I attended the special European Council in Turin on Friday last. I was accompanied by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell.
The main purpose of the special European Council was to formally launch the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. The Council also offered an opportunity for the Heads of State and Government to have a brief exchange of views on employment and on Europe's economic and social direction into the next century. Finally, as Deputies will be aware, the Council took place against the background of the European beef crisis and this issue was also addressed by the Council.
In regard to the Intergovernmental Conference I stress at the outset that the Turin European Council was not a negotiating session for the conference and was not, therefore, a forum for setting out national positions. The function of the European Council was to agree an outline agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. The first session of the Intergovernmental Conference conducted by Foreign Minister commenced after the European Council concluded.
The Conclusions of the European Council, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, set out an outline agenda for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. I would stress that this does not in any sense limit the scope of the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference because the Treaty on European Union allows any member state or the Commission to raise any item they wish at the Intergovernmental Conference.
Nonetheless the Turin conclusions undoubtedly encompass what will be the key issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. The conclusions follow very closely the model set out in the report of the Reflection Group and indicate that the issues to be tackled fall under three general headings, namely, bringing the Union closer to its citizens; reforming the Union's institutions in the context of achieving a more democratic and efficient Union and against the background of enlargement, and strengthening the Union's capacity for action on external issues.
In regard to bringing the Union closer to its citizens, the negotiations at the conference will have to result in an outcome which tackles the real concerns of the citizens of Europe. There can be no repeat of the Maastricht experience when many sections of the Union's population were alienated by an outcome which seemed to them obscure and unconnected with the real problems which they face in their everyday life. The people's verdict on the outcome of this Intergovernmental Conference will be governed by one simple criterion; will the Intergovernmental Conference enhance the prosperity and security of the citizens of Europe?
A good start has been made through the reference in the Turin conclusions to the need for the Intergovernmental Conference to examine how the Union can deal with everyday concerns such as unemployment and crime, including drug trafficking.
No one is suggesting that the problem of European unemployment will be solved by writing provisions on employment into the Treaty on European Union. As the Turin conclusions state, better employment opportunities require a stability oriented economic policy, greater competitiveness and sound economic growth. The policies to achieve this are and will remain primarily the responsibility of national governments. What is required at Union level in the area of employment is better co-operation and co-ordination to ensure the maximum positive employment impact of the appropriate domestic policies. It will be a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference to examine how this can best be achieved.
In the area of crime and drug trafficking, the need for ever closer co-operation between member states is patently obvious. Internationally organised crime transcends national boundaries. The havoc that is being wreaked on society by drugs must be tackled on a co-ordinated basis. The pace of progress on this and other issues under the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar of the Treaty has not been satisfactory. A critical task of the Intergovernmental Conference will be to see what Treaty changes are required to give a better focus, direction and efficiency to the work of the Union in the Justice and Home Affairs area.
The second general heading for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference will be to make the institutions of the Union more democratic and efficient against the background of future enlargement. The White Paper makes clear that the Government welcomes the prospect of EU enlargement. We fully subscribe to the conclusions of the December 1995 Madrid European Council that enlargement is a political necessity which will offer both the applicant states and the current members of the Union new prospects for economic growth and general well-being. In my bilateral contacts with the leaders of the applicant states, most recently with Prime Minister Klaus of the Czech Republic. I emphasised Ireland's support for enlargement and I will do so again when I visit Poland later this month.
The White Paper on Foreign Policy indicated that Ireland will be determined to protect our interests when the next enlargement negotiations commence after the end of the Intergovernmental Conference. In this we will be no different from other member states or indeed from the applicant states seeking to protect their interests in the negotiations. The people of this country realise fully the benefits that flow from our EU membership, and expect the Government to be vigilant in protecting them. This wholly justified stance should not, however, be construed as designed to obstruct enlargement.
There was no debate at the Turin European Council on the specific institutional issues which will have to be tackled by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Irish position on these issues is set out in the White Paper on Foreign Policy. I would like to emphasise two points in particular. First, Ireland does not believe that the current balance in the decision-making process between the large and small member states needs to be tilted in favour of the former. The Irish approach is to view the European Union as a co-operative venture involving the pooling of sovereignty between all member states. Excessive concentration on the distinction between large and small member states militates against the fostering of the required Community spirit. When it comes to individual issues there is generally no large versus small state divide. I wish, in this context, to also underline the Government's determination that we will continue to retain the right to nominate a member of the Commission.
The second specific institutional point I would like to address relates to what has been termed the introduction of a flexibility clause into the Treaty. Deputies will note that this is referred to in the conclusions which asks the Intergovernmental Conference "to examine whether and how to introduce rules either of a general nature or in specific areas to enable a certain number of member states to develop a strengthened co-operation, open to all, compatible with Union's objectives, while preserving the acquis communautaire, avoiding discrimination and distortions of competition and respecting the single institutional framework”.
The conditions in the conclusions attached to any development of a general flexibility clause are welcome. Ireland's position on this issue is governed by our commitment to a European Union founded on shared values and interests and adopting and implementing common policies to the greatest possible degree. We believe that with political will this approach can accommodate distinctive national positions and can survive future enlargement. An unrestricted á la carte Europe is one which contains the seeds of its own destruction. The common policies and institutional framework of the European Union are the glue which holds the Union together. If these are eroded then the erosion of the Union might well follow. This is not to deny that provision for member states to approach the same objectives at different speeds, as in the case of European Monetary Union, should be considered where necessary on a case by case basis. The starting point for the Intergovernmental Conference should, however, be what we can achieve together rather than how we can achieve things separately.
