particular he stressed the need to address issues such as unemployment and the fight against international crime and drug trafficking. Our view is that while institutional questions are a very necessary part of the Intergovernmental Conference's agenda, the people's verdict on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference will be governed by the extent to which it addresses and is seen to address their direct concerns. I am glad to say that the conclusions of the European Council reflect this real concern with the need to reflect the actual concerns of citizens in areas such as employment, the environment, transparency and the fight against crime.

The European Council also identified and reaffirmed a number of points to be taken into account by the Intergovernmental Conference in its work in other areas, including its aim of strengthening and enlarging the scope of the Union's common foreign and security policy. The Irish Presidency has indicated that it will seek to work actively for practical and sustainable ways of improving the operation of the Common Foreign Security Policy at the Intergovernmental Conference. In line with the conclusions of the European Council, issues which will be considered in this context include, for example, institutional questions, decision-making procedures, coherence between the economic and political aspects of the Union's foreign policy, Common Foreign Security Policy financing and in particular the possibility of including the Petersberg Tasks in the Treaty objectives. It was also decided that the relationship between the EU and Western European Union should be reviewed.

On a practical level, the mandate given to the Irish Presidency means it is now essential that all delegations should move towards the real negotiating phase. It is our view that in some areas further carefully prepared conceptual discussion is now required before moving to the examination of detailed Treaty texts. In other cases, the state of discussion would appear to be already ripe for the Intergovernmental Conference to move straight to the discussion of texts. The Florence European Council has, as I have indicated, helped to reaffirm some of the main priorities for the Intergovernmental Conference. As Presidency, however, it is our view that the Florence mandate implies that the Intergovernmental Conference must examine all issues on its agenda in the course of the coming period with a view to submission of the framework which has been requested for the December European Council in Dublin.

It is clear we are facing into a very intensive programme of work at the Intergovernmental Conference at every level. The ability to realise the goal set at Florence will depend, of course, both on the ambitions and efforts of the Irish Presidency and on the willingness of all partners to aim for the goal which has been set and on their efforts to attain it. It would be foolish to underestimate the magnitude of the challenge which Florence has set for the Irish Presidency and for our partners but I have full confidence that we can and will together rise to the challenge.

In addition to the aforementioned BSE, the Intergovernmental Conference, employment and a range of internal issues the European Council in Florence considered a number of important current international issues. It adopted declarations on Russia, the Middle East Peace Process, and former Yugoslavia. Transatlantic relations, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, and developments in Asia, Africa and Latin America were among other subjects discussed. Foreign Ministers had an informal exchange of views, at their dinner discussion on Friday evening, of the problems currently facing the United Nations. This did not lead, however, to any formal conclusions.

With regard to Russia, the European Council stressed the firm determination of the European Union to continue to support the reform process. The holding of the first round of Presidential elections was welcomed, and the Council looked forward to the successful completion of the elections. The consolidation of democracy in Russia will contribute to strengthening peace, stability and security in Europe, and will provide a better basis for the continued development of relations between the European Union and Russia. The European Council also emphasised the importance of the full involvement of Russia in the development of a comprehensive European security architecture. It expressed satisfaction with Russia's co-operation on European and International issues, including implementation of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreements. The development of EU-Russia relations in coming months will be an important objective of the Irish Presidency, building on the interim agreement which came into effect earlier this year, and the action plan which was adopted last May.

The European Council reviewed the prospects for the Middle East Peace Process in the light of recent developments, notably the formation of the new Israeli Government. Peace in the Middle East region is a fundamental interest of the European Union; it is the only path to security and peace for Israel, the Palestinians and the neighbouring states. The EU encourages all parties to re-engage themselves in the peace process, to respect and implement fully all the agreements already accepted by all parties under the Madrid and Oslo frameworks. The aim of the European Union is that Israel and its neighbours may live within secure, recognised and guaranteed borders and that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians should be respected.

The European Council stressed the essential principles on which conclusion of negotiations should be based, set out in Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 425, and including self-determination for the Palestinians, with all that that implies, and land for peace. The Council expressed the EU's commitment to do everything possible to ensure that the work already begun is pursued and brought to its conclusion.

On former Yugoslavia, the European Council reviewed the progress made in the first six months of implementation of the Peace Agreement in Bosnia-Hercegovina, including the considerable contribution made by the European Union and Individual member states. The Council supported the recommendation of the recent meeting of the Peace Implementation Council that the elections in Bosnia and Hercegovina should take place on 14 September, subject to the decision on certification to be taken by the OSCE. The Council called on the parties to adopt the necessary measures, notably as regards freedom of movement and access to public media, to ensure the conditions for free and fair elections.

