Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Dec 1996

Vol. 473 No. 3

European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I had the honour as President in office of chairing the meeting of the European Council which took place in Dublin Castle on 13 and 14 December. I was accompanied at the European Council by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister of State responsible for European affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell. The outcome of the Dublin European Council is set out in detail in the conclusions, copies of which I have had placed in the Library of the House. Prior to the meeting I met each of the other Heads of State or Government who are members of the European Council and the President of the European Commission to discuss the agenda which we faced. These discussions contributed in no small way to the meeting's success.

The Dublin European Council represented the culmination of what has been acknowledged by all sides to have been an outstanding Irish Presidency. When I spoke in this House on 20 June last on the outcome of the Florence European Council I stated that the Government was determined that our Presidency would be viewed as significant in terms of a substantive response to the challenges facing the Union. We have delivered on our promise in this regard. In particular, the Dublin European Council gave a decisive further impetus to economic and monetary Union by agreeing the principles under which the stability and growth pact will operate, the modalities of a new exchange rate mechanism when economic and monetary union commences and the legal framework of the euro. It reaffirmed that unemployment was the key problem facing the Union and adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment which sets out the policy framework for increased employment in Europe. It endorsed significant new measures in the fight against drug trafficking and abuse and against organised crime. It also approved the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Presidency as a good basis for the work which lies ahead in the context of its reaffirmation of the importance of completing the conference and the treaty at Amsterdam in June 1997.

Before outlining what we have done to tackle the major challenges facing the European Union we should also recall the effectiveness and efficiency of the Irish Presidency on a whole host of other issues across Ministerial Councils which do not generally attract public attention. The feedback in regard to the Presidency's handling of these issues has been positive. This excellent stewardship was a result of careful planning and complete commitment by relevant Ministers and officials. The management and organisation of the European Council and the management of the many other events which took place during the Irish Presidency demonstrates that small countries can run successful, substantive and significant Presidencies.

At the commencement of the Presidency I set out four priorities which would drive our policy agenda. These were secure jobs, safer streets, sound money and a peaceful Europe. These priorities are the kernel of the challenges facing the European Union. They are the issues that concern the citizens of Europe. In setting them out as I did, I was also anxious that they constitute a simple and understandable message, stripped of "Euro-verbiage", which citizens could understand. The conclusions of the Dublin European Council reflect the success of our Presidency in addressing these four core concerns.

On secure jobs, the Council has adopted The Dublin Declaration on Employment: The Jobs Challenge. The declaration itself will not of course create jobs. It is, however, a tangible sign of the priority which the European Union attaches to tackling the totally unacceptable level of unemployment in Europe. While recognising that the primary responsibility in the fight against unemployment rests with the member states the European Council, on the initiative of the Irish Presidency, has committed itself to supporting the efforts of member states through the implementation of an integrated employment strategy covering macroeconomic policy and structural reform.

The declaration, which is included in the Annex to the Presidency conclusions, sets out the elements which must be put in place if we are to provide sustainable employment for our citizens. These elements include sound and stable macroeconomic policies oriented towards growth — adherence to the conditions for economic and monetary union is acknowledged as particularly important in this regard; the improvement of the efficiency of the way in which the labour market helps people to find jobs and increased investment in the training and education of the people themselves for jobs; special efforts to assist the particularly vulnerable groups of unemployed women, unemployed youth and the long-term unemployed; the reform of taxation and social protection systems to make them more employment friendly; modernisation of the markets for goods and services and the exploitation of new sources of employment in areas such as environmental protection and social services; enhancing European competitiveness in the global economy; and the promotion of local development.

It is highly appropriate that this should be called the Dublin Declaration on Employment. The policy prescription set out in the declaration accords with that which has been followed with such success by the Government and social partners in Ireland in recent years, and which has led to significant increases in employment here. The strategy in the Dublin declaration is supplemented by some useful initiatives in the conclusions proper, notably the commitment to regulatory simplification and the extension of simpler legislation for the internal market, or SLIM, which will reduce the costs of SMEs in particular. An especially welcome development is the mandate given by the European Council to the Commission to report before the Amsterdam summit on all necessary measures that must be taken to ensure that the full potential benefit of the internal market is achieved before the beginning of the third stage of economic and monetary union.

The second priority we set for ourselves was safer streets. There has in recent decades been a rapid increase in the rate of crime and particularly in both the scope and sophistication of organised crime. Ruthless drug barons now prey on the weak and vulnerable in every member state. The Presidency set out to energise Europe's response to organised crime and drugs trafficking. It is clear from the conclusions that we have been successful in this.

Many new initiatives have been agreed under the Irish Presidency, notably the agreement on a resolution on sentencing for serious illicit drug trafficking; the agreement which has been reached on the joint action on the approximation of laws, and practices of police, customs services and administrative authorities in the fight against drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking; the agreement to promote co-operation between customs and business in the fight against drug trafficking and to improve co-operation between police and customs authorities; the agreement to measures to address the drug tourism problem and to counter actively drug cultivation within the EU; of crucial importance was the agreement on the demand side of the problem to a five year programme on drug dependency; and finally a joint action programme which has been agreed on the exchange of information on the chemical profiling of drugs.

The European Council stressed that the momentum achieved in regard to the fight against drugs during our Presidency which has been considerable, must be further developed. Particular stress was laid on considering harmonisation of drugs legislation; more intensified co-operation between the law enforcement agencies; full application of the money laundering directive and further development on a co-operative basis of the fight against drugs and crime in Latin America, North America, Asia, central and eastern Europe and Russia. I am satisfied that the Netherlands Presidency will ensure that the groundbreaking work of the Irish Presidency in this area will be built upon.

Drugs are only one aspect of the problem. The key fight is the fight against organised crime. As I said on many occasions, crime does not respect borders. This underlines the need for the closest possible co-operation to fight organised crime. The modern organised criminal has access to vast amounts of financial resources and is making use of the latest technologies. It is important that Europe and the member states respond to these developments in an organised and coherent fashion. The European Council decided in Dublin, on foot of a proposal from the Irish Presidency, to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive European action plan for the fight against organised crime. This group is to report by March-April 1997.

The fight against organised crime must also be fought at an international level. The meeting in Dublin of the European Council with the 11 applicant states focused on the problem of organised crime. Arising from this I am determined there will be much closer co-operation, across all Europe, to counter what constitutes the greatest threat to the security of its citizens. I am glad to report that the EU-US summit in Washington on 16 December also laid great stress on co-operation in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. Both the European Union and the United States are committed to intensifying their efforts in this regard.

In the light of the horrific events in Belgium the European Council in Dublin also expressed its abhorrence at the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings and committed itself to taking all necessary action to protect the most vulnerable in society. The agreement on a joint action in relation to offences against children and improving judicial co-operation in this area was welcomed as was the extension of the competencies of the EUROPOL drugs unit to such crimes.

