Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1994

Vol. 447 No. 9

Essen Summit: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the meeting of the European Council in Essen on Friday and Saturday last, 9-10 December 1994, accompanied by the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt.

This was a business-like European Council conducted in a very good spirit. I am glad to be able to record that a unity of purpose was displayed by all member states in our discussions. In my view the excellent atmosphere evident in Essen bodes well for the Union as it faces the challenges of the coming years. The three new member states, Austria, Finland and Sweden, played a full and constructive part in our discussions and their presence as full members from 1 January 1995 will undoubtedly enrich the Union. The participants in the European Council also met the Heads of State and Government and the Foreign Ministers of the Central and Eastern European countries which are already associated with the European Union through Europe Agreements and held an exchange of views with them on the strategy for leading these states towards the European Union.

This was the last European Council attended by Jacques Delors as President of the European Commission. In the Presidency conclusions, copies of which I have laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, a warm and deserved tribute is paid to the work of Jacques Delors during his term in office. I would like to endorse this tribute from an Irish perspective.

Jacques Delors has been a great President of the European Commission and a very good friend of Ireland. He has given the European Union a new vision and confidence. His friendship for Ireland has been based on his belief that the European Union must be a true Union of big and small, rich and poor, and that tangible expression must be given to this. The Delors I and II packages which involved a massive channelling of EU funds to the poorer member states, including Ireland, underlined this approach. I have no doubt that the personal weight and authority of Jacques Delors ensured the significance of these packages.

Apart from the financial transfers made possible by the packages which bear his name, President Delors often expressed his concern to ensure that the rights of smaller and poorer states like Ireland should be protected in the EU decision-making process. He has also been tremendously supportive of the peace process and was a key figure in the EU aid package approved at Essen on which I will elaborate later in my statement.

On the European stage as a whole I can only endorse the statement in the conclusions that the name of Jacques Delors will be associated with what must be the ten most successful years of European unification. Truly this outstanding statesman has left a singular legacy to both Europe and Ireland and I wish him well in his retirement.

This was a businesslike Council. While no major initiatives of concern to the Union as a whole were taken, significant momentum was given to the work of the Union in a number of important areas. The main focus in this regard was on three priority areas: first, in the top priority area of the economy and jobs the summit concentrated on continuing and strengthening the strategy of the Commission White Paper to consolidate growth, improve the competitiveness of the European economy and — given the still intolerably high level of unemployment — create more jobs for our citizens; second, the focus was on ensuring the lasting peace and stability of the European continent and neighbouring regions by preparing for the future accession of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe and developing in parallel the special relationship of the Union to its other neighbours, particularly the Mediterranean countries; third, the council pursued the question of strengthening the Union's action in the area of internal security through providing the necessary legal and operational means for co-operation in justice and home affairs, in particular by deciding to conclude the Europol Convention during the French Presidency.

The Council had a wide-ranging discussion on the European economy and job creation. In advance of the summit and as a contribution to the discussion on jobs I circulated to my fellow Council members and the President of the European Commission a paper on Ireland's experience of social partnership: national and local. I have arranged for copies of this paper to be placed in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I briefed the Council on the contents of the paper and in particular on its central message that in the view of the Irish Government action to create employment is required at national and local levels and under the umbrella of a social partnership agreement involving the Government, employers, unions and farm organisations. I also pointed to the impressive results achieved in Ireland by this approach. In the five years to 1993, GDP growth in Ireland averaged 5 per cent per year. Non-agricultural employment grew significantly in this period, in spite of the negative effects of the recession on employment in the European Union generally. Ireland's growth in 1994 is again likely to be among the highest in the European Union, at about twice the European Union average rate of growth.

The response to my contribution was positive. The agreed Presidency conclusions specifically noted the experience of Denmark, Portugal and Ireland in developing a framework at national level and structures and procedures at local level to support an integrated concept for development at local level. In addition the prescriptions for job creation set out in the conclusions stress the importance of social dialogue at national level and the promotion of job creation initiatives at local level. Other key elements of the recommendations for domestic action by the Council, such as targeting measures at the long term unemployed and young people and the promotion of training, reflect policies adopted by the Government.

The Presidency conclusions on employment recognise that in the final analysis the primary responsibility for tackling unemployment rests with each member state. Nevertheless the clear message from the Council was that the current economic recovery in itself will not be sufficient to conquer the European employment problem. This applies even more so in Ireland given our comparatively higher level of unemployment. For this reason the Government has adopted a proactive approach to measures to combat unemployment. Notwithstanding the significant progress made this approach needs to be continued and intensified if we are to defeat the scourge of unemployment.

In other economic related issues the European Council noted that the stability based preparation for economic and monetary union is being accomplished. In this context Deputies will recall that Ireland and Luxembourg were the only two countries recently given a complete clean bill of health in regard to the convergence criteria in the Maastricht Treaty. The Council also underlined the importance of maintaining the competitiveness of the European economy and welcomed the intention of the Commission to set up a highlevel group to monitor and address what is a key issue in today's global economy.

Turning to trans-European networks, TENs, the European Council welcomed the final report of the Christophersen group on TENs. Among the 14 priority transport projects endorsed by the Council were two projects of direct relevance to Ireland — the Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Larne-Stranraer rail project and the Ireland-UK-Benelux road project — and one project of indirect relevance to Ireland — the British west coast main line rail project. The endorsement of these Irish-related projects underpins the coming together of the economies of Ireland and Northern Ireland and the essential links with Britain and beyond to other member states in the European Union.

Finally, in the general economic area, the Council considered the development of the information society and endorsed the work being undertaken in this key area by the Commission and the Ministers for Information and Communications. Ireland fully supports the follow-up agenda in this area, while recognising that a satisfactory balance has to be found between opening up competition and laying down suitable ground rules.

In the area of the union's external relations the main focus was on the relationships with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries. The Council confirmed the conclusions of the European Councils in Copenhagen and Corfu that the associated states of central and eastern Europe can become members of the European Union if they so desire and as soon as they are able to fulfil the necessary conditions. The Council adopted a comprehensive strategy for preparing these countries for accession to the Union while making it clear that negotiations on accession cannot take place until after the conclusion of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference.

Ireland is supportive of the accession of the states of central and eastern Europe on the basis set out in the Presidency conclusions. The European Union cannot turn its back on countries who have for many decades suffered political and economic oppression and where recently established democracies need to be nurtured. The Union has already undertaken a comprehensive programme of assistance for these states through the association agreements concluded with them. Eventual full accession by these countries, when the conditions are right, is the next logical step in the process. There is no doubt that when negotiations begin major issues will have to be tackled. In the interim period the main objective should be to make the pre-accession strategy work and in particular to promote necessary reforms in these countries to prepare them for accession.

In regard to the Mediterranean states the Council confirmed that the Mediterranean represents a priority area of strategic importance for the European Union and signalled its willingness to establish a Euro-Mediterranean partnership as a means of developing and strengthening ties across a range of areas.

The main item of Council discussion under the heading of justice and home affairs was the proposed Europol Convention to set up an institutional and operational framework for police co-operation. Recognising the importance of the common struggle against international organised crime, terrorism and the threat posed by drugs, the Council decided that the convention establishing Europol should be concluded at the latest by the European Council meeting in Cannes in June next.

Also under the justice and home affairs heading the Council emphasised the importance it attached to promoting tolerance and understanding and to combating racism and xenophobia. To this end the Council approved the guidelines contained in the interim report of the consultative commission on racism and xenophobia and agreed that the European Council will adopt an overall strategy in this area at its meeting in June 1995.

