Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Dec 2005

General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.

I have received apologies from Deputy Dan Wallace. Deputy Wilkinson is substituting for him. I have also received apologies from Senators Lydon, Dardis and Ormond.

We have had to postpone the first item on the agenda. The second item is a discussion in advance of the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, with special responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Treacy. I welcome the Minister of State. If he wishes to make a presentation I will then open the discussion to members.

Go raibh maith agat,a Chathaoirligh, a chomhghleacaí agus achomhaltaí. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet the committee again in the unavoidable absence of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Next Monday's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, will be the final full meeting under the UK Presidency and will be mainly concerned with the preparation of the European Council on 15 and 16 December. The Minister will represent Ireland at the GAERC. The council agenda is very detailed. I propose to address first the items on the general affairs side followed by those relating to external relations.

The council will hold a detailed discussion on the future financial perspectives as part of its preparations for the European Council. It will focus on the UK Presidency's proposals which were issued on 5 December. These proposals envisage a reduction in the overall expenditure ceiling compared with the package rejected by a few member states last June. The ceiling is reduced from 1.06% of the EU's gross national income under the Luxembourg Presidency's proposals to 1.03% in the latest paper. This saving is achieved mainly at the expense of cohesion spending in the new member states, as well as by cuts in other areas, including rural development. On the revenue side, the UK has offered to limit somewhat the projected growth in its budgetary rebate.

These proposals were the subject of a ministerial conclave in Brussels yesterday afternoon, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs attended. In addition, I attended a meeting of the "friends of cohesion" group on Tuesday evening. Both meetings showed that delegations were unhappy with the thrust of the latest Presidency proposals, especially the cuts affecting cohesion and rural development. In addition, the general view was that the UK's offer on the rebate was insufficient, and that the UK needed to pay its fair share of the costs of enlargement.

There is no doubting, however, the widespread desire for a settlement of the financial perspectives next week. Our contributions at yesterday's conclave were made in an effort to help the Presidency produce a revised proposal more in tune with the needs of the Union and the wishes of the majority of member states. An agreement can still be achieved but there must be movement on several key fronts.

Our contributions at yesterday's conclave were made in an effort to help the EU Presidency produce a revised proposal more in tune with the needs of the Union and the wishes of the majority of member states. An agreement can still be achieved but there will need to be movement on several key fronts.

At next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council, Ireland will stress the need for the October 2002 agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy to be respected fully. Therefore, provision for agricultural funding for Bulgaria and Romania should be additional to the amount contained in that agreement and the 2003 policy reforms. We will continue to contest the EU Presidency's plans for significant reductions in rural development, which many member states also oppose. We will seek a much improved offer on the British rebate. We will challenge the EU Presidency's plans for a review of the EU budget. While Ireland does not object to the idea of a review, it should be part of the preparation for the EU's financing after 2013. We cannot accept a review whose outcome is meant to take effect in advance of 2014. It is too early to commence such a review in 2008, only a year after the new budgetary framework comes into force.

These are the vital issues for Ireland during these crucial days in the lead-up to the European Council. We are now engaged in a real negotiation, based on detailed proposals. The negotiations are evolving on a daily basis. The proposals sent to us on Monday will be revised before the Heads of State and Governments meet next week. We will set out in clear terms what needs to be changed if agreement is to emerge. The Taoiseach will also make our views known to the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, when he meets him tomorrow in London. With the necessary political will and a spirit of compromise, the much-needed agreement on Europe's financial framework just may be possible.

Monday's General Affairs and External Relations Council will prepare the way for next week's vital meeting of the European Council. The Council's agenda consists of financial perspectives, the future direction of Europe, Africa, a global approach to migration, counter-terrorism, sustainable development, climate change and sustainable energy, growth, jobs and external relations. The EU Presidency also proposes a statement on better regulation. The major focus will be on the financial perspectives on which agreement is a vital aim. A successful summit will deliver a clear boost to the European Union's credibility.

For the most part, the draft conclusions for the European Council reflect already agreed political statements and endorse decisions by the Council of Ministers in various formations. The European Council will also note the joint UK-Austrian interim report on the national debates on the future of Europe. No debate is foreseen in what is effectively an information-sharing exercise. We have submitted our short report.