It is important to act now. While clearly EU treaty revisions in this area will be necessary, we should not await these treaty provisions before we pursue further measures across the range of areas I have just mentioned — drug abuse, drug trafficking, crime, trafficking in children and organised crime. The European Council has set out an ambitious programme of practical measures which can be put in place in a short period and I have no doubt future Presidencies will continue to accord priority to this area of work.

The third key priority we set ourselves was sound money. The Dublin European Council has been a major success in paving the way towards economic and monetary union. The agreement of the structure of the new exchange rate mechanism will regulate the relationship between the ins and the outs, the endorsement of the two regulations that will constitute the legal framework for the use of the euro, and the agreement of the principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact for ensuring budgetary discipline under economic and monetary union are all major achievements that further enhance the momentum towards the single currency.

The importance of the agreement on the Stability and Growth Pact has quite rightly been emphasised. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, deserves special praise for his handling of this issue and I also acknowledge the key role played at the European Council in this matter by my colleague, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker.

The agreement reached will require the adoption of sound public finance policies by all member states participating in economic and monetary union. It also recognises, however, that deep recessions may on occasion temporarily cause deficits above the reference value for member states, despite the fact that these states are following the correct fiscal policies.

The importance of the major progress made at the Dublin Council on the new exchange rate mechanism and the legal framework for the euro should also be underlined. The new ERM will regulate the relationship between those in and out of the economic and monetary union single currency and, with enhanced surveillance of economic policies, will help to avoid competitive distortions between the member states of the Union and ensure the proper operation of the Single Market.

The work on the legal framework for the euro was advanced beyond the target set; it is now virtually complete. This framework will give financial institutions, investors and the general public the legal certainty they need as to the effect the euro will have on investment and other decisions made in the various currencies prior to its introduction. Deputies will recognise the absolute importance of this certainty for the transition if continued investment and private and public sector funding are to be ensured for all types of purpose.

The Dublin summit also saw the unveiling of the new design for the euro notes. I regret I did not bring copies for each Member. Overall, Dublin clearly marked another significant milestone on the road to economic and monetary union and the introduction of the single currency.

Our fourth priority was a peaceful Europe. European integration has been the main force for peace and stability in Europe over the past 50 years. Since 1945, western Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace in recorded history and that is directly linked to the existence of the European Union. It is essential for Europe that this process of integration within the European Union continues with a successful outcome to the current Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference was, therefore, one of the major items on the agenda of the European Council and the Tánaiste will be reporting on this in greater detail. The Intergovernmental Conference outcome will address many of the other key priorities of the Union.

The Irish Presidency had submitted to the European Council an outline draft treaty requested in Florence and I am pleased to say it was warmly welcomed by Heads of State or Government and accepted by all member states as a good basis for further negotiations. This means that the conference remains on target to conclude in Amsterdam in June next year. It also means there is a coherent and balanced basis for further work which at the same time maintains the level of ambition of the conference with a view to equipping the Union to address the most direct concerns of its citizens and to face the challenges of a new century.

I am pleased that in many respects the progress made at the Intergovernmental Conference contributes to the key priorities identified for the Irish Presidency as a whole. Our draft of the treaty would incorporate a new title on employment in the treaty which would permit better co-ordination at European level in the fight against unemployment. The Irish Presidency draft treaty would introduce significantly strengthened provisions to the treaty to enable the Union to pursue more effectively the fight against international crime, including drug trafficking, etc. It would also give the Union a more coherent and effective basis for foreign policy and would equip it to contribute to peace.

We seek not only a peaceful Europe but a stable and peaceful Europe acting as a source of stability and peace in the world. The Dublin Council has advanced Europe's foreign policy perspective in a significant way and progress was made on a wide range of foreign relations issues. The Tánaiste will deal with these in his statement. I ask the House to note in particular the reaffirmation of our deep concern about developments in regard to democracy in Belarus — we offered to send a fact finding mission to Belarus and we urge its President to accept this offer — and a recognition of the importance of the Council of Europe in upholding human rights standards and supporting pluralist democracy. We look forward to co-operation with the Council of Europe in this important ask.

Given the very heavy workload associated with chairing the Council it was not possible to hold any bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Major or any other Head of State or Government during the European Council.

I would like to refer to the EU-US and EU-Canada summits which I attended this week. In Washington the EU and the US were able to record substantive progress on a whole range of headings — political, economic, trade and justice. Of particular importance was the information technology agreement reached primarily on the initiative of the US and the EU under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation which will liberalise over $500 billion in trade annually in a sector in which Ireland has a major interest. We also reached agreement in principle on mutual recognition of standards covering key sectors representing tens of billions of pounds of two-way trade across the Atlantic between here and the US. The economic benefit for Europe and Ireland of these agreements will be enormous.

I also signed a joint action programme between the EU and Canada in Ottawa on Tuesday. This programme will act as a framework within which relations between the EU and Canada are to be developed and deepened. I had detailed bilateral discussions with President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretien in Washington and Ottawa respectively. Overall, therefore, it has been an exceptional week for Ireland on the world stage.

The message from the European Council will be particularly gratifying to the citizens of Europe. The message is that Europe is working. Europe is committed to remaining at the very forefront of the global economy. It is committed to building a society where the individual citizen enjoys freedom, security and justice. Europe will have a sound currency which will act as an engine for economic growth. Europe aims to be both peaceful and stable in itself and an influence for global peace and stability. Europe looks forward to the 21st century with pride in its achievements and confidence in its future. Last, but by no means lest, the message is that Ireland will be at the heart of Europe in achieving all these objectives.

Eighteen months ago in Paris I was asked the priority for the Irish Presidency which was then 12 months away and I said it would be to deal with the problems of drug abuse and organised crime. I am glad that in addition to doing the normal work which fell to our responsibility, such as finalising the Stability and Growth Pact and moving the single currency forward, the Irish Presidency gave a distinctive push, which would not have occurred without our initiative, to the Europe-wide battle against organised crime and drug abuse, not only within the European Union but also as a result of our discussions with the eastern European countries. That work is now extended to include them. It is also included as a major part of the work we are doing in common with the United States and Canada. The Irish Presidency ought to be marked as one during which the Union became tangibly involved with a major concern of its citizens, the problem of crime. In showing that it can deal with crime the Union has increased its level of support among the people of Europe, even in countries where scepticism about Europe may be a feature. That European union is necessary to deal with crime is a reason for all of us to support the Union.

Mr. B. Ahern

I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government on the successful conclusion of the 1996 European Presidency. Great tribute is due to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other members of the Government, such as the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, who dealt with the parliamentary base. I spoke yesterday to the leader of our group, Gerard Collins, MEP, and conveyed the Taoiseach's kind remarks to him, which he appreciated. We promised at the start of the Presidency that, through our Whip, we would co-operate totally with the Irish Presidency here and in Europe, and we are glad we did that. Great tribute should also be paid to the hard work of Irish officials at home and abroad. Particularly valuable work was carried out by Mr. Noel Dorr in preparing the draft treaty text to push forward the work on the intergovernmental conference.