I will turn now to the package of aid for Northern Ireland and the Border counties agreed by the Council. I was particularly moved by the tribute paid by the Council to myself and the British Prime Minister, John Major, for our part in advancing the peace process. This reaction was emphatically underlined in the Presidency conclusions which confirmed "the commitment of the European Union to underpin this unique opportunity for reconciliation and economic recovery."

The Council gave tangible expression to its support through the aid package which is approved. The package will run for five years with agreed additional funding over the first three years of ECU 300 million or approximately £240 million. The package will be reviewed at the end of three years when the level of funding for the final two years will be decided upon. The programme of measures will pursue the central objective of reconciliation and will especially target the most deprived sections of the community. I emphasise that no decision has been taken yet as to the North-South split of the aid package although the bulk of the aid will be allocated to the North.

The European Council agreed on a united approach to the ongoing conflict in Bosnia. This condemns the recent attacks on Bihac and calls for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb and Krajina Serb troops. Importantly it emphasises the need to continue the humanitarian effort and to maintain the role of UNPROFOR in this regard. We also gave our full support to the efforts of the Contact Group to find a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict.

The common approach agreed by the European Council was particularly welcome in the aftermath of the disagreement on this issue at the CSCE Summit in Budapest a few days earlier. The European Council noted, however, that there were some positive developments at the Budapest Summit in relation, for example, to peace-keeping in Nagorno-Karabakh and the further development of the role of the CSCE as an important component of the future European security system.

The Council had before it the Commission's first annual report on the application of the principle of subsidiarity. The general aim of the principle of subsidiarity is, as far as possible, to limit the imposition of regulation from Brussels and to retain responsibility at member state level. In this regard the Commission is currently reviewing existing Community law to assess its consistency with the subsidiarity principle and the Council has requested the Commission to complete this report and submit proposals to it no later than June 1995. The issue of subsidiarity is an important one in the context of gaining the trust and the support of the European public for the Union.

Turning to other items in the Presidency conclusions, there is a reference to the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common policy on fisheries. In fact, the Council urged the Fisheries Council, who will be meeting on Monday of next week, to reach agreement on the conditions to apply to Iberian vessels in Community waters after 1 January 1996. I should add that this statement by the European Council does not in any way hinder the Irish negotiating objective of ensuring that reliable controls remain in place to protect the stocks of fish in our waters after Iberian access is increased in 1997.

Mr. Deasy

That contradicts what Mr. Gonzalez said yesterday.

The Taoiseach

I am quoting from the conclusions and the Deputy can inspect them in the Dáil Library if he so wishes.

I welcome the European Council's reaffirmation of the Union's firm commitment to indefinite and unconditional extension of the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

I am also pleased that we focused on the Union's relations with Africa. In this context, Ireland has been pressing for a more active Union role in Rwanda. I am pleased that the European Council has taken up the issue and stressed the extreme urgency of dealing with the refugee problem, supporting the Government of Rwanda and encouraging national reconciliation.

Finally, I would like briefly to advert to the discussion which the European Council had over dinner on last Friday night. This took the form of a general discussion on the future of the European Union which allowed for a frank exchange of views addressing a longer term agenda. The discussion ranged from the agenda for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference to the shape of the Union well into the next century.

It is clear that there are major challenges facing the Union in the years ahead. The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference which will, of course, coincide with the Irish Presidency is the next major item on the Union's agenda. The Intergovernmental Conference will have to address the issue of closer integration whilst also creating an institutional framework capable of accommodating a much enlarged Union. These issues will have major implications for all existing member states, not least Ireland. In this regard the proposed White Paper on Foreign Policy and the related public seminars on the key issues should be expedited as soon as possible. This will enable the public to participate in the debate and to be informed on the issues if they have to decide on them by way of referendum in the aftermath of 1996.

It was also agreed at that dinner that, under the Spanish Presidency in September of next year, there would be a one day special meeting of the Heads of Government to consider again the objectives to be decided upon at the Intergovernmental Conference which, as we all know, will fall within the Irish Presidency.

For me the position is clear. Membership of the European Union and the fullest participation in the Union has been and will be fundamental to Ireland's economic and political interests. I believe that this view will be endorsed again by the people if they are called upon to do so in the future. My wish for Europe in the 21st century is, therefore, for an ever closer Union living in peace and prosperity and in which Ireland is playing a full part.

Mrs. Owen

From all appearances and accounts the Essen Summit was a low key affair. There was much interesting personality news but it appears to have been a workman-like summit. Like the Taoiseach, I wish to pay tribute to Jacques Delors on his retirement. He is a man who has been good for Europe and good for Ireland and we should remember that. We should also be conscious that as somebody of the stature of Jacques Delors moves off the European stage, there is a danger that the momentum will decrease for some time.

It is clear that by and large the Irish people have had a positive view of our EU membership. Since we joined the Community in 1973 there have been many benefits for this country in material terms. Those benefits can be seen everywhere we go — the new roads, the development programmes under Leader and many other improvements in both urban and rural areas.

We as a country face a much more challenging period in Europe because as the debate widens to include East and Central Europe, there will be clearly a difference in Ireland's role. Our place will change on the spectrum of wealth when membership of the EU is extended to east and central European countries. It will probably be more difficult for our people to recognise the benefits that Europe will offer to them because they may not be quite so tangible as they have been over recent years. Our opinion will have to mature in regard to how we can contribute to Europe as opposed to constantly asking how Europe can contribute to us and to our development.

A major area of discussion at the Essen Summit was unemployment, probably the most insidious, damaging problem in all European countries. Unemployment in this country eats into every facet of our society. It disturbs families and communities and creates other difficulties such as an increase in crime. Until the European Union tackles that problem in a realistic way and returns more of our people to employment, all the other benefits that will flow from European membership will be minimised. I welcome the fairly indepth discussion that took place at the Essen Summit about the problem of unemployment.

There are certain other areas which require discussion. For years, there has been much talk about reducing nonwage labour elements and helping younger and older unemployed people. When I use the term "older" I mean those in their 40s who are considered old in the workforce. The best many of the unemployed in that age group can hope for is to secure part-time work from time to time until they reach retirement age, which is tragic and damaging to society.

We must look at the organisation of work and how to make it more flexible, particularly in rural areas where farming may no longer be viable and people must supplement their income from other sources, by working a half day in a local factory or whatever. We face major changes in work practices and unless we adapt to them young people will have no hope for the future. They will not secure the same kind of employment we were lucky enough to have. When people left school in the 60s they were said to be malingering or dossing if they did not have a job within five or six weeks. Nowadays young people will have left school for many years before they secure satisfactory employment. The work flexibility programmes which are being discussed must take into account changing work practices.

We need to look at a wage policy. It is appropriate, since we are involved in negotiations for a new Government, that workers and employers recognise that there must be changes in wage practices. Wage increases must match productivity. A company cannot survive if it faces huge wage increases while selling fewer products. Until we have the correct balance between productivity and wage increases people will be made redundant and companies may ultimately close down. The future wage policy must be one into which all sides will buy. It is easy for employers to say they want to keep wages at a certain level but employees are as vital to the future of a company as any management structure and unless they are involved in discussions a wage policy will not work.

Many of the programmes Ireland is receiving assistance with, such as the Leader programmes, are effective. There are a number of integrated development programmes in Sligo, Carlow, Kilkenny and Cork where broad based local initiatives widen many people's horizons. This has a stabilising effect on rural communities and such initiatives need to be expanded to keep young people in their local communities.