There has been considerable activity in the area of enlargement in the past three months. The Commission's monitoring reports for Bulgaria and Romania were published on 25 October. Accession negotiations were opened with Turkey and Croatia on 3 October, and the Commission published progress reports for both countries on 9 November, alongside an overall enlargement strategy paper. Ministers will take stock of these recent developments and hold an exchange of views on the Commission's enlargement strategy paper, which has been published against a backdrop of what might be termed "enlargement fatigue" within the Union and concerns about its absorptive capacity.

Ireland broadly supports the approach taken by the Commission in its strategy paper, which emphasises the need for rigorous conditionality while maintaining a credible European perspective for the countries of the western Balkans region.

The Council will also consider and approve a draft EU-Africa strategy, prior to its formal adoption by the European Council. Ireland welcomes the formulation of a long-term, coherent, comprehensive strategy on Africa, based on the principles of African ownership, equality and partnership. Preparation of the draft strategy has benefited from extensive discussions within the Council over several months. Its aims reflect Ireland's priorities, including the importance of progress towards achievement of the millennium development goals, promoting security and good governance, and enhancing African capabilities in conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

Ministers will discuss the continuing impasse in the peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which has resulted in heightened tension along the border between the two countries and the consequent risk of a potential outbreak of hostilities. The Council is expected to express concern at the tense and volatile situation in this area and underline the EU's full support for the UN Security Council's demands. These are that Eritrea should lift its restrictions on the operations of UNMEE, the UN peacekeeping operation for Eritrea-Ethiopia; that both parties should reduce the numbers of troops deployed along the border; and that Ethiopia should fully accept the final and binding decision of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission and take immediate steps to enable demarcation to start without delay. The Council will also call on both parties to refrain from any use or threat of force and, as part of de-escalation measures, to redirect funds used for military expenditure towards development. To encourage Ethiopia and Eritrea to respond positively to the Security Council, an EU troika mission will visit the region in mid-December. Ireland fully supports this approach and we have made this clear bilaterally to both the Ethiopians and Eritreans.

The Council will have a discussion on recent developments with regard to Kosovo which is entering a particularly important phase as the process to determine its future status begins. Some 213 Irish troops continue to play an important role there as part of the UN-led KFOR peacekeeping force. I pay tribute to their excellent work. In addition to Kosovo, Ministers may also have a brief discussion on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which hopes to be granted the status of EU candidate country in the near future. The country applied to join the EU during the Irish Presidency in 2004.

Consideration of the future status of Kosovo is expected to be the dominant issue in the western Balkans region over the coming months. The Council is expected to reiterate its support for the political process to determine Kosovo's future status and for Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the UN Status Envoy, who is well-known in Ireland from his work on the peace process. The EU is determined to participate fully in the definition of the status of Kosovo and looks forward to being closely involved in the negotiations and implementation of Kosovo's future status including through EU representative, Mr. Stefan Lehne, appointed last month.

In this process, the ongoing implementation of standards will continue to be of paramount importance. The Council is expected to reiterate that the provisional institutions of self-government in Kosovo need to make further progress including on the protection of minorities, full respect for the rule of law, a transparent public administration free from political interference and the protection of cultural and religious sites. We look forward to close co-operation between the EU and the US, UN, relevant partners and other international organisations.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of the status talks at this stage, certain fundamentals are clear. Kosovo's eventual future status will enable it to develop in an economically and politically sustainable way which ensures it does not constitute a security threat to its neighbours. The EU already plays an important role in Kosovo, particularly in the area of economic regeneration. Ministers will discuss the future EU role on Monday and together with our EU partners, we look forward to working with all involved to ensure the development of a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo based on European standards of human rights for the future.

The Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, Ms Benita Ferrero-Waldner, will present an oral report, outlining the main achievements of the European neighbourhood policy during 2005 and setting out priorities for 2006. Ireland has strongly supported the development of the programme as a means of engaging with neighbouring states of the EU in a structured way, unrelated to the question of EU membership. It is not expected there will be any substantive discussion on the item on this occasion.