The European Union will make an important contribution, under the Irish Presidency, to the electoral process, through the EU Monitor Mission and on the basis of the joint action for the supervision of the elections adopted on 10 June. Successful elections will allow the establishment and development of new political institutions in Bosnia and Hercegovina. This process is essential for the consolidation of a united, and democratic State of Bosnia and Hercegovina. The European Council stressed that the Federation is an essential element of such an objective and rejected any attempt to revive Hercegovina-Bosnia governmental structures, since these would run counter to the federation.

The European Council stressed the need for full co-operation by the parties with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. The peace agreement excludes those indicated by the Tribunal from running for office. The Council stressed the need for Mr. Karadzic to remove himself from the political scene.

The European Council reiterated its intention to continue to support the economic recovery and rehabilitation of Bosnia and Hercegovina, emphasising that no party would be discriminated against in this respect, provided that it fulfilled its obligations under the peace agreement. The economic development of the countries of former Yugoslavia is an important factor in the achievement of stability and post-conflict reconstruction and the Irish Presidency attaches great importance to the measures being put in place by the European Union in this regard.

The European Council expressed serious concern about the continuing violence in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and in particular that which is taking place in Burundi. It stressed its unequivocal support for the ongoing peace efforts of the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity, regional leaders and other mediators such as former Presidents Carter and Nyerere. The European Union will continue to seek the establishment of a lasting peaceful and political framework to settle the crisis of the region through the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region. During its Presidency, Ireland will work closely with the Special Envoy in the pursuit of these objectives.

In the area of EU-US relations the Irish Presidency will build on the progress achieved during the Italian Presidency. The priorities for the next six months as outlined in the report of the senior level group to the EU-US Summit which took place earlier this month in Washington are, I believe, generally realistic and achievable. The Irish Presidency attaches importance to EU-US relations. We wish to see the effectiveness of our dialogue with the US enhanced and to use it to promote the interests of the European Union. We will continue to work to strengthen relations between the European Union and Canada.

The first Ministerial Review Conference of the World Trade Organisation will take place in Singapore next December. A key priority of our Presidency will be to ensure that the Union makes an effective contribution to the conference so as to consolidate and develop the multilateral trade system. Accordingly, we are organising an informal meeting of EU Trade Ministers in Dublin next September to develop the Union's negotiating stance.

I turn now to the European Union's relations with the third countries of the Mediterranean. The Euro-Mediterranean Process launched in Barcelona in November 1995 established a comprehensive partnership between the EU and 12 Mediterranean partners through strengthened and regular political dialogue, the development of economic and financial co-operation and greater emphasis on the social, cultural and human dimension. The Irish Presidency will seek to advance this initiative in preparation for the next meeting of Foreign Ministers scheduled for the first half of 1997.

A list of priority activities covering the three chapters of the Barcelona Process has been drawn up and several very constructive meetings have already taken place between the EU and its Mediterranean partners. Activities envisaged during Ireland's Presidency include a series of conferences at ministerial and official level involving the European Union and its Mediterranean partners. These include ministerial meetings on justice and home affairs matters and on fisheries conservation in the Mediterranean, together with experts meetings on such topics as economic transition, maritime transport, and culture.

The Taoiseach has underlined in this statement the importance of the enlargement process and the priority enlargement will be for our Presidency. I will not dwell on this issue now other than to say that the Irish Presidency will seek to ensure a constructive engagement with the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus and Malta with a view to ensuring that the problem of enlargement can progress smoothly.

In his opening statement the Taoiseach referred to the practical and organisational arrangements that have been set in place to ensure that Ireland's Presidency is both efficient and effective.

To assist Deputies in knowing the details of at least part of that planning I have been lodging in the Oireachtas Library on a regular basis updated copies of the Calendar of Council meetings and the calendar of meetings that will be held in Ireland during the Presidency. I will continue to supply updated information of this nature on a regular basis. It is important that the House continues to take a full and committed interest in EU affairs, in particular over the next six months. I welcome the positive comments made by previous speakers and the support which they have offered to the Presidency effort.

I look forward to the meetings of COSAC the Conference of the European Affairs Committees of the National Parliaments which will be held in Ireland during our Presidency and which is being organised by the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I expect we will be able to avail of that valuable opportunity to brief national parliamentarians from throughout the Union of our Presidency concerns.

I wish to refer to other matters which have been mentioned in the course of the statements. The House will be aware of the importance the Government attaches to the environment. The partnership for peace was also mentioned. Our position in relation to that was made clear in the White Paper. There will be full consultation with the parties, with this House and also with the Oireachtas committees on foreign affairs, on any decisions that have to be made. I thank Deputies who wished the Government well during our Presidency which is for the benefit of the Irish people and the European Union.