An efficient and effective Presidency is important for the functioning of the European Union. It is also important to the country which holds the Presidency for that period, particularly a small country such as Ireland. Some people in the European Union would like to downgrade the role of small countries and always take the opportunity to do so. However, the Government is entitled to be proud of its achievement, just as Fianna Fáil remains very proud of the 1990 Presidency which was a time of historic changes in Europe and the rest of the world.

Both Irish Presidencies gave a decisive push forward to the European Union. In 1990 we settled the Maastricht criteria and agreed on the goal of political union, and the establishment of the intergovernmental conference leading, in 1992, to the Maastricht Treaty. In 1996 Ireland was in the chair when the stability and growth pact, which is vital to monetary union, was agreed and when a first consideration was given to the text of the treaty amendments.

I could not help feeling some pride when the Taoiseach at his press conference in Dublin Castle announced the united political will of the European continent. This contrasted with the rather forlorn figure of the British Prime Minister standing in the second row of a group photograph in Dublin Castle, once the seat of British rule, now transformed into the temporary seat of European power.

Achieving agreement on the stability and growth pact was vital to maintain confidence in the monetary union time table. The markets have responded very positively to the news. I have always recognised the necessity for supplementary rules to cover exceptional economic circumstances and, thus, to make the normal operation of the Maastricht criteria credible. There has to be leeway during a period of international recession. If member states are to keep to the 3 per cent GDP ceiling on borrowing, then in good times they should run a deficit no higher than 1 per cent of GDP and, indeed, preferably they should be in balance of surplus.

The conclusions of the Dublin European Council reiterate:

Each member state will commit itself to aim for a medium term budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus. This work allows the automatic stabilisers to work over the whole business cycle without heading the 3 per cent reference value for the deficit.

I look forward to the Minister for Finance outlining a strategy for keeping to that commitment, either today or on budget day. During the last downturn, in the early 1990s, Ireland lived within the Maastricht criteria. We need to be sure we will also achieve that in the future so that there is no question of our ever having to face EU financial sanctions, as was agreed last weekend.

The final agreement was a good compromise between the German and French positions, which another small country, Luxembourg, helped to broker. It is important to have pro-active economic policy co-ordination and not just the monetarist approach.

The Summit agreement also addressed the issue of most immediate concern to Ireland, the relationship between countries participating in monetary union and those remaining outside. An ERM 2 is provided, which those member states are expected to join, although Britain is reserving the right to opt out of that as well. The key point, already in the Treaty, is that each member state shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest. If any country, such as Britain, were to attempt a policy of competitive devaluation it would be of grave concern, not just to us but to our other EU partners. If, on the other hand, the British economy rose against the economic and monetary union, this could create inflationary pressures. We have policy instruments, including indirect taxes, which could, if necessity required, help us cope with that situation. The uncertainty of the situation, when what investors require and demand most is certainty, will not be particularly helpful to the British economy, despite the competitive advantage they are promising themselves.

Like former Taoiseach Charles Haughey in 1990, the Taoiseach did not afford the British Prime Minister much opportunity to stage the usual 14 to one grandstand to impress the Euro sceptics back home. Despite British efforts to rubbish the Dublin European Council in advance as a non event, it did a great deal of good work and was one of the most substantial European Councils, which will be remembered. It is difficult for us to have much sympathy with British postimperial stress disorder, with its national phobias about sovereignty and foreigners.

We have to deal with the same forces in relation to Northern Ireland, and it is no wonder we have some difficulties. Sections of the British media actively foster the most ignorant attitudes. I trust they will not succeed in intimidating the next British Government from doing what is necessary. I, nevertheless, maintain the hope that we will be able to have a much more constructive and positive partnership in Europe with a new British Government, even if it is not able to go all the way immediately. A positive British attitude to Europe would, paradoxically, remove a great deal of strain from Anglo-Irish relations.

I was pleased to see draft specimens of the Euro bank notes produced at the Dublin Summit. This will help establish in the public mind that monetary union is proceeding on schedule. I know that was the intention behind it and it was a good idea.

The other major set piece of the Summit was the tabling of a draft treaty text drawn up by a committee of personal representatives under the chairmanship of Mr. Noel Dorr, whose particular diplomatic skills and intellectual grasp, and the wide respect in which he is held, made him ideal for the job.

I very much approve of the ambition to make new treaty texts easily comprehensible. One of the flaws of the Maastricht Treaty was its obscure and technical language. We have to bring the people with us, and when we consult them to be able to put meaningful propositions to them.

There are many valuable proposals in the draft treaty, such as the outlawing of all forms of discrimination; the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice; co-ordination on drugs; and a freedom of information clause. It is a good idea to write in a new title on employment, setting the objective of a high level of employment to be taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of Community policies. This builds on the work of the Essen European Council in December 1994, just before the change of Government.

Part B of the document is a list of ideas put forward by different member states. One of these on nuclear safety was tabled by Ireland on the strengthening of the safety provisions of the EURATOM Treaty, which, of course, we support, However, we should also consider supporting proposals for island regions tabled by Greece and the fishing quota hopping proposals tabled by the UK, as well as the initiatives on religion and cultural diversity and the Belgian proposals on public health, related to surveillance of food and blood products.

I would be concerned at the first comment on chapter 3, whereby no member state shall grant asylum or refugee status to anyone from another member state. There are unresolved minority problems within the EU, and while we do not approve of violence, the right of self determination is not recognised everywhere as freely as it is in these islands The Union will enlarge over the next few years and may take in states which have no lengthy track record of democracy in respect of human rights. Ireland should oppose a blanket clause of the type suggested.

I do not have a major problem with the main text on security and defence. I signalled some time ago, following discussions which Deputy Ray Burke and I had with Commission President Santer, our willingness that Ireland should participate in the humanitarian and peacekeeping Petersberg Tasks under EU direction, in ad hoc co-ordination with the Western European Union, to which we are observers. We do not want to see the EU/WEU amalgamation or the incorporation in the Treaty of alliance obligations or nuclear doctrines.

My attention has been drawn to a Commission file note of 8 October on a meeting of the Dorr group, which refers to "ex-neutral members states" participating in the Petersberg Tasks. As far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, Ireland is not "an ex-neutral state". It is precisely to prevent that kind of misunderstanding that we are opposed to participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme.

There is a sensible approach adopted in the enhanced co-operation "flexibility" section. Maintaining the right balance between the more rapid progress which some member states wish to make together and the coherence of the Union will remain vital.

Many of the difficult institutional issues have been held over. Many European Governments have between 25 and 35 Cabinet members. There seems little reason the European Commission should not have the same number. In practice, much of the real work will be done in committee. If there is a problem of coherence with, say, 25 Commissioners, will that not equally arise with 20 or 25 Council members? Are we really saying that we cannot give full membership to new applicants, or that we are withdrawing it from existing ones? I would leave the present formula alone, at least for the moment. The larger states will want to keep their two members, and are entitled to them, as it helps them to keep European policy issues on a bipartisan basis at home. I would support an extension of qualified majority voting. The appointment of special EU envoys has much to recommend it.