There is need to recognise that environmental and social services projects are proper parts of our work ethic. For too long, many aspects of Irish life ignored the advantages of recognising the services given by many in areas which would now be considered in the black economy, for example, house minding, child minding and caring for the aged, sick and handicapped. They are the poor relations in society. Unless we take courageous steps to recognise the importance of these services employment will not grow and people will not have their dignity restored to them through being involved in work.

Another major area of discussion at the Essen Summit was the Union's relationship with central and eastern Europe. A number of countries have agreements with the EU — Poland, Hungary, Slovak, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania. Discussions are underway to add the Baltic States — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia. Enlargement of the Union to the east has major implications for us and other EU members which we underestimate at our peril. The economic base of these countries, the huge numbers of those dependent on the agricultural sector and their products, which will have access to European markets, will affect our agricultural policies and economic base. Unless we recognise this and prepare for it we may well see a decline in our own growth. This poses a major challenge to all companies. They must expand their horizons and ensure they are in a position to capitalise on the benefits of the wider European market.

Up to now, the more wealthy countries with strong companies were the main beneficiaries of the open market but it is time to recognise that small is beautiful and that small companies selling high quality products have just as good a chance of making inroads to the new European markets. There are huge opportunities for Ireland if we meet the major challenges facing us.

The stability of the Southern rim, the Northern African countries, Turkey and Malta was also discussed at Essen. It is important to have good relations between these countries and the EU and I am sure there will be further discussions on that issue.

An area of major interest was the discussion on Northern Ireland and obviously the Irish people are deeply committed to and concerned about this. It must be evident to those in Northern Ireland who have suffered for so long that politics can and will work to improve their lives. If solving the problem in Northern Ireland was openly a question of money we would have solved it years ago.

Mr. Spring

That is what Mrs. Thatcher said years ago.

Mrs. Owen

It is not just money that will solve the problem. Obviously the 300 million ECU is vital but it must be used in such a way to ensure that at the end of the three year assessment period and the five year period mentioned here, deprived and disadvantaged communities on both sides will see real changes in their lives. The improvements must not be just at the top with better structures between North and South, better road and rail links and many conferences and seminars but little else to commend the package to those in deprived communities. Unless the money is used to the advantage of the deprived we will not see the kind of progress we expect from the peace process.

In warmly welcoming the 300 million ECU we wish to thank other EU members for their assistance in this matter and support for the peace process.

This additional money will not be subtracted from the money given by the British and Irish Governments to Northern Ireland. It must be targeted at the communities which have suffered most from the troubles in Northern Ireland as that is where most of those who were killed came from and where most of those affected by tragedies, crime and unemployment come from. Unless this money is used in such an enlightened way we may well be asking in five years time what has happened in these communities to the Mary's and John's that their lives have not improved in any way.

I will deal briefly with justice and home affairs. As markets open up, freedom of movement increases and borders disappear there is a fear that criminals will be able to wander freely throughout Europe. There is also the fear of drug trafficking and all sorts of contraband being moved back and forth. It is important that the Europol Convention be set up quickly so that there is an operational framework that is not too intrusive on trade yet at the same time provides the protection that people expect and does not allow escaping criminals free access to neighbouring countries. The danger attaching to the growth of racism and xenophobia, and the need to promote tolerance and understanding were discussed extensively during the Maastricht Treaty debate. I have heard it said that this is a side issue, it is not. As unemployment is an insidious force in our society, so too is the growth of xenophobia and racism as they damage community relations at the most fundamental base, at street and village level where people feel under threat because those from other places or countries are taking jobs they would expect to be available for their children. This sense of threat has to be removed and unless there is an acceptance in Europe of the need to combat xenophobia and racism they will become a much bigger factor in society in future.

There are probably many vital areas I have not touched on, because we have had to prepare speedily for this debate, but I welcome the discussion on the Community's relationships with Africa — I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, had an involvement in this. From my work in Africa — I visited Rwanda during the summer — I know there is the sense that Europe is quick enough to make a financial response to the crisis as they arise but is less speedy in responding in a political way — I do not mean with a party-political emphasis — to the needs of governments, or overthrown governments as the case may be, in some of these countries.

Sadly, in the 12 to 15 years I have been involved in development work, countries that were beginning to develop have gone back to where they were and in some cases further back. In the years to come, the European Council or the Council of Foreign Ministers will have to recognise that it may take more courage than sending so many thousand million ECUs or a Lomé Convention package to tackle the problem of total deprivation in these countries and may mean more involvement in the structures of these countries. I do not mean the economic structures, as economic structural programmes have caused poverty but courageous steps. I hope we will be able to move from handing out money to a more in-depth involvement. Perhaps over the coming years I will have an opportunity to see how the commission works in this area.

The Taoiseach recommended that the proposed White Paper on foreign policy be brought forward as quickly as possible. As we move towards 1996 and the debate on the intergovernmental conference, we do not want two or three weeks of mass media soakage telling people what is going on and then it disappearing. We know from experience that it takes time and dedication to inform the Irish people of the very complex matters that will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. For that reason the publication of the White Paper and the continuation of the seminars is a very good way to start the debate and I hope people will be informed through radio and television before major decisions are taken in 1996.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. T. Kitt)

May I assure the Deputy that in bidding farewell to the foreign ministers I asked them to continue to focus on Africa. My final words to them were, "do not turn your backs on Rwanda".

Mr. Spring

Events at home meant the Council meeting in Essen did not get the notice or attention that a Council meeting normally would. Notwithstanding that, the Taoiseach described it as a businesslike meeting but there were no major initiatives, understandable perhaps because of the situation in Germany in recent months. The German leadership has had 17 or 18 elections, including a general election, over the past 12 months and obviously the time and attention that could be given to European Union business was limited. It was significant that the two Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden were in attendance as well as Austria but it is a matter of regret to me and many others that the Norwegians were not at the meeting and will not be joining the European Union on 1 January 1995. During the course of discussion on the European Communities Bill over the past couple of weeks, all parties agreed to welcome all four applicant countries but regrettably the Norwegians yet again have decided to stay outside the framework of European Union.

The presence of the foreign ministers of central and eastern European countries was of major significance because they will be very important in their dealings with the European Union in the coming years. I too pay tribute to the outgoing president of the Commission, President Jacques Delors who has made a significant impact on the development of the European Union over the past ten years. In particular his concern for the smaller states of the Union was of major importance. It is regrettable that he will not continue in political life but his decision is understandable. He has exerted enormous influence, power and energy in his involvement in the Commission, no small task over the past ten years. On behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party I pay tribute to him and thank him for that effort. It will be difficult to find Europeans of his stature in in the future.

I understand that the priorities of the summit were the economy and jobs and to strengthen the strategy of commissioning the White Paper in order to consolidate growth and improve the competitiveness of the European economy. Given the still intolerble high level of unemployment, we must keep job creation as a priority for our citizens and I question if we are still doing enough when we look at the disadvantage at which we operate and compare ourselves with the United States, Japan or the newly emerging states in Asia. We have a great deal to do in this respect.

I compliment the Irish delegation on their presentation of the paper on Ireland's experience of social partnership, national and local. I was involved in some of the preparatory work and it is very significant that it was well received by our European Union colleagues. That indicates the success we have achieved in recent years in terms of social partnership, both at national and local level. I hope that will continue. Our growth in 1994 is likely to be the highest in the European Union, a significant indicator which, hopefully, will be continued by the new Government.