Statements on the current round of global trade negotiations were made in the Dáil on 1 December last. The General Affairs and External Relations Council has discussed preparations for the conference at all of its recent meetings, starting with the specially convened meeting on 18 October.

The sixth World Trade Organisation ministerial talks will begin in Hong Kong on 13 December. Although the preparatory work for the meeting has continued in Geneva, the ambitions for Hong Kong have been scaled down. The hoped for major breakthrough in the talks is now unlikely to be realised. Nevertheless, the meeting will provide a good opportunity for exchanges between all the parties to the negotiations. I hope it will come to be seen as a milestone and an important step on the road to achieving a final agreement to the negotiations by the present target date of the end of 2006. A successful outcome to the negotiations by the end of 2006 is possible if all parties approach the negotiations in a spirit of goodwill and compromise.

As has been repeated many times, it is important that we aim for a balanced outcome to the negotiations, within and across all the main elements of the Doha development agenda, and with a specific focus on the needs of the poorest and least developed countries. Ireland remains fully committed to achieving a successful outcome to the negotiations.

Together with the Commission and our EU partners, Ireland will seek to ensure that any progress achieved will be across all strands of the negotiations — trade facilitation, trade in agricultural produce, in non-agricultural or industrial goods, and in services. Ireland will continue to insist that European agriculture, which has undergone a substantial reform in advance of the WTO negotiations, must not be sacrificed as the price of an overall agreement. We remain committed to a fair and balanced outcome to the negotiations which will benefit our open, trade-dependent economy.

It is expected that the Hong Kong ministerial meeting will agree on a significant package of measures to assist the developing countries. As indicated by the Minister of State responsible for development co-operation, Deputy Conor Lenihan, when he addressed the Dáil on 1 December, Ireland hopes to see progress in a number of areas including extension by all the richer countries of tariff and quota free facilities to imports from the poorest and least developed countries, on the lines of the "everything but arms" system, which the EU already applies; real progress on special and differential treatment for least developed countries; progress in adapting the rules of the agreement on the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights or TRIPS, to meet the needs of developing countries, which have severe difficulties in combating serious public health problems, such as HIV-AIDS.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council will meet in special session throughout the conference in Hong Kong and our ministerial team of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and Deputies Michael Ahern and Conor Lenihan, will be there for the duration of the talks. The Council will provide the Commission with any necessary guidance in the final stages of the negotiations. It will take a position on any draft WTO ministerial declaration resulting from the negotiations and will in accordance with its practice take any necessary decisions in this regard.

That concludes the agenda for next week's meeting. I look forward to the contributions and observations of the committee and am happy to reply to any questions put.

The Minister of State spoke of potential "enlargement fatigue", something debated in this committee to quite an extent. What are the opinions of the Minister of State regarding the rate at which the European Union is growing? Is the Government concerned that it is moving too fast, because such concerns have been voiced in this committee?

The Government, representing the people of Ireland, fully appreciates the opportunities presented to this country in 1973, or rather in 1972 when the decision was taken that Ireland could join the European Union, as ratified by the people. We then became an EU member state in 1973. It has been the consistent policy of successive governments that we should never prevent any country from having the right to be considered for candidate status within the European Union. We have done that consistently and have given leadership in every way possible, particularly during our EU presidencies, to ensure that at all times, fairness and equity prevail in all discussions, debates and deliberations on any application or request from any country within Europe.

That continues to be our policy. We fully accept that the European Union will become a full 27-member union by 2008. Obviously we keep membership options open but we must be realistic about the pace of enlargement. It is a critical issue for the EU and its component parts, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, to look now at the direction the EU is taking, what responsibilities it must deliver on, its key goals and what resources will be required to ensure that equality prevails for each and every individual citizen in the EU as well as each member state, taking into account the EU's neighbours, their desires, and the complexities that clearly prevail in some of the neighbouring states within the existing union.

We are all aware of the concerns expressed throughout Europe about future enlargement. Nevertheless, it is important that the EU abides by the commitments given to the candidate countries and to the countries of the western Balkans region. In this respect, Ireland welcomes the findings of the Commission's strategy paper. It strikes a good balance between the EU's need to remain rigorous in demanding the fulfilment of its membership criteria, including the union's own absorption capacity, while maintaining a credible European perspective for the countries of the western Balkans. That is our position, to which we are fully committed.