The European Union is a union of nation states, not just of populated regions. It is the democratic nation states that give the Union its political mandate and it legitimacy. I was disturbed to read at the weekend in the Sunday Times a German banker from Merrill Lynch in Frankfurt quoted as saying with regard to the economic and monetary union, “Ireland does not matter”, and that if Italy were excluded, Ireland almost certainly would be as well. I know that does not represent the view of the German Government, but I would warn against arrogance in larger countries. The attitude that small countries do not matter caused two world wars. It proved the undoing of empires. Even superpowers have come to grief in small countries. The larger countries in the European Union must not make that mistake again. Equally, smaller countries have to behave responsibly and respect the legitimate interests of larger countries and recognise the weight of the population that they represent. All countries, large and small, like sometimes to punch above their weight, as Douglas Hurd once put it. While it may be necessary from time to time to correct the balance, we should not try to fundamentally alter a formula that has proved successful.

I am glad there has been further intensification of international co-operation against drugs both at the EU Council and at US-EU summit which the Taoiseach attended in Washington. I also approve of the strong declaration on the Middle East peace process. At present, it is on course for disaster.

A six-month European Presidency is a bit like Macbeth's actor who "struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more". As Chancellor Kohl said, "the caravan moves on". A good presidency which is additional to the normal tasks of Government is its own reward. The electorate judge Governments on their ability to handle the issues of direct and immediate relevance to them, not on their prowess on the European or world stage. That is a reality that applies to all Governments past and present. We have all derived some benefit, and all have suffered, but that should not deprive this Government of deserved satisfaction in a job well done.

Mr. O'Malley

The major achievement of the Dublin summit was the progress made towards the establishment of a European single currency. I congratulate the Government, not just on its handling of the summit but also on the way in which it has handled the Irish Presidency over the past six months. I also congratulate all the civil servants involved in this effort, particularly those from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Finance. The professionalism with which they carried out their task has reflected great credit on this country. In particular I would like to mention Mr. Noel Dorr although he is not, strictly speaking, a public servant at the moment.

With regard to the single currency, a stability pact for participating countries has been agreed by the heads of government and economic and monetary union would appear to be on course for launch on 1 January 1999, just two years from now. There appears to be an unquestioning acceptance in this country that the single currency is a good thing. We hear some arguments put forward that border on the trivial — the single currency will save the average family a few pounds in foreign exchange costs on the annual holiday in Spain. We hear other arguments that are little short of irrational — the British are staying out of the single currency, so we can demonstrate our maturity as a nation by going in. We regard the Euro-sceptics in the British Conservative Party as nothing more than a bunch of right-wing eccentrics, but we should never dismiss political views out of hand just because we do not like or agree with the people who are promoting them.

We are about to make one of the most momentous decisions in the history of the State with a minimum of political debate, a minimum of public information and a minimum of consideration of the long-term implications. I am sure that we would all be in favour of Ireland's participation in the single currency if we thought that all the member states of the Union would join. That is not the case, however. If the British decide to stay out and we go into the single currency, the implications for this country are serious and it is vitally important that we weight them up very carefully indeed.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been only one in-depth study of the impact of the proposed single currency on the Irish economy, and that was published in July of this year. The ESRI report concluded that membership of economic and monetary union would boost the numbers employed in the Irish economy by about 25,000 within the first five years. This might seem like a very impressive figure at first sight. However, it represents an increase in national employment of just 2 per cent.

Compare this with what has happened over the past five years. The total number of people at work in this country increased by 150,000 between 1991 and 1996, even though many of those jobs are part-time. On the face of it, it seems remarkable that employment should have risen by 13 per cent during a period which saw the most incredible turbulence in our exchange rate, yet employment will only rise at one sixth of that rate in the stable certainty of the new economic and monetary union, according to the ESRI. The question we in Ireland should be asking is this: if the gains are so small, is it worth taking the risk? Let us not underestimate those risks.

It is now apparent that, regardless of which party is in government, the UK is not going to join economic and monetary union in the socalled first wave. It may not even join economic and monetary union during the second wave. We like to proclaim our political independence from the British, but we cannot ignore the very close economic links that exist between this economy and the British economy. In many ways the markets perceive these two islands as forming a kind of regional economic union within the European economic union. The UK is our largest trading partner. We do more trade with the UK than with all of the prospective first-wave members of economic and monetary union put together — France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria. Our total trade with the English-speaking countries of the North Atlantic — the UK, the US and Canada — is almost twice the size of our trade with the economic and monetary union core group.

We should also look closely at the composition of our trade with the continental European countries. Our export trade with the UK is widely spread across every area of industrial activity. It is a labour-intensive trade that supports many thousands of jobs in the Irish economy. By contrast, computers and cola concentrates account for two thirds of our total exports to Germany. There must be a reasonable suspicion that a good deal of this latter trade is hot air and that the figures are artificially puffed up by transfer pricing activities by the big transnational corporations.

The current level of imports and exports is not an adequate basis on which to assess our vulnerability to a sharp movement in the sterling/punt exchange rate. Irish industry competes with its UK counterpart not only on the export but on the home market. There is virtually no product currently being produced and for sale in this country that could not be imported from the UK if the price was right. A steep fall in the value of sterling could see Irish supermarket shelves filling up with products from Britain and Northern Ireland, such as meat, dairy products, biscuits, confectionery, beer, spirits and soft drinks.

The vulnerability will be all the greater if the major British supermarket chains make a determined move south of the Border in the next few years. They show signs of planning this. With improvements in transport, product from Belfast can reach most of the Irish population quicker than product from Cork. If that product is cheaper because of currency devaluation, the impact on employment here will be severe. Unable to devalue, as we did in January 1993, we could be forced to withdraw ignominiously from the single currency to protect jobs and prevent the effective meltdown of Irish industry.

It is worth noting that the benefits accruing from membership of the single currency are largely ascribed to lower interest rates. The ESRI expects economic and monetary union to close the gap between Irish and German rates, with a reduction of approximately 1 per cent in Irish lending rates. Not all commentators agree with this prediction. For a start, international long-term interest rates are notoriously difficult to predict. Also some commentators have highlighted the possibility that the all powerful financial markets may give the euro a baptism of fire. They could launch an immediate speculative attack on the new currency as a means of testing the resolve of economic and monetary union Governments to pursue hard policies to protect a hard currency. A speculative attack would see interest rates in the single currency area rising sharply to prevent the euro from falling. After the events of recent years, nobody can doubt the power of the financial markets to test the resolve of central bankers and elected politicians.