In the European Union we have to keep the focus on job creation at all levels and the conclusions of the Presidency recognise, of course, that the primary responsibility for tackling unemployment lies with each member state. There has to be a co-ordinated and very specific European Union response to this issue, otherwise we will not be able to compete and will not achieve the economic recovery which is necessary to enable us to make a significant impact on the high levels of unemployment in Europe. The lack of resources directed towards research and development in Europe means we will not achieve the levels of growth and employment creation needed. We have singly failed in comparison with the levels of investment in these areas by both Japan and the United States in recent years.

The related issue of stability in preparation for economic and monetary union raised at the European Council is of major importance. As the Taoiseach said, it is significant that Ireland and Luxembourg were the two countries held out for particular mention in terms of the convergence criteria in the Maastricht Treaty. Obviously we have to continue along these lines in terms of fiscal and economic policy. The Council has set up a high level group to monitor the key issue of unemployment in today's global economy. We have to maintain competitiveness if we are to succeed in creating jobs.

Work on the trans-European networks has been ongoing and the report of the Christophersen group was delivered at the European Council meeting. In the 14 major priority areas, Ireland benefits from two projects of direct relevance to us — the Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Larne-Stranraer rail project and the Ireland-UK-Benelux road project — and a project of indirect relevance to us, the British west coast mainline rail project. We have been monitoring this project for a long time as we obviously have to ensure that we can get our products to the markets as quickly, efficiently and cost effectively as possible.

External relations issues will be of enormous significance to the European Union during the next ten to 15 years, as will relationships with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries. Some of our southern partners in the Union are concerned that because of the emphasis on east European countries we will not be able to strengthen the bond with the Mediterranean countries. The Council confirmed the conclusions of both the Corfu and Copenhagen summits that the associated states of central and eastern Europe can become members of the European Union if they so desire, as I believe they do, as soon as they fulfil the necessary conditions. The Council adopted a comprehensive strategy for preparing these countries for accession to the Union while also making it clear that no formal negotiations can take place until after the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

We should not underestimate the difficulties enlargement of the Union to the east will pose for Ireland. These difficulties have been discussed in the House on many occasions. Ireland is supportive in principle of the accession of the central and east European countries to the Union on the basis set out in the Presidency conclusions. I agree with the Taoiseach that there are major issues which will have to be tackled when the formal negotiations begin. There are two main reasons the central and east European countries want to be part of the European Union: first, strictly economic reasons and, second, security reasons, both of which are equally important. I will be suggesting during the lead in to the 1996 intergovernmental conference and prior to the commencement of any negotiations that the Irish Government should look at all the areas which will present difficulties for us. These difficulties have been articulated in recent months in the House during debates on agriculture and other issues and we need to be prepared to deal with them.

The Mediterranean states which will also play an important role are of strategic importance to the Union. This was signalled at the European Council by the proposal to establish a Euro-Mediterranean partnership as a means of developing and strengthening ties across a range of areas. The Mediterranean region has a direct link to Africa and we are all well aware of the serious political tensions which have arisen in North Africa in recent months. It is very important for the European Union not only to open but to develop and maintain very strong links with the Mediterranean countries and, through them, to North Africa.

On the question of justice and home affairs, I am concerned at the lack of movement in terms of Europol since agreement was reached to establish it. It appears from documentation I have read in recent weeks that there are serious difficulties between the various states about what their police forces should be allowed to do in terms of tackling international crime, terrorism and the threats posed by drugs. Obviously we have to move as quickly as possible as international crime, the scourge of drugs and terrorism are issues with which Europe will have to contend, irrespective of the peaceful situation in Europe at present.

At previous Council meetings there were long discussions on the promotion of tolerance and understanding and the need to combat racism and xenophobia. These issues will remain on the European agenda for a long time and much work has to be done in this area. We must promote a better understanding of these issues among the public. To a large extent Ireland has been free from these problems but nevertheless we should focus on them as we will form part of working groups within Europe which have to tackle these problems.

On the question of Northern Ireland, I welcome the announcement of funding made by President Delors in recent days. This will be of major benefit to Northern Ireland. Without going into too much detail, it will be important to ensure that that money is well spent on, for example, the development of infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Reference was also made to Bosnia, an issue which has been discussed in the House on many occasions. The events in that country in recent weeks are a tragedy, and one for which Europe has been unfairly attacked. Our European Union partners have made a major effort to tackle this very difficult and complex problem. We still have to give full support to the efforts of the Contact group which was established to find a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict. It appears that some progress has been made and that more solidarity was expressed within the European Council than was expressed at the CSCE summit in Budapest a few days previously. This development is to be welcomed.

I am aware of the Minister of State's commitment to Africa. He will agree with me that we have worked very well in addressing many of the problems on the African continent. Africa will continue to be one of the most serious problems facing not only Europe but all the developed world during the next 20-25 years. It was a matter of personal regret that one of the first decisions made by the caretaker Government was to reduce the amount provided in the Estimates for ODA by £12 million. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, would not have been a party to that regrettable decision if he had been at the table. We have made international commitments in this regard and the Minister of State has worked very hard during the past two years in building up relations with the NGOs who carry out tremendous work on behalf of Ireland. We have set about establishing Ireland as a country which wants to understand Africa and provide assistance, while other countries with much more resources have fallen down in their responsibilities.

I welcome the Minister of State's statement that he has taken a personal interest in Rwanda. The problems in Rwanda are an indication of how badly things can go wrong on the African continent. I am worried that Rwanda is merely the tip of the iceberg and that all the efforts undertaken during the past 25 years will come to nought unless the western and developed worlds adopt a new and serious approach in terms of providing assistance to the governments of African states.

On the question of the White Paper and the 1996 intergovernmental conference, many issues and major challenges will face the European Union in the years ahead. Obviously the 1996 intergovernmental conference will pose a major challenge not just for the Union but also for the Irish Presidency. I welcome the Taoiseach's announcement that there will be a special meeting during the Spanish Presidency to discuss the agenda for the conference. I am concerned that the intergovernmental conference is being heralded as the conference to solve all the problems of the world. I do not see it achieving that, but I am confident that the Government will be able to take on the challenges of the European Union agenda.

I hope the White Paper on foreign policy and the related public seminars on the key issues will be continued and expedited. Unfortunately, because of the political uncertainty here during the past three weeks, at least one, if not more, of the seminars has been cancelled. The first seminar in University College, Dublin was one of the best attended meetings I have ever attended, on overseas development aid and Irish foreign policy. I hope that type of attendance materialises throughout the country. We have set out to give the Irish people a sense of ownership of Irish foreign policy which was not the case in the past.

There are many challenges facing us in our role within Europe and we should be more positive about them. We are positive when it comes to referenda or European Union issues but we should go to Europe and put forward our policies. We may not have the same influence as the major players but we are a valuable part of the European Union. We have a role to play just as do the other small countries and we should play that role.

The work done between now and 1996 is very important and the work done after the 1996 intergovernmental conference will have as its key objective a larger economically viable Europe which provides more jobs for all its citizens and ensures we will never again experience the wars and disasters which have bedevilled Europe this century and in many previous centuries.

