I welcome the opportunity to address Dáil Éireann on the subject of the Treaty of Amsterdam. I am sure that all Deputies will agree with me when I say that the opportunity of making and hearing statements about the treaty is one we all value. Such statements provide a most useful opportunity for informing the Dáil, and through it the wider public, of the content and significance of the treaty and thereby encouraging public debate on it.
This information process does not start and it will not end today. In briefing the Dáil on 10 July on the outcome of the Amsterdam European Council of 16 and 17 June, the Taoiseach and my predecessor in office made presentations on the content of the treaty. The previous Government had at all times kept the Oireachtas informed of progress in the Intergovernmental Conference which negotiated the treaty. The House is aware that a White Paper on the treaty is in preparation in my Department.
The treaty, signed by Foreign Ministers on 2 October in Amsterdam, is subject to national ratification procedures in all member states. Prior to ratification by Ireland, a constitutional referendum will be necessary. The Government has yet to take a decision on the exact date for holding a referendum. The Taoiseach last week in Dáil Éireann expressed the hope that the referendum would take place in March.
The Government attaches the highest importance to fulfilling its duty to explain the background and implications of the treaty. Its scope and complexity mean that basic information on its content is the very first requirement. The full title of the new treaty indicates the complexities we will have to unravel to make it understandable and comprehensible to the gnách duine. The title is "Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts". The Treaty of Amsterdam is, therefore, a treaty amending the existing treaties including the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992 and the treaties which established the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community over 40 years ago. The cumbersome full title reflects the fact that European integration is an incremental process, developing from Treaty to treaty.
The Treaty of Amsterdam was negotiated in an intergovernmental conference convened for this purpose in March 1996. The Intergovernmental Conference's work programme was a practical one. It involved revisiting two of the major innovations of the Maastricht Treaty, notably in the areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Justice and Home Affairs and addressing two broad challenges which had been identified subsequently. The first of these challenges was that of bringing the European Union nearer to the people of Europe. The second was the prospect of the enlargement of the Union to the East and West. A complete revision of the Maastricht Treaty was considered neither opportune nor necessary.
In addressing the House on the Treaty of Amsterdam, I shall use five broad headings which were used throughout the Intergovernmental Conference: the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice; the Union and the citizen; the effective and coherent foreign policy; the union's institutions; and flexibility.
On an area of freedom, security and justice, in the Treaty of Amsterdam the reaffirmation of the principles on which the Union is founded — liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms — is accompanied by an explicit provision that only countries which respect these principles may apply to become members of the Union. Importantly, this is underpinned by a provision which allows for the suspension of certain rights of membership, ultimately including voting rights, if a member state is found guilty of a serious and continuing breach of those principles.
The treaty incorporates a new provision which would allow the Council acting unanimously to adopt measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The provisions for ensuring respect for the principle of equality between men and women are strengthened.
The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice. It does so through three interlinked sets of provisions. The first of these is the insertion in the treaty establishing the European Community of a new title or section on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons, such as external border control. The new title sets out a five year programme for the accomplishment of measures in these areas. Nearly all the issues it covers were dealt with on an intergovernmental basis under the Maastricht Treaty. Their communitarisation in the Treaty of Amsterdam involves enhanced roles for the Commission and the European Court of Justice in the matters covered. The possibility of qualified majority voting and a full co-decision role for the European Parliament after the five year period, are also major innovations. I shall set out the particular position of Ireland, which like the UK and Denmark is exempt from the provisions of Title IV at present.
The second of the three interlinked sets of measures in this field is the residual, but greatly strengthened third pillar containing provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This aims to provide citizens of the Union with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the member states in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and by combating racism and xenophobia. Common action is envisaged to prevent and combat terrorism, trafficking in persons and offences against children, illicit drug trafficking and illicit arms trafficking, corruption and fraud. Closer co-operation between police forces and other competent authorities, such as customs authorities, is to occur in a variety of ways.