Such a scenario is all the more likely to happen if the Germans and the French continue to approach the issue from what appear to be totally different perspectives. The French want a soft euro that does not hit their exports while the Germany want a hard euro that will command the same respect as the deutchmark. This kind of fundamental disagreement does not auger well for the future success of the single currency.

I urge the Government to adopt a careful and cautious approach to the economic and monetary union venture. By all means let us continue to manage our economy with sufficient fiscal prudence to satisfy the Maastricht convergence criteria; we should be doing that anyway. However, let us be fully aware of the potential problems that this country could face if we enter a single currency without the British.

If there has been little debate in the country about economic and monetary union there has been even less debate about the future direction of the EU. Europe is now at a crossroads. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, highlighted this at his post summit press conference when he said that the EU was approaching "a moment of truth on the nature of Europe". Is the EU going to develop into a federation, a United States of Europe governed from Brussels, or is it going to develop into a looser grouping of nation states, bound together in an economic free trade area? The economic and monetary union project points in the direction of an ever closer union. Indeed, many supporters of a single currency believe the introduction of a euro is an essential step on the road to the creation of a full federation. The German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, said after the Dublin summit:

There is no alternative to a united Europe. The European House will be built and it will be built now.

The Italian finance minister, speaking after the summit said:

European unity is the sine qua non for the creation of a structure which can take Europe and Europeans down the road to winning the economic and commercial confrontation with Japan and the USA.

These are forthright statements of enthusiasm for the Euro-federalist ideal. Yet the imminent enlargement of the union to 20 or 25 members could lead one to the opposite conclusion.

It is probably feasible to integrate the current 15 member states into a federation. However, what about countries such as Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Latvia or Cyprus, with their different historical, political and economic backgrounds? Is there any realistic prospect of grafting these states, and several others like them, into a United States of Europe within the next ten years?

We should also not underestimate the problems closer integration will cause for the existing member states, with neighbouring countries holding diametrically opposite views on a range of important question. For example, the Germans are in favour of a greater military role for the EU while their neighbours in Denmark are against it; the French are in favour of greater regulation of the labour market while their neighbours in Britain are against it; the Dutch are in favour of a liberal attitude to the sale of drugs while their neighbours in France are against it. Reconciling such divergent attitudes will be difficult, not just on these issues but on a host of other areas.

There must be an increasing likelihood, therefore, of the emergence of a two speed Europe, with different groups of countries opting for different levels of commitment, similar, for example, to the present Schengen arrangement. It is even suggested that we should have a kind of à la carte European Union. John Major has suggested the possibility of member states choosing whether to participate in individual projects on a case by case basis.

The tensions between those who want to promote closer European integration and those who want to preserve national sovereignty are already evident. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that only the truculent British have difficulty with the current European agenda. The Danes, for example, have displayed little enthusiasm for closer integration, especially with regard to security.

The European issue is currently being debated with great vigour across the water. However, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has not addressed this momentous issue meaningfully. We in Ireland regard ourselves as having a positive attitude to Europe, but how much depth is there to this view? We are glad of the funding from Brussels for road building, tourism development, farm subsidies and training grants and are proud to see the country play an important role on the international stage, for example in taking on the Presidency of the European Union. There is no doubt that the economy has done exceptionally well as a result of EU membership. Living standards have risen dramatically in the past 25 years and we have succeeded in narrowing the wealth gap between ourselves and the continental European countries.

However, what is our real attitude to Europe and to nationalism? In most countries nationalists would be opposed to closer European integration. Does our Anglophobic version of nationalism dictate that we are in favour of European integration if the British are against it?

These are no longer mere philosophical questions. Despite the difficulties I have mentioned there is a powerful dynamic in European affairs which is pushing the EU towards closer integration. There are understandable proposals to abolish the national veto on certain issues and there are necessary proposals for joint action on crime, the ultimate logic of which is the creation of a European police force with supranational powers. There are proposals for a greater security and military dimension to the Union. This could force us in Ireland to face up to some stark choices in the not too distant future.

We are prepared to accept huge cash transfers from the taxpayers of Germany and the Netherlands but would we be prepared to assist in their defence? At present, we seem to be neither in favour of closer integration nor opposed to it. We are content to drift with the crowd without any clear idea of where we are going.

The nature of our relationship with Europe is set to change fairly dramatically over the next five to ten years regardless of what decisions we make in this country. Freer world trade, combined with the pressures of enlargement, will probably result in a fall in the value of agricultural subsidies, with obvious implications for the farming sector here. Enlargement will alter the poverty profile of the European Union. The new poor will be the Czechs and the Slovaks, the Poles and the Cypriots, not the Irish. Instead of receiving billions of pounds from Brussels to build roads in Ireland, we could, conceivably, find ourselves contributing to the cost of building roads in some underdeveloped part of eastern Europe. It will be very interesting to see if our much-vaunted enthusiasm for the European ideal will survive the fall-off in funding which is inevitable over the next few years. It is now time that we had a proper debate on our future role in the European Union.

It is up to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to initiate that debate. He could do so by having his Department publish a discussion paper setting out in straightforward language the broad options facing Ireland in Europe over the next ten years. That paper should clearly state for the first time the Government's own preferences in terms of the European options. Does the Government want to see Ireland as a member of a full European federation, a United States of Europe? Does it favour a looser arrangement based on a free trade area or, does it want to see something in between?

A great opportunity was missed with the publication earlier this year of the White Paper on Foreign Policy, "Challenges and Opportunities Abroad". That document devotes almost 60 pages to Ireland's relationship with the European Union. It deals in detail with issues such as agricultural subsidies, fisheries policy, technology programmes and improvements in transport infrastructure. Yet, nowhere does the document set out the basis principles on which our whole European policy is based. The whole paper is tediously bland and uninteresting. It says very little. This situation has to be rectified. It is up to the Government to lead and inform public opinion on this issue. I wish it would now start.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

I applaud the achievements of the Dublin summit and the Irish Presidency across a whole range of issues. We have heard from the Taoiseach and later we will hear from the Tánaiste on the successful outcome of measures brought forward to the Council for conclusion but I will focus on the progress made in the areas of social protection and social exclusion during the Presidency. I refer to the Council's Declaration on Employment — The Jobs Challenge — at the Dublin summit and to the outline draft of a new treaty which was presented to the Council and in particular to the section on social policy, including the fight against social exclusion.

Last year the Commission issued a communication entitled "The Future of Social Protection" and called for a debate on the common challenges facing all member states. A wide range of issues was raised: how to address the ageing population, how to finance social insurance and assistance systems against a background of tight public budgets and how to cope with changes in work patterns and society.

One issue stood out as being of great urgency and importance, not only for this country but for Europe as a whole, namely, the need to ensure that social protection systems contribute positively to the fight against unemployment. To that end the Minister for Social Welfare hosted an informal meeting of Ministers responsible for social welfare in Dublin in July. It was a fruitful discussion. Agreement was achieved there that social welfare systems should, without deviating from their primary aim of providing an adequate replacement income to people suffering unemployment, take on new objectives and develop new positive supports. Ministers discussed how to ensure clear incentives to take up work; how to minimise the burden of social contributions which might inhibit employers from taking on workers; how to develop "active" measures to help reintegrate the unemployed; and the provision of supports to the long-term unemployed and marginalised groups.