Mr. O'Malley

While the Essen Summit was probably a low key affair by comparison with many in the past, the German Presidency was probably right to keep it that way, because this is a time when a certain consolidation is required within the European Union. There is turmoil in some member states in their attitude to Europe. Happily, in this House there is broad consensus, by and large, but that is not so in London and in some other places. The Germans were probably right to seek to consolidate. At the same time some very major decisions will have to be taken, not least in 1996 and its immediate aftermath. Much debate is required both here and throughout the European Union as to where we go in that regard. In his speech the Taoiseach said:

Second, the focus was on ensuring the lasting peace and stability of the European continent and neighbouring regions by preparing for the future accession of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe and developing in parallel the special relationship of the union to its other neighbours, particularly the Mediterranean countries;

That is where the crunch decisions will have to be taken during the next couple of years. The Taoiseach also said:

Eventual full accession by these countries when the conditions are right is the next logical step in the process. There is no doubt that when actual negotiations begin major issues will have to be tackled.

The incoming Government should think clearly about the likely attitude of Russia to the further enlargement of the European Union. Russia is the key to peace on this continent. The Russians feel under a certain threat at the moment, which I can understand. The European Union and NATO are approaching all their neighbours in a very positive way trying to recruit them into membership, in NATO, not as full members but as members of the Partnership for Peace.

At the Essen Summit the European Union spoke in very explicit terms about the desirability of bringing in the seven central and eastern European countries who were represented there, other than the three applicants who will join anyway on 1 January 1995. It is easy to say that they will all join — and there are strong reasons for that — but they should not be encouraged in a total vacuum from their relationship with Russia as their relationship with Russia and the European Union's relationship with Russia will be crucial. At present Russia is only barely a democracy. There is huge dissent within it both centrally and regionally. As we speak, there is war in at least some of their provinces. The Russian army is invading one of those at this moment. Yesterday — and probably today — people paraded in Moscow saying that Russia is about to undertake its next Afghanistan. We have no certainty about what type of regime will rule Russia in future. If the Russians feel threatened by an expanded European Union there could be a very serious situation for us all and the whole purpose of the European Union to bring and maintain peace on this continent could be put in jeopardy.

Most of the debate here about enlargement after 1996 will probably centre around its economic aspects and consequences for this country. It may well be that quite a head of steam and a significant lobby opposed to future enlargement will build up here during the next couple of years. That possibility must exist on the agricultural side because any country with significant agricultural output or the capability of achieving a significant agricultural output will probably not be welcome from our point of view if we look only at our economic and commercial interests. We should be clear even at this stage, that whatever the economic difficulties that may or may not arise, the political imperative that we should seek to encourage, nurture and maintain democracy in the countries of central and eastern Europe should be paramount. It should be remembered that Russia is bigger by far than all of them put together and has a greater ethnic mix than they constitute collectively. In western Europe Russia stands as a bulwark against the possibility of what might arise from religious fundamentalism to the south of Russia and to the south-east of this continent. What we are talking about are very important far reaching global strategies. They will have to be taken carefully and handled with special care.

The Irish Government will have the Presidency when the intergovernmental conference is held in 1996. Ireland has rarely been cast in such a central role as it will be for the intergovernmental conference. I hope we will be well prepared not just in terms of the physical arrangements that have to be made, but in terms of the policies we want to follow and advocate at that time.

The Essen Council marked the retirement of President Delors and I too wish to pay tribute to him. He has been arguably the most outstanding European of his generation and in time will be looked on with a similar degree of awe to that of Adenauer in his generation. I was sorry to hear President Delors announce that he will not contest the French Presidency next year. He would have made an outstanding President of France if elected and, because of his deep European commitment, that would have been good not only for France but for all member states. Nevertheless, he has made his decision and I understand why, particularly at his age. We should not underestimate his contribution to the European Union. Like other small European countries, we benefited greatly from his commitment as President of the Commission, to fair play for small member states and his genuine pan-European and Community commitment to the rights of all member states, including countries such as Ireland which do not have a great deal of economic clout.

At the Council in Cannes in June it is proposed to bring together the police forces of the European Union. It is regrettable that this has not been done before now. The nature of much modern crime is necessarily international; virtually by definition the only aspect of the drugs trade which is carried out in a single country is the retail side of it. The more important and more damaging aspect is the large scale distribution and importation of drugs from places outside the European Union. We will not be able to tackle the drugs problem effectively if it is not done at a pan-European Union level. I hope the incoming Government will do all it can to strengthen the powers of Interpol and, specifically, a European police force.

The same applies to terrorism which, I hope, will not be as pressing a problem for us as it was in the past. Terrorism is an international problem in the sense that in many countries there are not indigenous supplies of weapons for terrorists and they are brought in from outside.

I welcome what has been done in regard to Northern Ireland and President Delors must be thanked for his efforts in that context. Without him it might not have been possible. While this package is generous, it is only a small fraction of what is needed in the post war economy of Northern Ireland. The net British contribution to Northern Ireland is £3.5 billion per annum. A contribution of £240 million over a three year period, although very generous, is only a drop in the ocean. It shows the nature of the difficulties facing Northern Ireland and the very limited extent to which we can help. We will have to look for outside assistance. The economic conference taking place in Belfast today is very important because most of the economic regeneration of the postviolent Northern Ireland must come from the private sector. There is a limit to what public agencies on either side of the Atlantic can do to help.

What is taking place in Bosnia is a cause of great regret and the best that can be said about what happened at Essen is that they agreed on a common resolution regarding the problem in Bosnia, but that will not amount to very much. The Taoiseach contrasted it with what happened at Budapest the previous week. To that extent it is an advance, but the problem in Bosnia is very serious. The manner in which Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia and the socalled Krajina Serbs who live in Croatia have treated their neighbours is an appalling breach of human rights and international law. I get a whiff of Munich about the way in which Europe as a whole has examined what the Serbs in general are doing; it is inconvenient, so we all turn away. That is very wrong and we could pay a terrible price. After Munich Western Europe was led to believe that a piece of paper existed which would ensure peace. That piece of paper was signed at the expense of many millions of people and, of course, it was valueless. If we allow the position in Bosnia to continue we could pay a very high price. It will not be only Muslims and Croatians who will pay the price in the future.

The spectacle of several hundred United Nations troops held hostage by the Serbs and the United Nations and the European Union told that if they attack them as they advance on cities such as Bihac and bomb and shell Sarajevo they will obliterate the troops they hold hostage is especially unacceptable. There is scarcely a word said about that. I understand a couple of hundred of those troops are British. Can one imagine the British Government and Parliament in any other circumstance meekly allowing their troops to be held hostage in this manner? I have not heard any great noise from London or other countries whose troops were taken hostage by the Serbs. This is potentially very dangerous and while I welcome the level of agreement reached in this regard, it was not an agreement to do anything but merely to condemn what is taking place in Bosnia. Much more than that is required.

The Taoiseach stated that the European Council at Essen put great pressure on the Fisheries Council, which will meet on Monday next in Brussels, to try to finalise the arrangements for Iberian fishing rights. I am not sure if what was decided at Essen is of much help. I do not have any objection to the Portuguese part of the Iberian fishing fleet because, by and large, the Portuguese have obeyed the rules.

Mr. Deasy

They have stayed at home.

Mr. O'Malley

There is no doubt that the other part of Iberia does not obey any rules in so far as fishing is concerned. I foresee a very difficult position for us after 1 January 1996 unless whoever will be appointed Minister with responsibility for fisheries next week is able to block what I think a majority of the member states are now intent on. We must remember that Ireland has more useful fishing waters than the whole of the remainder of the Union.

Mr. Deasy

That does not include Rockall.