Is the Minister of State saying that post 2008, a review should take place of the pace at which the European Union grows?

European leadership must decide how and at what pace the union proceeds, and what resources are required to allow progress to be maintained, both for the existing members and for each citizen, as well as taking account of the responsibilities we have to create opportunities and fulfil the desires of our adjoining neighbours.

Members may correct me, but the committee has expressed some concerns or reservations with regard to the pace of EU expansion. That has been evident in our meetings. The Minister of State should be aware of that before he attends the meeting.

I will take due note of those concerns.

I welcome the Minister of State and the opportunity to debate this matter before the financial perspectives next week and the WTO negotiations.

I will voice a concern which is not heard often enough in Ireland. When I was in college, Ireland was an agricultural country. We are no longer an agricultural country. We must remember that we are now a trading country and it benefits our interests to take that into account. Accordingly, when we look for a settlement next week in debating the UK rebate and CAP, let us not exclude the fact that we have obligations in regard to the budget in Europe as well as to the WTO. We must wear a hat which says that Ireland has interests other than simply agriculture. I am not sure we hear those interests being expressed strongly enough at negotiation level.

With regard to Ireland being a trading nation, tourism is now more important to us than agriculture, yet we hear only about agriculture. Accordingly I ask for balance to be taken into account. Further, our trading nation status is worthy of more consideration than we are giving it. Recently published figures show we have the lowest broadband facility in Europe. That is in our own hands and not in the hands of Europe, but it is a reminder that we have the ability to step into a new position here which would enable us to do better, so long as we remind ourselves that Ireland is not just about agriculture.

The Minister of State also spoke of better regulation. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development issued a very interesting publication last month called Transition Report. It referred to our ability as Europeans to grab hold of the opportunities made available to us, with particular reference to the newer EU member states. The Minister of State urged caution with regard to enlargement fatigue, but some of the new EU member states have grasped the opportunities very successfully because they removed regulations and have moved from the old communist system to one of an open economy. For instance, I was surprised to see that Slovenia is now ahead of Portugal in the steps it has taken. The publication to which I referred also commended Estonia and Slovakia for having taken the right steps, although they still have problems to overcome.

I am not sure that enough attention has been paid to those particular areas, and to other voices being expressed. I am glad to hear the Minister of State say we need better regulation. We cannot do enough to remind the new nations coming into the EU from eastern Europe of what steps have proved successful in countries such as Ireland. When I have been in eastern Europe it has been made quite clear to me that it is Ireland which many of those countries wish to follow as an example. We must remind ourselves of the steps we have taken. Our success is not guaranteed. We must not be complacent but keep a constant eye on making sure our success continues in the future. For the sake of the eastern European countries we should set out the important steps which helped us achieve success and will do so in the future.

I thank the Chairman and Senator Quinn. I do not fully agree with him that agriculture is not as important as it was. I would rephrase that and concede that agriculture is not the predominant industry it was, but it is still critically important to our nation, the economy, jobs and for maintaining a rural Ireland that is so fundamental to the traditions of this country. It has enormous importance for the development of the country into the future. If one studies the evolution of the country, even yesterday's budget, one will see that the emphases are taking into account the changes in society, demographics, bringing Ireland up the value chain and the need for investment in fourth generation education. However, agriculture is still very important. We emphasise that point very much.

With regard to broadband, while we do not have the capacity we should, that is not the fault of either the political or the governmental system. The people who have failed us are the telecommunications companies, which had a serious responsibility and a dominant role, yet did not discharge it. Government had to intervene to ensure that broadband was delivered. We are now creating the competition and the opportunities and making the resources available for it. We are playing catch-up. Regrettably, the Government had to give the lead and that is the position as regards the private sector etc.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

The Government sold off Telecom Éireann. That is the problem.

The Government should not ultimately have to be involved in these types of operations at all. Our job is to run an economy where the private sector should be able to respond to opportunities, make investments, create the infrastructure and supply the necessary services. We have always maintained a careful mix and it is still there.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

The Government cocked up by selling a company that was well resourced and was actually doing the job of providing broadband. It was sold to private enterprise, whose only interest is in making the biggest profits it can. The result was that the State had to step back in to provide the infrastructure that Eircom should have come up with as virtually the monopoly private company in this sector.