There was also a vigorous affirmation of the value of the well-developed European systems of social welfare. Ministers were adamant that their response to problems such as high unemployment and the ageing population would not be to dismantle their comprehensive social security systems. They indicated clearly they favoured an agenda of reform, modernisation and development of the European social model, not its destruction as some commentators wedded to a blinkered world view seem to favour.

Drawing on these views, the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, secured agreement at Council on 2 December to the adoption of a resolution which sets out the broad principles which social welfare systems should apply in the fight against unemployment. Ministers throughout the Union have affirmed their commitment to develop new approaches aimed at helping to prevent people falling into unemployment and to reintegrate those experiencing unemployment, particularly the long-term unemployed and those in marginalised groups. Ministers also indicated they would co-operate, under the aegis of the Commission, in the exchange of information between member states on practices and policies in this area.

This agreement at European level ties in with the strategies pursued on the domestic level by this Government in social welfare and employment policy. A concern with the incentive to take up and stay in work has underlain the improvements we have made to child and income support and to the family income supplement. In the area of active measures aimed at helping people reintegrate with the world of work, we have had successes with the back-to-work allowance and the second chance education schemes. However there is much more we can do and learn from our European partners. Denmark has taken the delivery of "active measures" to its long-term unemployed to a new level of development.

This new commitment on the part of the social welfare Ministers of Europe is reflected in the Declaration on Employment adopted by the heads of Government last weekend in Dublin Castle. I welcome the Declaration on Employment policy. One of the most important achievements of the Irish Presidency has been to deepen and make more meaningful the involvement of the European Union with the issue of unemployment. For several years it has been part of the rhetoric of European summits to refer to unemployment as being the greatest problem facing the Union and its individual member states. Our citizens might be forgiven if they felt cynical about this succession of fine statements. Gradually the Union has been developing mechanisms which have the potential to give substance to these commitments. Under the Irish Presidency, we have made progress to this end on several important fronts. For instance, the completion of the second joint report on unemployment under the Essen process, coupled with the establishment of an employment committee, represents a significant achievement. The Irish Presidency has overseen the inclusion in the draft revised treaty of the outline of a new employment chapter which holds out the prospect of further and deeper engagement by the Union with this problem. Under the Irish Presidency, Europe has finally begun to put some flesh on the bones of its commitment to mobilise against unemployment.

I am pleased that at the behest of the Irish Presidency we were able to agree that special attention should be given to the needs of those citizens who are most marginalised and alienated from the world of work.

Everyone in this House will know that action at EU level on social exclusion and poverty has been thwarted by the continued blocking by two member states of the Poverty 4 Programme which has been proposed by Commissioner Flynn. In the face of this and in the light of the clear signals that there was no likelihood of these objections being lifted, the Irish Presidency had two objectives in relation to action against exclusion during its six months term.

First, we wanted to address the issue of the competence of the Union to undertake actions in this area. This was because, at least in part, those member states opposing action have been able to cite a lack of clear authority in this area. In response to this, our aim is to seek clear language in the revised treaty establishing both the right and the duty of the Union to act in favour of Europe's most marginalised citizens. To this end Ireland proposed a net treaty provision in this area within the Intergovernmental Conference. Our proposal sets out how members states should co-operate and exchange information and how the Commission can act to supplement national policies. It is important to stress what we are proposing would not absolve national Governments of the primary responsibility to act to better the lives of their poorest citizens. In explaining our position to ministerial colleagues and other interested parties, we referred to our National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Many of the ideas and approaches embodied in the strategy grew out of what we learned from the three earlier EU poverty programmes. We want that process of learning, exchange of ideas and new practice to continue. We also want to send out a signal that the great European agenda is meant to include all of Europe's citizens.

The second strand of our approach to this issue has been to take every opportunity presented by the Presidency to impress on all sectors in Europe the importance of this issue and to urge that, if we cannot have the Poverty 4 Programme as proposed, we should develop other mechanisms to address it. The European Parliament strongly supports this stance and the Parliament's delegates to the Intergovernmental Conference have submitted their proposals for a new Treaty provision to address social exclusion which draws heavily on the earlier Irish text.

The work of the Intergovernmental Conference will continue beyond the end of the Irish Presidency. I am very pleased to note in the draft Treaty sent to the Dublin Summit, the firm commitment to address the issue of social exclusion at a later stage of the Intergovernmental Conference in the context of consideration of a new fully integrated social chapter. It has to be admitted that not all member states are enthusiastic about our proposals. However, we have received strong support for our approach from several member states, from the Commission and from the European Parliament. I also know from my contacts during the Presidency that this approach commands widespread support from interest groups involved with poverty and exclusion right across Europe. There is every incentive for us to continue seeking support for this initiative as the Intergovernmental Conference continues under the Dutch Presidency.

A uni-dimensional European agenda whose main or only drive is towards the creation of a single market and monetary union carries not only great potential benefits but also certain dangers, for example, the danger that certain inequalities might be exacerbated, the danger that even in the face of general economic progress which benefits the majority the poorest citizens may lose out and the danger of increasing alienation from European ideals.

The Union needs a strengthened social dimension if it is to counter such dangers. At the end of six months of intensive involvement in action and debate on European issues, I remain convinced of this. I also feel heartened that we have made progress in certain areas — for example, in relation to mobilising all forces against unemployment — and this is reflected in the Declaration on Employment adopted at the Summit last weekend. There is still much to be done in other areas such as the fight against exclusion. The draft Treaty produced for the Summit and the ongoing Intergovernmental Conference at which it will be fleshed out provide us with a platform from which to continue this work.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I understand Deputy Sargent cannot take up our generous offer to share time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is correct.

Mr. R. Burke

Is the Tánaiste surprised?

Mr. Spring

No.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Quinn)

It will, of course, be recorded by the media.

Mr. Spring

I intend to focus on some of the key foreign policy issues discussed at the European Council. It is not possible in the time available to cover comprehensively all of the issues raised.

The Intergovernmental Conference was one of the main issues on the European Council's agenda. The House will be aware that the Florence European Council had asked the Irish Presidency to produce an outline draft Treaty. We have done this and I am very pleased to say it was welcomed by Heads of State and Government and accepted by the European Council as a good basis for the work which lies ahead. The Presidency's complex task involved taking account of the views and priorities of all delegations. It is clear that during the remaining negotiations delegations, including the Irish delegation, are free to advocate their proposals and press their concerns.