The third and final general heading of the Intergovernmental Conference agenda is the capacity for external action by the Union. The Tánaiste will deal with this area in more detail in his statement. I would, however, remind the House that the provision for a review of the Union's common foreign and security policy was written into the Maastricht Treaty by the heads of Government at that time. That Treaty also set the objective of implementing a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence. Those are the words of the Maastricht Treaty.
Ireland cannot, therefore, stand back from the debate on these issues at the Intergovernmental Conference. Account must also be taken of the changed security situation in Europe. Policies that were appropriate for the Cold War era may no longer be appropriate. The six underlying principles of the Government's approach in the security area are set out in paragraph 4.114 of the White Paper on Foreign Policy. These principles include a requirement that a common defence policy should have as its primary objective the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international security in accordance with the UN charter and OSCE principles, and be relevant to the broader role of the United Nations which has a unique legitimacy in the area of international peace and security. These principles, in conjunction with the Government's commitment to put the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy to the people in a referendum, provide the necessary safeguards for any concerns that might arise in this area.
After concluding its deliberations on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda the Council had an exchange of views on the economic and social situation in Europe. The basis for this discussion was the presentation made by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, on his initiative for a European Confidence pact for employment and the proposals submitted to the Council by President Chirac on a European social model.
The discussion did not go into any of the details of the proposals of Presidents Santer and Chirac. There will be a comprehensive overview of employment and related issues at the Florence European Council in June next and the Dublin European Council in December. It was clear from the discussion in Turin that all the heads of state and government are concerned about the economic and social future of Europe in a global economy characterised by fast changing and mobile technology and widely different social systems. The importance of ensuring Europe's competitiveness without undermining its human values and system of social protection was stressed.
The discussion pointed to the need to formulate a long-term vision of the economic and social direction of Europe. The view was expressed by some heads of state and government that this issue could best be addressed through an informal meeting of the European Council, not distracted by the decision making on day to day issues that arises at a normal European Council, something like the meeting held in Formentoe during the Spanish Presidency.
Such an informal meeting, properly prepared and structured, could be a valuable exercise in helping to map out a desired vision for Europe's future. I would certainly be happy to convene such a meeting during the Irish Presidency if that was the wish of the European Council. It is my intention to consult further on the issue with my colleagues in the European Council and with the President of the European Commission.
As Deputies are aware,the Turin Council was overshadowed by the crisis in the European beef industry. There was recognition at the Council that while the beef crisis may have resulted from events in one member state it was a crisis for the European Union. The scale of the problem was underlined by the evidence adduced as to the collapse in the consumption of beef across Europe and the ban on imports of European beef into key markets. As President Santer noted, over one million farmers in Europe are dependent on beef production and this statistic alone is a measure of the scale of the crisis.
The solidarity displayed on the issue by the European Council was truly impressive and reassuring. The consensus was that as a European problem it demanded attention at European level and all member states were willing to contribute to the solution. The European Council sent a strong signal to this effect to the special Agriculture Council which convened yesterday and is still discussing the issue today in Luxembourg.
I have no doubt that positive and decisive action will be taken by the Agriculture Council to restore European consumers' confidence in beef, to stabilise the beef market, to support producers and the industry and to provide assurances to our trading partners. More specifically, the Minister for Agriculture. Food and Forestry has pressed very strongly for supports for the market in the form of an immediate resumption of beef intervention at an appropriate level while the present situation lasts, including the waiving of the 340kg intervention weight limit. I was informed by the Minister shortly before I came into the House that the Council has now agreed to restore beef intervention up to a limit of 50,000 tonnes over the next month with an increase in the weight limit to 380kg.
The task now is to restore consumer confidence in beef and to restore access to key third country markets. The decisions to be taken in Luxembourg today will enable the Government to build on the initiatives it has already put in place to reassure consumers and third countries. In regard to the latter, I was particularly pleased that arising from my telephone call last week to President Mubarak of Egypt Irish cattle were allowed disembark in Alexandria at the weekend. I assure the House that the Government will continue to do all in its power to convince third countries to lift the ban on the import of Irish beef. No political or diplomatic effort will be spared in this regard.
The European beef crisis represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the European Union. The challenge is to preserve a highly important European industry and the livelihood of millions of people who depend on it. The opportunity is to show the citizens of Europe that the Union is relevant to their every day concerns and that it can deliver result on these concerns. If, as I am confident will be the case, the Union achieves its objectives on this issue the long-term benefit for European solidarity and integration can be considerable.
Given the brevity of this European Council there was no time for formal bilateral meetings with other heads of state and government. This was a comparatively short European Council which nonetheless achieved its objectives of launching the Intergovernmental Conference, underlining the commitment to action on employment and, most importantly, tackling the beef crisis. It is clear that a formidable agenda will face the Irish Presidency from 1 July next. Planning on the policy and administrative aspects of the Presidency is well under way. I can assure the House that this Government is determined our Presidency of the Union will be efficient, effective and successful.