Mr. De Rossa will get his chance to comment later.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I will.

Is Mr. De Rossa going back to his roots?

Mr. De Rossa should have the opportunity to come back in on that——

I do not want to move away from Senator Quinn's very important points. However, as Mr. De Rossa knows, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to be changed to a semi-State company to go forward. We joined the European Union and were obliged, under competition law, to do certain things. We modernised the infrastructure, putting massive amounts of capital in. We expected the dominant company to do certain things. We moved matters forward to create opportunities for the country. Again, we expected the company to respond. Instead, the Government responded, and hopefully the company is now following the lead. The company moves forward and evolution demands changes to be made in different ways. We are now on the third phase of that telecommunications change. It has been politically driven to ensure that the people get the best deal possible.

On better regulation, I agree completely with Senator Quinn. We have debated this in the Houses, and at committee level as well. It has been aired at EU Council level, too. The EU has no desire to impose regulations on member states if they are prepared to undertake them for themselves. It fosters equality of opportunity and creates the competition environment and ensures that a level playing field exists for all of its citizens. Obviously, it wants to ensure there is no distortion in any member state that militates against another and that the law is equitable throughout the Union. When member states do not create the necessary environment there have to be EU directives to ensure the playing field is level. While some citizens complain that the rules might be over-bureaucratic and impose on them too much, others will be among the first to ask Brussels to intervene so as to ensure change and fair play.

I need to interject. We had a hearing on this subject, or something very close to it last week. This is something that Senator Quinn has repeatedly brought up. Farming was mentioned and all the efforts that were made to preserve it, in this country.

Concern was voiced in the committee to the effect that in some cases the written regulations went beyond the scope of the directives coming from Brussels. The case in point was the nitrates directive, on which the committee had a hearing last week. We still believe the regulations in this regard go beyond what the directive calls for. Beyond that, the manner in which various Departments have dealt with this issue has not been particularly good. It was acknowledged here last week that no environmental impact assessment was carried out on the pig farming industry, which would be badly affected by the directive we were dealing with. It was stated that a plan was needed to include farmers, REPS advisers, Teagasc and everyone involved. However, nothing had been prepared as regards a plan. Members kept asking for a plan and it was said that better public relations were needed between the IFA, REPS planners and the Departments involved. By the end of the meeting it was completely apparent that no one had worked out what the plan should be. The regulations will be written and finalised very soon, but no one gave this any thought. This situation has arisen directly as a result of an EU directive and the way the regulations have been written.

Senator Quinn has always argued — he can correct me if I misquote him — that sometimes the regulations are excessively written, and this is costing Irish jobs. We found the nitrates directive to be a good example of that. When we asked the Departments questions as regards what was being planned around the directive, frankly the answers they came up with were not too good.

I agree with much of what the Chairman has said. The nitrates directive was an EU initiative about 15 years ago. It has been that length in gestation. There was a certain resistance towards introducing it in Ireland. Eventually we had no option but to do so, in the interests of our environment. Negotiations proceeded, and this was a somewhat concentrated process involving the relevant vested interests and professionals. They all did their own thing in different ways and ultimately it was up to the Government to pull matters together. There has been much consultation. I hope the committee got all the requisite information last week. Ultimately, a decision must be made and we do our utmost in Government to facilitate this.

I chair the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs. We look at all the directives on an ongoing basis and try to reach a consensus among all the Departments to ensure that any statutory instruments or secondary legislation that are being introduced are simple, practical and, as far as possible, take account of the legalities required and the impact they must effect. That is most important. There is also the scrutiny committee, which is important.

There will now be a regulatory impact assessment forum for the future, which the Taoiseach has launched, and given a commitment on. This will upgrade the position on scrutiny. It will mean we will all have more opportunity to look at such proposals in depth. It behoves all of us as politicians, both individually and collectively, to ensure we engage ourselves in this scrutiny and have constant backup support for one another, accepting the need to achieve consensus in the interests of the common good. In the process we must take into account the exigencies that exist as a result of the directives coming from the Europe Union. That is the great challenge for all of us and we will have to deal with it to the best of our abilities.