The Presidency's outline draft Treaty was also welcomed because it manages to maintain the level of ambition of the Conference despite what in many cases are widely differing views of member states. It is a measure of the achievement of the Irish Presidency that the shape of the final outcome of the Conference is now clear, with the emergence of a Treaty which will equip the Union to address the challenges ahead and to respond to the aspirations of its citizens. In this context, the Presidency sought to produce an outline draft Treaty which is clear and comprehensible to the public, having made very effort to explain the issues involved and to encourage public debate, believing that the process of explaining the Intergovernmental Conference is not one to be reserved for the end of the conference.

The European Council had a very useful and constructive discussion on the basis of the Presidency's outline draft Treaty. It also took note of the recent letter from the German Chancellor and the French President which represents an important contribution to the further work of the conference. The European Council reaffirmed that the conference must, as it moves into its decisive phase, seek to achieve a balanced outcome in all areas which will measure up to the aims and ambitions set by it. It recognised the importance of equipping the Union to face the challenges ahead as it prepares for the 21st century.

The European Council noted with approval the progress made at the conference in identifying Treaty changes which would make the Union more responsive to the concerns of its citizens. In this context, the most significant elements in the Presidency's document are the proposal for a new Treaty title on employment and strengthened provisions on the environment, consumer protection, subsidiarity and transparency.

On the question of employment, there appears to be growing agreement that Treaty changes cannot create jobs on their own and the provisions on employment should be strengthened to provide a coherent basis for member states to co-operate and to provide mutual support for their respective national efforts to promote employment. On the question of the environment, there is considerable support for strengthening the Treaty provisions as suggested by the Presidency by, for example, the inclusion of the objective of sustainable development and better integration of environmental considerations into other Union policies. There is also growing agreement that the Union should be more transparent in its operation and its commitment to transparency should be reflected explicitly in the Treaty as proposed in the Presidency document.

The European Council also welcomed the importance the Presidency document attaches to the area of Justice and Home Affairs and, notably, the proposals designed to strengthen significantly the Union's capacity for action in the fight against drugs and international crime, including terrorism, offences against children and trafficking in persons. It reaffirmed the aim of developing the external action of the Union and recognised that the Union must enhance its capacity to ensure that its external action is coherent and effective in all aspects if it is to play a role in the world commensurate with its responsibilities and economic capacity. The Presidency's document will serve as a basis for further negotiations in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Union's external economic relations. On the question of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the document puts forward proposals for streamlining procedures in respect of the three, interconnected phases of the foreign policy process — preparation, adoption and implementation of decisions.

On the question of external economic relations, we have proposed a limited extension of the Union's external competence to ensure that the Union can defend effectively, notably in the World Trade Organisation, the interests of member states and of its economic operators on services, intellectual property and direct foreign investment. The European Council also recognised, as the Presidency made clear in its outline draft Treaty, that institutional issues will be central to the next phase of the negotiations and that the Union needs to improve its ability to take decisions and to act. The Presidency text, responding to the views of many delegations that certain sensitive institutional issues could only be settled definitively at a later stage of the conference, did not include a text in Treaty form on those issues. Rather it offered a clear analysis of the issues and identified options with a view to the further work of the conference.

The European Council noted progress in examining proposals for Treaty provisions to permit more flexible approaches leading to enhanced co-operation in appropriate areas, subject to agreed conditions, and emphasised the importance of this issue.

Mr. R. Burke

Will the Tánaiste give way?

Mr. Spring

Yes.

Mr. R. Burke

Will he clarify the Government's position on the retention of an Irish Commissioner?

Mr. Spring

The Government has made it clear that it regards the retention——

Mr. R. Burke

There is no reference to this in the speech.

Mr. Spring

I said at the outset that I could not cover every aspect. There are 1,256 suggestions in regard to the Intergovernmental Conference and we will have an opportunity of going through these in detail at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and in the House. The Government stated clearly both inside and outside the House that the retention of a Commissioner is very important for a country like Ireland.

The review at the Intergovernmental Conference of the European Union's structures and procedures is being undertaken in the perspective of future enlargement of the Union. The European Union has recognised that enlargement is both a political necessity and a historic opportunity for peace and prosperity in Europe. The momentum of the enlargement process has been successfully maintained during our Presidency, with confirmation by the European Council of the timetable for the enlargement process as set out at Madrid. The European Council welcomed also the Commission's intention to present proposals for an overall reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy.

The ongoing process of developing the EU's relations with the applicant countries has been an important priority of our Presidency, in the lead up to the accession negotiations. As is traditional at the European Council, a meeting was held in the context of the structured dialogue with the Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers of the associated states. This provided an opportunity to brief them on the European Council and to review relations between the Union and the associated states. In addition, the structured dialogue on this occasion, as the Taoiseach has mentioned, included a discussion of the common threat posed by organised crime, including drug trafficking and trafficking in persons. Discussion of a topic of this kind between member states of the Union and the applicant states en marge of a European Council was an important innovation of our Presidency and well received by all participants as a practical step in furthering co-operation between the Union and the associated states.

The European Council had a discussion on Russia and Ukraine, both of which were priorities of our Presidency. In relation to Russia, progress has been made on ratifying the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement which provides the essential framework for developing relations between the Union and Russia. In addition, the Presidency has made progress in implementing the EU Russia Action Plan, a report on which was made to the General Affairs Council on 6 December.

Recent positive developments in Chechnya, including the withdrawal of Russian troops, the agreement on a framework for relations and the forthcoming local elections have been sadly overshadowed by the brutal murder on 17 December of six International Red Cross humanitarian aid workers. I have requested the President of the ICRC to convey to the families and friends of the victims the profound sympathy of the Government and the Irish people. It is of the utmost importance, however, that the crime should not derail the considerable efforts currently under way to achieve a lasting, negotiated settlement to the conflict in Chechnya.

The adoption by the General Affairs Council on 6 December of an EU-Ukraine Action Plan demonstrates the importance which the EU attaches to its relations with Ukraine. The European Council took note of the plan and reinforced the Union's desire to develop closer co-operation with this important partner. Members will also be aware that the situation in Belarus is of serious concern to the European Union. Our concerns have been conveyed to the Belarussian authorities and the EU has proposed to President Lukashenko that a factfinding mission to Belarus should take place to investigate the position there.

The European Council met exactly one year after the signing in Paris of the peace agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina and marked the occasion with a comprehensive and substantive declaration on the peace process in former Yugoslavia. The European Council fully endorsed the outcome of the ministerial meetings held in Paris on 14 November 1996 and in London on 4 and 5 December 1996. It supported the guiding principles of the Civilian Consolidation Plan for a two-year period as well as the detailed action plans which elaborate the activities and obligations of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the international community for 1997.

The European Council underlined the importance which it attaches to effective co-ordination of civilian aspects of implementation during the consolidation period and reiterated the Union's strong support for the activities of the High Representative, Carl Bildt, whose co-ordinating role has been strengthened for 1997. The European Council also expressed its support for the continuing role of the OSCE, notably in supervising municipal elections in 1997 and in relation to the Royaumont Stability Process. In addition, the Union's support for the International Criminal Tribunal was stressed.