Mr. O'Malley

We have a very valuable resource and we alone will be the losers if the Spanish fishing fleet is allowed to wipe it out. Fishing comes into a strange category within the European Union. There is no suggestion, for example, that if there were oil under our waters out to the edge of the Continental Shelf anybody else would be entitled to it or if gold or any other valuable mineral were found we would not be entitled to it. For some curious reason we are not entitled in priority to the fish that swim over that seabed — a hugely valuable resource. Some of the member states of the European Union have virtually wiped out their own fishing grounds; there is almost nothing left in the North Sea. They all descend on us and we have to freely give up our resource. That is the one aspect of the European Community on which I felt we fared badly at the outset. I suppose we contented ourselves by thinking we did very well in so many other areas that we had to put up with what has gone wrong in fishery policy. The Council meeting on 21 December is of the greatest importance and there will be long term repercussions for us if we cannot get a satisfactory arrangement there. I do not know the prospects of vetoing it in present circumstances.

Mr. Deasy

Vetoes are no longer used since Maastricht. There is now majority voting.

Mr. O'Malley

The veto is not as readily available as it was in the past, but this is a national priority and I hope the incoming Government will be able to deal with it satisfactorily.

Mr. E. Byrne

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on the Essen Summit, although it is not my area of speciality. Given today's events and the need to prepare notes quickly my contribution may not be as cohesive and comprehensive as I would have liked.

It is fitting to pay tribute to the work of President Jacques Delors. During the past few years he steered the European Community, now the European Union, along a rather difficult path and has managed to negotiate on the obstacles frequently placed in his way. He is noted for his abiding concern for European citizens and for a social Europe. President Delors should be acknowledged as an international statesman of high repute. It is important that we record our appreciation of his political endeavours down through the years. Many of the obstacles placed in his path would have defeated a lesser man or woman than President Delors, particularly the UK's intransigence on the Social Charter and the pressure of demands for enlargement. There was constant tension between those seeking a cohesive social Europe and the other forces favouring nothing more than a free trade area.

At Friday night's summit dinner President Delors spoke of the need for fundamental reform if the whole project of a European Union is not to come to a halt. I would like to think those words will set the tone for future development.

We must recognise that Europeans demand and deserve more than an ad hoc group of states gathered under the umbrella of free trade. They deserve a Europe in which the rights of all are guaranteed both centrally and locally. The ethos behind a social Europe is best exemplified by the Social Chapter which, unfortunately, has yet to be enforced throughout the Union. President Delors laid the foundations for the Social Chapter but a great deal of work remains to be done. Ireland must play its full part in that work. The people of Europe deserve a fully democratic Europe. We need a Europe which is inclusive rather than exclusive, in which democracy is underpinned by transparency and accountability.

Above all, the people of Europe deserve a European Union whose leaders are committed to eradicating the plague of unemployment and poverty which affects nearly every family in this country as well as people in the other member states. The omens for tackling that problem appear rather better than they did a year ago. After many months of deliberation at Council level, the summit endorsed Jacques Delors' job strategies, his White Paper on growth and competitiveness and the follow up papers. At a time when unemployment throughout the European Union is at an unacceptable level, a concerted policy to tackle unemployment, poverty and disadvantage is vital to Europe's future. There can be no sustainable future without peace and work. The inequities cannot be sustained and if they are not tackled huge numbers of people will be marginalised.

We cannot allow to develop a two-tier Europe similar to that which exists in our society. We must eradicate the difficulties for the poor of Europe in terms of unemployment and poverty. We must consider ways in which the Commission would play a more effective role in these areas. It is not good enough for the Prime Ministers at the summit to say that these are primarily the responsibility of the member states. In this regard the paper on trans-European networks endorsed by the summit lays the groundwork for developments in towns of a common industrial policy. This is a matter which I and my party have urged and supported. We have argued the need to recognise that the Irish agricultural sector benefited tremendously under the Common Agricultural Policy. At the same time huge numbers of industrial workers were victims of political forces and events that led to many joining the dole queues. As a peripheral state in Europe it is clear that a common industrial policy would go some way to redress the disadvantage with which we must cope.

I am concerned about developments that came to light at the Essen Summit, for example, the dramatic reduction in the number of European Commission legislative proposals in the past year, revealed in the subsidiarity report, is particularly worrying. I fully endorse the concept of subsidiarity. However, until all European member states have enshrined the highest standards of social protection in national legislation we must continue to look to Brussels for legislative initiative. We are aware of the benefits of European regulations and directives — for example, the well-being of many working women has been improved and Irish women dependent on social welfare were given equality under European directives. The Government is slow to initiate legislation in these areas.

I welcome the emphasis in the subsidiarity report on increased consultation. In this regard I would welcome an increase in the number of White Papers and Green Papers which would enable interested groups and individuals to fully assess the impact of proposed legislation before it is agreed.

In common with a number of recent summits, the Essen Summit was dominated by the prospect of new members joining the Union. It is increasingly likely that countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia will join the Union in the not too distant future. I welcome this move in principle. Europe will only succeed as an inclusive rather than an exclusive construction, but we must be aware that this will have repercussions for us. The road ahead will be a bumpy one. In the next decade the European Union is likely to expand to about 25 members, including countries with vastly different economic, political and social objectives, all proceeding at different speeds and with varying degrees of enthusiasm towards completion of the Maastricht process. The 1996 intergovernmental conference will be vital to the success of that process and Ireland will have to play its full part in that review.

Summits are always dominated by a big story and at last week's summit the big story was the end of President Delors tenure as Commission President. It is worth noting that there are also the smaller stories, those that will impact on the lives of Europe's citizens. In this regard the EU commitment to making universal the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be welcomed by the vast majority of Europeans as it will render our continent a much safer place in which to live.

One matter that will have an enormous impact on this island is the special aid package agreed for Northern Ireland. If this money is spent wisely and in accordance with Commission guidelines — I have no reason to suspect it will not — it will help to consolidate peace. A Europe at peace and at work is our most fundamental desire. Let us hope that the misery of war raging in Bosnia will be peacefully resolved and that after the terror we experienced and which has come to an end, hopefully in the long term, we will enjoy the fruits of peace and work, as, I hope, will all citizens of Europe.

Mr. Cullen

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As Europe continues to expand, more time should be made available in this Parliament to discuss in greater detail not only the broader issues but also some of the specific issues that cause great difficulties. One of the greatest problems we have faced in recent years is unemployment. It is clear that economic growth does not equal employment growth. This was much more apparent in past years but with changes in the marketplace events are different in the current climate. While we have achieved welcome and sustained economic growth in recent years, much more so than in other European countries, we still have a serious unemployment problem. Recent efforts, particularly by this Government, have contributed to bringing to an end the rapid increase in unemployment. Statistics show that there is consistent growth in employment, but the unemployment figures never seem to decrease very much. However, the rise in unemployment has ended and we can look forward to a reduction in the numbers unemployed.

Over the weekend I studied forecasts for economic growth in Europe. While the economic indications are positive, there is no reason for us to lessen our interest in formulating new ideas or creating new areas of employment. The more people are educated and the greater their qualifications — and here I mean education in the widest sense rather than in the pure academic sense — the better the opportunities for them in the marketplace in the future. That matter has been tackled in recent years. Nonetheless new ideas are needed, a more radical approach, which will lead to a greater number of people between the ages of 16 and 21 remaining in some form of specific educational training. With something like 70 per cent of our population within that age group still involved in the educational process, we are one of the lowest in Europe in that respect and that figure should be raised to in excess of 90 per cent. While some efforts have been undertaken, there is an urgency about it. We must now capitalise on the economic growth in addition to the improving picture emerging within the European Union.