The revamping of the third pillar in the Treaty of Amsterdam extends to giving the Commission a shared right of initiative in all third pillar matters and to allowing member states, by means of a declaration, to accept a role for the European Court of Justice in this area. Ireland remains open to the possibility of making a declaration to this effect and will keep the option of doing so under continuing review.
The third of the three interlinked sets of measures relating to the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice is a Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. Thirteen member states of the Union — all except Ireland and the UK — as well as Norway and Iceland had already committed themselves, outside the framework of the EU Treaties, to operate provisions designed to make a reality of open frontiers by lifting border controls while at the same time cooperating closely on immigration matters. The incorporation of the Schengen arrangements into the treaty, by means of this Protocol, means that the Schengen acquis will become Union law as far as 13 member states are concerned. Thus the 13, and indirectly Norway and Iceland, will be able to avail of the institutions of the Union for their co-operation.
Regarding the Irish position with respect to the provisions on free movement of persons, the principle of free movement of persons, together with free movement of goods, services and capital, is a cornerstone of the Union's internal market. In recognition of this principle, the continental member states believe that controls at the borders between them should be abolished so that anyone lawfully within the Union may move from one member state to another without border checks. In the Schengen arrangements, 13 member states, with Norway and Iceland, have already gone a long way in this direction.
A similar long-standing area of free movement exists between Ireland and the UK. Ireland's first concern in this part of the negotiations was to protect the common travel area. The right to maintain this area has been explicitly accepted and confirmed by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The UK wishes to maintain the principle and practice of control checks on travel documents at ports of entry to Britain, other than from Ireland. While of necessity closely linked, Ireland's approach during the negotiations was distinct from that of the UK. We had no difficulty of principle about the communitarisation of this whole area and were concerned to play as full a part as possible, compatible with the common travel area, in developments at EU level in the field of justice and home affairs. Protecting the common travel area with the UK is important for us, since more than 70 per cent of travel originating in Ireland is to, or through, the UK. In these circumstances, freer travel between Ireland and continental member states would have made no sense if it meant the imposition of certain new controls on travel between Ireland and Britain. We are satisfied Ireland is not bound by any provisions that would cut across the common travel area.
A protocol to the treaty exempts Ireland and the UK from the provisions of the new Title IV on free movement of persons but allows them, on a case by case basis, to join in the adoption of measures or to accept measures retroactively. Ireland may terminate this arrangement at any time and accept to be fully bound by the terms of Title IV. Ireland also made a unilateral declaration annexed to the final Act of the treaty stating that, subject to its wish to maintain the common travel area, it will participate to the fullest extent in the future development of the Union in this area.
Similar considerations lie behind that part of the Schengen protocol which states that Ireland and the UK, which are not bound by the Schengen acquis, may at any time request to take part in some or all of its provisions. We are satisfied that the declaration setting out the procedure in the event of such a request by Ireland or the UK meets our concerns. Essentially, it provides that the Council must seek a Commission opinion before deciding by unanimity on such a request and that best efforts must then be made to accommodate Ireland or the UK. A related declaration states that, thereafter, best efforts will be make to make action under the Schengen acquis possible among all member states where Ireland and the UK have accepted some or all of the provisions of the Schengen acquis.
The Treaty of Amsterdam includes a protocol on asylum for nationals of member states of the European Union. It states that member states shall be regarded as constituting safe countries of origin for all legal and practical purposes in relation to asylum matters and goes on to identify the cases in which an asylum application from a national of a member state may be taken into consideration or declared admissible for processing by another member state.
It also states explicitly that the protocol respects the finality and objectives of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. A declaration annexed to the final Act confirms that the protocol does not prejudice the right of each member state to take the organisational measures it deems necessary to fulfil its obligations under the Geneva Convention. The Government is satisfied the new protocol is consistent with the obligations of member states under the convention and intends to take the organisational measures necessary to fulfil those obligations.
In the preparatory stages of the Intergovernmental Conference, the concept of a citizens' Europe was expanded. It came to embrace the idea of bringing the European institutions closer to the public and of greater transparency in Union affairs. The negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam tried to keep this very proper concern to the forefront. On this occasion, and to some extent in contrast with the Maastricht Treaty negotiations, the Intergovernmental Conference made considerable efforts to keep the public informed. This is attributable in no small measure to the Irish Presidency and to its exceptionally lucid and coherent first draft outline of the treaty, produced in December 1996.