Economic recovery and the return of refugees will be priority areas during the consolidation period. The EU is committed to continue to make a substantial contribution to the economic reconstruction effort on condition that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrate their commitment to the reconstruction effort and comply fully with the provisions of the peace agreement. In this context, the European Council welcomed the plans of the European Commission and the World Bank for the convening of a further International Donors' Conference in early 1997.

Turning now to the Middle East, the European Council represented the culmination of very intense activity by the Irish Presidency on this issue. Against a background of deteriorating relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours, we tried to enhance the Union's role in the region so that the EU could play a full part, alongside the US, in restoring momentum to the peace process. It is generally recognised that we succeeded in these aims and in empowering the Union to respond effectively during this critical phase. We did so through my visit to the region on 6 and 7 October, through the visit of the Troika to the region the following month, by the establishment of a special envoy, through public statements such as the Declaration on the Middle East adopted by the General Affairs Council on 1 October last and by the talks we had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Arafat, the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Secretary General of the Arab League during their visits to Dublin.

The Dublin European Council, therefore, convened against the background of a worsening situation in the Middle East peace process, but one which the Union was in a position to address constructively and even handedly as a friend of all the parties involved. It reaffirmed the Union's support for the principles of a just and lasting peace, notably land-for-peace and self-determination for the Palestinians, with all that this implies. In addition, the Council outlined a number of areas where concrete action is necessary, calling for an early resolution of the deadlock over Hebron, for Israel to remove all restrictions regarding the blockade of Palestinian territories, except where its security interests were clearly involved, and for negotiations to proceed on the basis of international agreements already concluded between the parties. The issue of Israeli settlements was also addressed by the Council, which stated that these settlements contravene international law and are a major obstacle to peace.

The European Council reaffirmed the high priority attached by the European Union to its relations with its Mediterranean partner countries and expressed satisfaction with the significant and positive developments in all aspects of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. The adoption of the MEDA regulation which provides the means for financial co-operation with the Mediterranean partner countries was a particular achievement of the Irish Presidency. Recalling the objectives set out in the Barcelona Declaration regarding the creation of a Euro Mediterranean Free Trade area, the Council reiterated its commitment to complete a network of association agreements with the Mediterranean partners as soon as possible.

Following the practice set at the Madrid and Florence summits, I hosted a working dinner for Mrs. Tansu Ciller, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkey, at which we had a frank and useful exchange of views on the current state and future development of EU-Turkey relations. It was emphasised to Mrs. Ciller that the European Union attached value and importance to relations with Turkey and wished to see this relationship develop in a positive and constructive manner. I and my fellow Ministers underlined the serious concerns within the European Union on the human rights situation in Turkey and impressed on Foreign Minister Ciller the need for the Turkish Government to take measures to ensure the highest standards of human rights. The tensions between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean were also discussed at some length.

Foreign Minister Ciller conveyed the strong wish of Turkey to have close and constructive relations with the Union, leading eventually to full membership of the European Union. The Customs Union Agreement between the EU and Turkey represented a unique and close partnership between Turkey and the Union and Mrs. Ciller stressed the serious concern within Turkey that the European Union had not fully implemented its obligations under the Customs Union Agreement. On human rights, Mrs. Ciller indicated that improvement in this area was a priority for her and she was committed to achieving progress on the issue. As regards tensions between Greece and Turkey, she emphasised that Turkey wanted and was fully ready to discuss these issues in bilateral talks with Greece to resolve their disputes peacefully. Along with my fellow Ministers, I took the opportunity to stress that Turkey could make a constructive contribution to international efforts to encourage a political settlement to the Cyprus question and urged the Turkish side to use their influence to assist the search for a solution.

I am very pleased that the European Council should have focused on Africa and we welcome the election of the first ever Secretary General of the UN from Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Great Lakes region has been a major focus for Ireland throughout the Presidency and one to which we have devoted very considerable time. This is also reflected in the extensive discussions by the Council on this issue. Focusing on the humanitarian situation, the European Council stressed the need for fast and decisive action to address the continuing humanitarian emergency in the region, particularly in eastern Zaire. We also recognised that the rapid pace of developments there required a flexible approach. In addition, bearing in mind the decision of Canada — announced at the same time as our meeting was taking place — to withdraw from the temporary multinational force for eastern Zaire with effect from 31 December, the summit stressed the urgent need for the Security Council to address the implications of these developments for the implementation of UN Resolutions 1078 and 1080 of 1996. Recalling the enormous contribution the EU had already made to meeting the humanitarian needs of the region, the summit reaffirmed the commitment of the Union to continue to play its full part in this regard.

Consultations are now taking place in New York on the implications of the Canadian decision. Canada's view is that the stated mission for which the multinational force was deployed is now in large part accomplished and that the conditions in the Great Lakes region are now such as to allow civilian leadership and agencies to carry out the remaining humanitarian tasks themselves. The evidence from the humanitarian agencies does seem to suggest that access for them, while still problematic in places, is improving. The technical position is that UN Resolution 1080 of 15 November which sanctioned the multinational force is still in place and it is a matter for the Security Council to decide on how to proceed in light of Canada's withdrawal as lead country.

A major consideration for the Government — and I am sure this is a concern shared throughout the House — is the safety and security of aid workers. For the Government's part, therefore, I want to make clear to the House that should the judgment of the Security Council be that a force of some kind, or an operation involving military and logistical support to civilian humanitarian efforts, remain necessary, our offer of a contingent of troops fully stands. I am sure this is a position shared also by the House. As we have said throughout, the central challenge continues to be how best and most efficiently to get help to those still in need and that will remain our focus. The European Union, with Ireland playing its full part, has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the region and will continue, as the Summit Conclusions make explicit, to contribute fully and urgently to the efforts ahead in this regard. The Irish Presidency will remain in close collaboration with the humanitarian agencies about how that can best be done.

The Council also reflected the Union's consistent assessment that a humanitarian response alone is not sufficient and must be accompanied by political action. The summit welcomed the initiative of the Heads of State of the region to resolve the problems in eastern Zaire by peaceful means. The outcome of the Nairobi Summit of Heads of State on Monday represents a further important development, particularly with the engagement of President Mandela on this issue. This is a significant initiative which, taken with the arrival back in Kinshasa of President Mobutu, holds considerable potential. The Union also supports the early convening of an international conference under the joint auspices of the UN and the Organisation of African Unity to address within a global approach the root causes of the crisis and thus bring about a peaceful and comprehensive resolution to the conflicts of the region.

It is impossible to discuss in detail the range of issues on which achievement has been made during the Irish Presidency. I mention Hong Kong where the Council noted the Union's interest in its future peace and prosperity and the right of its people to representative democratic institutions. I should also mention the development of a common position on Cuba, the conclusion of an Action Plan in respect of Canada and the elaboration of further measures in relation to East Timor. The range of activity undertaken under the Irish Presidency demonstrates the real contribution which the European Union can make to international peace and stability.