I question the stage we are at vis-àvis monetary union. There is no doubt that in recent years we have continued to fulfil the conditions and criteria to enable us to be in the first stream of countries, thereby participating in the monetary package that will emerge in the years ahead. In the not too distant future it will be interesting to observe what happens in 1996, what decisions will be taken, how close we become to some of the larger member states in achieving monetary union. Since our economy is very open, based essentially on exports, from the perspective of industrialists and small and large commercial businesses, we would like to achieve monetary union. However, in this regard, the British attitude is of enormous importance to us since a huge proportion of our trade is with Britain and I do not envisage that changing. While looking forward to expanding into other markets, the United Kingdom market always will remain vital to us. Therefore, in approaching monetary union it is important that the United Kingdom be on the same track as everybody else.

Another matter I continue to believe to be an issue for us, and will be more so with an ever expanding Europe eastwards, up to the end of this decade, is our peripherality. We have seen the Nordic countries, with the exception of Norway, join the European Union, accompanied by the further extension eastwards to which I have just referred, leaving us very much at the back door of Europe. Whereas we were on the periphery before, we shall be on an even more remote periphery as the centre of Europe changes with additional member states joining the European Union. There is the example of the Nordic countries having a loose economic bloc arrangement in recent years which never interfered with Denmark's participation in the European Union, enabling them to remain involved, in a Nordic sense, with Finland, Sweden and Norway.

With the United States of American on our back door I have always felt we should have a more formal, structured economic arrangement with the United States, it being a very powerful ally of ours, clearly seen at present within the context of the peace process and its involvement. For example, I am aware of the conference on Northern Ireland to be held in Philadelphia next year to be attended by President Clinton. Ireland as a whole should have a more structured, formal arrangement with the United States that would afford us an opportunity to improve on opportunities, adding to our economic strength rather than an over-dependency on other member states within Europe. Since it is possible for the Nordic countries to have such an arrangement there must be areas we can explore within the context of our European Union involvement, ensuring that the Americans have a bilateral economic arrangement with us. We are all very much aware of the type of economic involvement of the United States in Ireland, for example, in many multinationals who are some of the largest employers here. Perhaps greater opportunity exists within that context.

European Union foreign policy in one sense constitutes its greatest success because of what has happened since the Second World War and what has been achieved within that period but, in another sense, it constitutes its greatest failure. What is taking place in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia between the Croatians and Serbs is one of the most appalling vistas in eastern Europe since the Second World War. While it was strongly contended that the holocaust in the Second World War could not recur, we are witnessing a similar one today in the former Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that there is mass genocide, the absolute annihilation of communities, murder committed on a scale not witnessed in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet all the member states of the European Union are unable to focus on or deal in a specific way with the happenings there, which is to be very much regretted. Many experts speak about what is happening, about the complexities and the consequences of any action taken. While accepting all those options, when history is written and we look back on these events, it will be asked why it was necessary for so many people to die, so many communities to be annihilated. On the basis of European Union foreign policy, the member states have not got to grips with the problem by way of any clear view of what is happening. In that respect we must question our view of ourselves as a neutral country. That neutrality, in its traditional form, will not be sustainable within an ever expanding Europe. In future we shall have to reach some conclusions on how best we can play a decisive role within the European Union to ensure the existence of a cohesive foreign policy and security system, capable of dealing with issues rapidly as and when they arise. For a wide variety of reasons, clearly that is not the case today, but will become more urgent in ensuing years. All the member states of the European Union will have to devise better mechanisms to deal with crises on the scale being witnessed at present in the former Yugoslavia.

The other matter with which I want to deal is that of our fisheries industry. It is astonishing that any country with such a valuable asset should be effectively raped and pillaged by the fishermen of any other country. For example, we do not have the luxury of possessing mineral, oil or gas reserves on a scale that would sustain us well into the future and render us a wealthy nation. Our two greatest assets have always been agriculture and fisheries. Our fisheries industry has suffered intolerably. As a Member representing Waterford, a very important fisheries region, I am aware of the feelings throughout my constituency about the crisis with regard to access to the fishery waters around our coastline, particularly that of Iberian fishermen. We have had the regrettable experience of the Spanish fisheries involvement in our waters. I emphasise that there is enormous frustration at what is happening in our fisheries industry. I do not know what we will be able to achieve or what message we can bring to the meeting on Monday week to ensure the future of our fishing industry, given the tremendous possibilities for expansion. Our fishermen and women have the right to compete for the available resources and reserves. I hope we will take this issue seriously.

Mr. Deasy

I may as well be Taoiseach for ten minutes: I will never get the chance again. The Essen Summit is relevant and has enormous implications for this country. As I have said in a number of debates on foreign affairs, the people are not acquainted with what lies before them with regard to the European Union. In the last week or two the main farming organisation, the IFA, has suddenly become alive to the possibilities that will arise with the proposed expansion of the European Union. It is now a Union of 15 countries and it was clearly demonstrated at Essen that before the year 2000 it will be a Union of at least 21 countries. If one were to ask people on the street to name the six countries which are about to join I do not think that even 1 per cent of the population would be able to do so. This shows how ill-informed we are and have been. Successive Governments have been remiss in keeping people acquainted with what is going on and what is likely to happen in the next ten to 20 years in Europe. This will have a serious and, unfortunately, a detrimental effect on this country.

We must be prepared to face the facts. We have been a member of the European Union for almost 22 years and have garnered tremendous benefits from our membership. It is fair — perhaps unkind — to say that at times we have been very selfish and small-minded with regard to our membership. We have taken everything that is there for the taking and given little in return. Our days as huge net beneficiaries are quickly coming to an end. It is important that we spell out in this national forum what lies in store for us from 1998.

The Minister of State might refer to this matter in his reply. In the past few weeks contrary statements have been issued by the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt. Deputy Spring was inclined to give the impression that everything in the garden was rosy and that there were no problems in terms of our future within the European Union. The Minister of State painted a different picture and pointed out that real difficulties lie in store. It was a much more realistic view of what we can expect to happen in years to come. That is how I see it.

Virtually no one would be able to name the six countries — the Leaders of which attended the summit at Essen — which are about to join the European Union. They are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, with populations of which amount to almost 100 million people. We should bear in mind that these impoverished countries will be fully fledged members of the European Union within four years, perhaps sooner, and will put severe demands on the finances of the Union. The outgoing Taoiseach did not refer to this in his statement. No member of the Government has referred to the fact that there will be major drawbacks.

I am not going to object to their membership but we should be fully advised of the consequences. This has not been done by the Taoiseach or any Minister with a role to play in Europe or by the former Tánaiste. Let me predict what will happen; perhaps someone will ask in four years' time why someone did not warn us of the consequences.

We will hardly receive any Structural or Cohesion Funds. Last night RTE's reporter in Europe, Tommie O'Gorman, informed us that these countries prior to their membership will receive £4.5 billion and that this amounts to only two-thirds of what our Government is to receive in Structural and Cohesion Funds during the next five years. I say to Mr. O'Gorman as well as Members of this House that these countries are not even members and that we never received transitional funding in the form of a hand-out before we joined.

This is a reasonably large sum but when they become members the bulk of the moneys, if not all, now being given to us, Greece, Portugal and Italy, will be given to them. The standard of living in these countries is very low and the infrastructure poor. Their agriculture and other indigenous industries are underdeveloped and they need this money. I do not begrudge it to them but this will result in a huge shortfall at home and if we do not organise our affairs properly during the next four to five years we will find ourselves in dire straits at the turn of the century. No one seems to want to know about it — we sweep the bad news under the carpet and forget about it.