The Treaty of Amsterdam clarifies the concept of citizenship of the Union. It stipulates explicitly that "citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship". The Amsterdam Treaty also reinforces the existing rights of European citizens in their dealings with the institutions of the Union by including a new treaty provision which allows every citizen to write to any of the Union's institutions in any treaty language, including Irish, and have an answer in the same language.
The Amsterdam Treaty strengthens the European Parliament's powers and, other than in relation to EMU, limits to three the number of legislative procedures; assent, codecision with the Council and consultation. Obviously, the codecision procedure is the most important politically as it gives the Parliament maximum influence. Its scope is extended to a large range of new policy areas, ranging from employment and social policy to the collection of statistics and the protection of data. This codecision procedure will be made simpler and faster and the Parliament will be on a more equal footing with the Council. In addition, in future the nomination of the European Council as President of the Commission will require formal endorsement by Parliament. The Treaty of Amsterdam also contains a protocol which provides for the speedy forwarding of Commission consultation documents and legislative proposals to national Parliaments to assist them further in their role in shaping legislation.
Apart from the necessary strengthening of the democratic and participative nature of the Union, the treaty contains substantive provisions on a number of issues which are of direct concern to citizens of the Union. These include employment, social policy, the environment, public health, consumer protection, and transparency. It was recognised that a high degree of public concern existed in these areas and that concerted action could augment efforts already being made at national level.
With regard to employment, the treaty establishes the objective of a high level of employment to be taken into account in all other Community policies. It provides for the setting of employment guidelines and for Community incentive measures such as studies, sharing of experience and establishment of best practice among the member states. In the field of social policy, there are strengthened provisions for equality between men and women, and provision for incentive measures such as studies and pilot projects in the area of social exclusion. This latter provision was adopted on foot of a proposal from Ireland which had made action on social exclusion a priority during the treaty negotiations.
In this context the Government welcomes the fact that the new provisions on social policy mean the social protocol is now fully incorporated into the treaty. It had been a major goal of Ireland's approach in the negotiations to achieve this as there had been until now, given the non-participation of the UK, the potential to create two different social regimes within the Community. I do not propose to go through each of the provisions in these and the other substantive areas concerning the Union and the citizen exhaustively today. The White Paper will give a more detailed account of these. However, taken as a whole, they represent a significant effort by the Union to enhance its relevance to the daily lives and concerns of its citizens.
The Maastricht Treaty established the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy at a time of profound and rapid change in the international scene in the period following the end of the Cold War. That treaty provided that the CFSP provisions would be reviewed at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference in the light of the experience gained in the interim.
The years since Maastricht have demonstrated that, while the threat of East — West and global conflict has drastically receded, new challenges have emerged in international affairs, as intractable and complex conflicts in the Balkans and Africa demonstrated. In consequence, the essential aim of the review undertaken at the Intergovernmental Conference was to create a more coherent, effective and visible foreign and security policy which would reflect the importance of the EU on the international stage, maximise its contribution to international peace and security and respond to the concern of its citizens that the EU could and should make a greater contribution commensurate with its very considerable economic capacity.
The Amsterdam Treaty incorporates reforms which will equip the European Union to play a more effective role in international relations. The treaty reaffirms the objectives of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, and affirms explicitly that they are to be pursued, under the treaty, in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The European Union will, as in the Maastricht Treaty, work through the CFSP to strengthen the security of the Union and its member states and will seek to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the UN and the OSCE. The treaty also affirms the commitment of the member states to enhancing and developing their mutual political solidarity.
I will outline the principal changes to the CFSP which have been brought about by the Amsterdam Treaty, and the reasoning behind these changes. One of the principal innovations is the provision for developing common strategies. The European Council may adopt by unanimous decision an approach to a specific wide-ranging issue, for example, the Middle East peace process or regional conflicts in Africa. Once a common strategy has been adopted by the European Council, subsequent decisions required for its implementation will be taken at foreign Minister level by qualified majority vote. Unanimity will continue to apply in respect of all other policy decisions on CFSP issues taken by the General Affairs Council. In addition, the Treaty of Amsterdam specifically provides that all decisions having defence implications will require unanimity.
The definition and scope of two existing policy instruments, joint actions and common positions, have been revised and refined. Where either a joint action or a common position is adopted in the context of an agreed common strategy it will be the subject of qualified majority voting. However, a joint action or a common position which reflects a policy decision on an issue which is not covered by a common strategy will continue to be adopted unanimously. This limited introduction of qualified majority voting, where the broad outlines of policy have already been established, will assist the Union, both in its present composition and following enlargement, to avoid the risk of paralysis in decision-making on foreign policy issues.
The introduction of qualified majority voting in the Treaty of Amsterdam has been accompanied by adequate safeguards to prevent a member state being outvoted on a sensitive foreign policy issue. A key provision allows any member state to oppose the adoption of a decision by qualified majority for "important and stated reasons of national policy". This safeguard has been described as an emergency brake and, as that term suggests, is expected to be used only in exceptional circumstances .
In addition, there is provision for a procedure known as "constructive abstention" where, in a case where unanimity applies, a member state can opt to abstain while allowing other partners to proceed with a particular action, thereby introducing an element of flexibility into decision-making.
Arrangements for the Union's external representation have been modified. While the presidency continues to play a key role, the secretary general of the Council, acting as high representative for the CFSP, will assist the presidency in representing the Union and facilitate the work of the Council of Ministers by contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions.
Effective and timely preparation of EU positions is crucial. To this end a policy planning and early warning unit, essentially a development and strengthening of the existing support structures which exist within the Council secretariat, will be created. This body will be asked to make assessments, undertake research and analysis and assist in the planning and formulation of policy. The unit will be subordinate to the Council of Ministers. The CFSP will be financed as a general rule from the EU budget, except for matters with defence or military implications or when the General Affairs Council unanimously decides otherwise. In cases where the General Affairs Council so decides, financing will normally come from member states according to the GNP scale of contributions. An inter-institutional agreement has been reached between the General Affairs Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to create a budget line specifically for expenditure of this nature. I wish to make it clear that member states who constructively abstain from any operation having defence or military implications will not be obliged to contribute financially to such an operation.
The revised provisions on security and defence reflect the realities that security is a broad concept which is of interest and concern to every member state and that the maintenance of security requires a range of approaches — political, civil, economic, diplomatic, humanitarian —some of which also entail a supportive military dimension.
It is important to recall that the foundations of the EU's role in the security and defence area, namely, its relationship with the Western European Union, were first laid down in the Maastricht Treaty. The outcome of Amsterdam on security and defence is realistic and takes account not only of the different defence situations and commitments of member states but also of the broader European and global security context which has presented new challenges particularly in the areas of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management.
The CFSP will encompass a new role for the European Union in the field of peacekeeping and the prevention and management of international crises and conflicts through the inclusion in the treaty of what have become known as the Petersberg Tasks. The Petersberg Tasks include humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and international crisis management activities which have been developed to meet the new problems which have arisen since the end of the Cold War.
The Petersberg Tasks have been included in the treaty on the basis that the implementation of these tasks will be a matter for the Western European Union at the instigation of the EU. This development gives a practical focus to the approach set out in the Maastricht Treaty, which provided that the Western European Union is an integral part of the development of the European Union and also that the EU could request it to elaborate and implement EU decisions and actions which have defence implications.
Participation in a Petersberg Task will be on a voluntary and case by case basis; there is no obligation on Ireland or any other partner to participate in a Petersberg Task should it not wish to do so. However, those EU member states which are not members of the Western European Union— the Western European Union Observers, namely Ireland, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Denmark — will be entitled to participate fully in Petersberg Tasks undertaken by the Western European Union at the EU's instigation, including participation on an equal footing in the Western European Union planning and decision-taking associated with such tasks.