We face another serious setback on the question of the system of direct payments to farmers which has boosted agricultural income enormously during the past few years. I was the Minister who eight years ago on 16 December 1986 negotiated the beef premium for our farmers upon which all the direct income payments are based. I did so against the advice of my senior officials who said I had no chance of achieving this. After three days and nights without sleep one would be surprised at the way these continentals can capitulate, which they did. This has been worth a few billion pounds to this country but eaten bread is soon forgotten. Other people are being given the credit for this achievement. For a number of reasons direct payments will be a thing of the past. One reason is that Germany in particular has decided these payments have been made for long enough.

As a result of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy — it will be shown in years to come that this has been disastrous for this country — and the GATT agreement which was inevitable we will find that these direct payments will be outlawed and made illegal. Countries such as New Zealand, Australia, South America, Canada and the United States will be able to put our products, namely, milk, beef, pork meat and grain, on the world market for approximately half or one-third of the price for which we can currently produce them. That is a gloomy scenario but an accurate one. The Government should have told us this over the years instead of me having to drag it out of them.

I look forward to a major debate on the Essen Summit early next year, when the new Government will have been formed.

A number of people today shed crocodile tears over the state of our fisheries and the way they have been sold out. The Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, declared that he had won a condiderable concession for Spanish fishermen at the Essen Summit. However, that was denied by the British Prime Minister, John Major, who made a rather disparaging remark to the effect that some Heads of Government could not find their way to their own parliaments with a guide dog. If it is true that Mr. Gonzalez won such a concession, then the meeting to which the Taoiseach referred today in his statement is almost irrelevant.

Finally, in regard to Bosnia, to which the Taoiseach referred in his statement, there is no easy solution to its problems which are being glossed over by the leaders of the European Union. They are being glossed over here also. The problem is too complex. RTE and other worldwide news agencies should shut out the Serbian Bosnian leaders who are deceitful and lacking in compassion. Foremost among those is Mr. Karadicz, the self-styled leader of the Bosnian Serbs. We should ban these people from our television screens. Why should we have to listen, on a daily basis, to lies and contempt for the United Nations, of which we are a part?

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I will endeavour to reply to the various points raised by a number of Deputies in this important debate. I agree with Deputy Deasy that it is important to have a sense of realism and honesty in dealing with these issues. For Ireland, the next number of years are crucial and I would like to think there was a sense of realism and pragmatism with regard to the Council meeting in Essen.

A number of issues have been raised, in particular, the whole question of the accession of the countries from central and eastern Europe and the situation in Russia. Important contributions were made in particular by the leaders of the central and eastern European countries and one important message was that economic relations with those countries should be interlinked with the development of the political and security situation. One of the Council's conclusions was that sustained and constructive dialogue and partnership with Russia on political and economic issues was crucial. I believe we should not ignore the important messages emanating from these countries. The contributions of the EFTA countries was important also and countries such as Finland, Austria and Sweden became positively involved in the debates.

It is important to point out that there was tremendous appreciation for the work of the Taoiseach in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. This appreciation did not come only from Chancellor Kohl, President Delors or Prime Minister Major, many other Heads of State, individually and collectively, paid tribute to the Taoiseach for the risks he took during the past two years in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and especially in bringing in from the cold those who have been involved in violence. Many of the Heads of State realise that what happened on this island is truly historic. I am merely giving my personal perspective of how the Taoiseach is judged by his colleagues and I believe they judge him with great admiration in relation to Northern Ireland. They see the success the peace process will bring to this country and, indeed, to Europe.

The peace process is quite rightly supported by a substantial aid package which is linked to the support being given by the United States. Tribute must be paid to the US President, Bill Clinton, for the support and interest which he and the US Administration have shown in providing the back-up support we are seeing today with the investment conference on Northern Ireland.

Tributes have also been paid to President Jacques Delors who always had great vision in regard to where Europe is going. He ensured that the interests of small states were protected at all times in the many debates over the past number of years. I believe the new Commissioner, Monsieur Santer, will be the appropriate person to face the difficult years ahead, he has the right personality and temperament to deal with future problems.

There are many points I wish to address in the time remaining but there was a reference to the fishing industry and it is important to clear up this matter. The conclusions of the European Council recognise the need to adopt measures, before the end of the year, for all Community fishing vessels. This must take account of the Declaration on Fisheries adopted during the accession negotiations and this is a matter for discussion at the Fisheries Council meeting next week. However, thanks to the efforts of ourselves and the French — and I speak with conviction because I was there — the Council in Essen stressed the requirement that fishing efforts must not be increased. That was an important conclusion and it gives Ireland a framework within which to defend vigorously its interests during next week's Council discussion.

Mr. Deasy

Tell that to the Spanish.

Mr. T. Kitt

It is quite obvious, as Deputy Deasy pointed out, that Fisheries Council meetings have been difficult for Ireland over the years, particularly over the past 12 months.

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Minister take on the Spanish on this one?

Mr. T. Kitt

If Deputy Deasy becomes the new Minister for Fisheries. I wish him luck and I have no doubt——

Mr. Deasy

Speedy Gonzalez was quick off the mark yesterday.

Mr. T. Kitt

I am merely telling the Deputy from what I witnessed at the Council meeting yesterday that the Irish delegation defended our position and there was support at the meeting also from the French. Deputy Deasy is quite right in pointing out, as other Deputies have, that there will be difficult battles ahead for the new Minister for Fisheries and I have no doubt that Deputy Deasy or Deputy Doyle——

Mrs. Doyle

I think Deputy Gay Mitchell is the favourite for Fisheries at the moment.

Mr. T. Kitt

——have tremendous ability. Perhaps it will be Deputy Mitchell.

There has been a conclusion from the Council on Bosnia but, like Deputy O'Malley, I feel frustrated that resolutions are produced which are meant to be the solution to everything. In relation to the debate we had at Foreign Ministers level. I stated that we should, in the interest of public opinion and of getting things done, concentrate more on the realities rather than making lengthy statements.

Mr. Deasy

Get Karadicz off our television screen, please.

Mr. T. Kitt

I agree with President Mitterrand when he said that we must decide whether to approach Bosnia from a humanitarian or military point of view. The decision has been made to support the humanitarian effort in Bosnia. President Mitterrand asked — and this is evidence that he and the other Heads of State had a sense of realism with regard to Bosnia — how many countries are prepared to commit ground troops in Bosnia. The reality is that if one were to follow that course, it would require hundreds of thousands of troops. The conclusions, which the Irish Government supports, intensify and continue the humanitarian effort. They recognise and intensify the role of UNPROFOR in this regard and fully support the efforts of the contact group to bring about a peaceful negotiated solution. Many Deputies made the point that it was an improvement on the Budapest outcome, where the disagreement was a tremendous disappointment. In Essen we saw a firmness of purpose and a sense of reality in relation to Bosnia.

I made the point earlier that during the final moments of my farewell address to the foreign ministers I asked them not to forget Africa. My final request was that they should do something special for Rwanda. I visited Rwanda twice in the past six months, on the last occasion with President Robinson. The new Government will have to deal with the security situation in the camps in Goma and the need to support the civil administration process and provide human rights observers. The European Union appears to be getting tired of Rwanda and I reminded the Foreign Ministers that among the Twelve there were many with a great deal of influence and power. I asked them to deal with Rwanda as an urgent matter.

Essen was a very useful summit and a great deal of good work was done. In particular tribute was paid to the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, for what he has done for Northern Ireland. An important structural aid package has been put in place to support the peace process.