This development accords fully with Ireland's interest, as a UN peacekeeper with over forty years' experience, in contributing to these tasks in a manner that is fully in keeping with our commitment to international peace and security, with our non membership of military alliances and also with our wish to play an active part in helping to ensure security in Europe and further afield, in co-operation with our EU partners.
While the new treaty gives the EU the right to avail of the Western European Union for Petersberg Tasks, it does not, however, provide for integration of the Western European Union into the EU, seen by many member states as the desirable institutional route by which the EU could arrive at a common defence. Instead, integration of the Western European Union is referred to as a possibility, made subject also to the unanimous decision of the European Council and the assent of each and every member state. Moreover, integration of the Western European Union into the EU, or any institutional arrangement which imposed a common defence commitment on the EU, would entail amendments to the Treaty of Amsterdam or a new treaty, and thus a further Intergovernmental Conference. However, unlike the Maastricht Treaty which provided for a review after five years, the review clause in the Amsterdam Treaty sets no date for a further Intergovernmental Conference.
The new treaty provides for the "progressive framing of a common defence policy". This is a revision of the Maastricht Treaty provision which provided for the "eventual framing of a common defence policy". There was no agreement at the Intergovernmental Conference on proposals by some of our partners to incorporate the objective of a common defence into the treaty, which would have had implications for those member states, including Ireland, which are militarily neutral. Instead, the treaty states that the framing of a common defence policy "might lead to a common defence", essentially the same formulation as in the Maastricht Treaty. Under the Amsterdam Treaty, such an eventuality would also require a unanimous decision to that effect by the European Council, which would in turn need to be agreed to by each and every member state. These additional qualifications and safeguards did not feature in the Maastricht Treaty.
With regard to armaments, efforts were made by some partners to strengthen the basis for co-operation under the Rome and Maastricht Treaties. This is a sensitive issue for many states, including Ireland where it is very important. We do not produce arms and we have a strong commitment to restraint in arms transfers. The compromise which emerged amounts to a permissive, as distinct from mandatory, approach to the issue. The Amsterdam European Council conclusions, in response to an Irish initiative, singled out the importance of greater joint efforts in the area of arms export controls. I am, accordingly, encouraged to see that the British Government has set itself the task of elaborating a code of conduct on EU arms exports during its forthcoming presidency.
Certain key provisions of the Maastricht Treaty remain unchanged. The treaty acknowledges the "specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states". This reference takes account of Ireland's position as a neutral non-member of military alliances. It is accompanied by a reference which records that certain other states see their common defence realised in NATO, as distinct from the European Union.
The new treaty does not provide for the integration of the Western European Union into the EU, nor is EU/WEU integration stated anywhere in the treaty as an objective. The treaty, through an attached protocol, does provide for closer institutional relations and practical co-operation between the EU and the Western European Union, which is natural and indeed warranted in view of the inclusion of the Petersberg Tasks. It is important to remind ourselves of the nature of the Petersberg Tasks and not distort the situation. It is expected that the progressive framing of a common defence policy, as provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty, will concentrate on developing the EU's role in Petersberg Tasks.
The Western European Union remains, as it was under the Maastricht Treaty, "an integral part of the development of the Union". The Western European Union also sees itself as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. This dual vocation of the Western European Union, which was reflected in a declaration by the Western European Union appended to the Maastricht Final Act, is reflected also in an updated Western European Union Declaration appended to the Final Act of Amsterdam. Of practical relevance in this connection is that, in view of the inclusion of the Petersberg Tasks, and the fact that the Western European Union does not possess significant military resources, the Western European Union will most probably call on NATO assets and resources, for example, airlift, communications and infrastructure, to facilitate implementation of such tasks. The Western European Union and NATO are currently developing arrangements to this end, in the framework of NATO's evolving role towards greater support for peacekeeping activities under the UN or OSCE. Our current participation in SFOR in Bosnia, which operates under a UN mandate, is very much in line with this broad approach which enables us to stay in the mainstream of international peacekeeping at a time when the UN is turning increasingly to regional peacekeeping solutions. I was witness to it firsthand and I would like to see the Defence Forces expand into these areas of regional conflict.
It is the Government's view that the Amsterdam Treaty will lead to the more effective and efficient functioning of the CFSP: limited movement towards qualified majority voting while providing adequate safeguards to prevent a member state being outvoted on sensitive foreign policy issues should ensure a balance between the ability of the Union to respond adequately and the need to safeguard the interests of individual member states; the outcome on security and defence has been highly satisfactory to Ireland. Ireland's policy of military neutrality is not affected; a decision whether or not to participate in a particular Petersberg Task remains a sovereign one for each member state.
There will no doubt be much focus in the months ahead on the security and defence provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. All aspects of the treaty should be read, debated and understood, and when the time comes the people will make an informed decision on its ratification. In setting out the Government's views on these matters, I ask that these matters be discussed and debated in a fair and balanced manner, based on the facts.
I have already referred to some of the changes under the Treaty of Amsterdam in the role of the European Parliament. In this connection I would add that an eventual ceiling of 700 members was agreed for the Parliament, subject to ensuring that a minimum representation is guaranteed to smaller member states.
Within the Council itself, provision is made in the treaty for the extension of qualified majority voting to a limited number of new and existing treaty provisions and we welcome this.
The treaty also contains a "Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union" which recognises the right of all member states to nominate a full member of the European Commission. This was one of Ireland's key negotiating objectives. We can also welcome the fact that, at the date of entry into force of the first enlargement, the larger member states will give up their second Commissioner, provided that, by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council has been modified, whether by reweighting of the votes or by dual majority, in a manner acceptable to all member states. The provision for a later review of institutional arrangements does not prejudge any outcome with regard to the nomination by each member state of a full Commission member.
In summary, as my predecessor said in this House in July, from the Irish point of view the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference in the area of institutional reform has been very satisfactory. In this area, Ireland shared the concern of other member states to preserve the broad balance within and between the European Union's institutions which has been essential to the success of the Union. In particular, Ireland attached priority to protecting the position of the European Commission and to maintaining the right to nominate a full member of the European Commission. We continue to believe it is central to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Commission and of the Union's institutions as a whole that each member state is entitled to nominate a full member.
The treaty contains new provisions according to which enhanced co-operation may take place among a group of member states. Provisions are incorporated which are designed to ensure that such closer co-operation would preserve the cohesion of the Union and its institutions and would not exclude any member state which may wish to participate, either initially or subsequently. It makes clear that only participating member states shall decide upon, and bear the cost of, acts and decisions necessary for the implementation of closer co-operation, and that the European Parliament will be regularly informed of developments.
The application of such enhanced co-operation or flexibility would be confined to matters which are fully communitarised, such as the internal market which lies in Pillar 1, as well as to those questions, for example judicial and police co-operation, which lie in Pillar 3. As regards Pillar 1, and largely at Irish insistence, the Commission's sole right of initiative is fully preserved in relation to any use of flexibility.
I have highlighted the main features of the Treaty of Amsterdam with a view to illustrating its significance for Ireland and for the citizens of Europe more generally. It will be evident from my remarks that the Treaty of Amsterdam builds upon the achievements of earlier treaties and adds new strength in areas of most relevance to people's daily lives.
I acknowledge the role of the previous Government in concluding the treaty and in successfully protecting and advancing Ireland's interests during the course of its negotiation. The immense work done by Deputy Gay Mitchell and the leadership given by Deputy Spring as Minister for Foreign Affairs is deeply appreciated and has enhanced Ireland's name among the nations of the world.
I hope that the vast majority of Members will join the Government in next year's referendum in seeking support for the treaty as a further milestone in the development of Europe. There is a large programme of work ahead in the European context which will be facilitated by the Treaty of Amsterdam. It will be important that we in Ireland continue to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously our support for a strong and effective European Union.
Let me pay tribute to my predecessor in office, Mr. Ray Burke. He gave immense leadership in Opposition and in Government on the peace process and in other areas. I wish him happiness and peace, and extend that wish to his family.