Returning to Senator Quinn's points, I want to answer the questions he has raised. He talked about the new member states from eastern Europe, etc. We have serious responsibilities in that regard. We have always supported all of these good countries and taken a very positive attitude to ensure they get equal opportunity, fair play and equal access to all the facilities available, once their candidacy status has been agreed and they meet the various chapter criteria for membership.

These countries look to Ireland as a role model, and as a leader, as regards what they want to achieve and emulate as the Union evolves and goes forward. We are pleased to be of assistance in that regard and are proud of the success Ireland has enjoyed within the European Union. We should ensure the European Union continues to be a positive force, both economically and in conflict resolution in various parts of the world. These are the criteria which drive Irish representation at all levels, including the public service which does such an outstanding job in representing Ireland across Europe.

Reference was made to the necessity to put emphasis on issues other than agriculture. This global trade round is not just about agriculture; our aim is to ensure we take everything into account. The economic mix is critical to Ireland as an open economy and a small island nation. We are completely dependent on trade, given that 90% of our products leave the country. It is critically important that is maintained. That is why the European Union is so important to us, as it allows us to reach other markets. Even if it appears that the agricultural element has been taken hostage at an early stage, the round is about the improvement of conditions for trade in all areas, including non-agricultural produce, manufactured and industrial goods, trade in services and trade facilitation. We always emphasise these areas and will do so again next week in Hong Kong when I hope some progress will be made.

We scrutinised the nitrates directive and did not like what we found.

I welcome the Minister of State. I want to ask him a question about the financing of the European Union. Unless one looks at the cost to the taxpayer of the European project, one is carried away with the deluded view that the Union is an expensive burden on the taxpayer. The amount used to run it is very modest. The attitude of the British Presidency to the European Union is very different from ours. Perhaps its does not give the same value to the Union as we do. The British have proposed that the budget figure should be cut from 1.06% to 1.03%. I support the Minister of State's objection. He stated he was particularly concerned about cuts that would affect cohesion and rural development but where does he stand on the actual budgetary figure? Is he equally concerned about the total EU budget proposed by the British Presidency, or is he simply referring to the proposed cuts and where they would affect us? I hope he is supportive of the Luxembourg proposal which I would personally support.

I agree with Senator Bradford. At just 1% of EU GDP, running the European Union is not expensive. Given the size of the Union, that is a very small amount of money. Reluctantly, we have agreed to the Luxembourg proposal of a figure of 1.06% because we feel it is pitched at a satisfactory level. The allocations are reasonable, although we are not satisfied with everything. However, nobody will get their own way completely. The consensus politics that drives the European Union is its great strength. We try to secure what is best for the common good to deliver resources to all member states. We are not happy with the proposed reduction to 1.03%. We were never a member of the 1% club, as we have made quite clear from the outset. It was not fair on any member state and did not give leverage or flexibility to the Union. Without money, there would be no stimulant to drive economic growth. One cannot be too rigid.

The current proposals are different from those made in the final Luxembourg package in June. There is a significant reduction in overall expenditure, from a figure of 1.06% of EU GDP to 1.03%. This saving would be achieved at the expense of cohesion in the new member states. On the revenue side, the United Kingdom has offered to change its position on the size of the rebate to some extent. We are very supportive of the Cohesion Fund countries. The Cohesion Fund was critically important to Ireland and its economic growth. All of the new member states have reasonable and legitimate expectations which should be fulfilled in so far as possible. We hope balance and fairness will prevail when the needs of the new member states are taken into account. We have a moral and political responsibility to discharge a budget that is fair to them.

We are not happy with the proposals on rural development. Senator Quinn referred to the changes in agriculture and the rural environment. Rural development is critical. We have received support and protection from the Common Agricultural Policy which we have carried through to the Doha Round and the meeting in Hong Kong. We have received a clear commitment on what we have on the table and expect the CAP to be protected.

I fully accept what the Minister of State has said and support what he is doing in fighting the proposed cuts. Is our bottom line that we do not want the budgetary figure to fall below 1.06%? If it does, there will be no financial flexibility to aid any part of the European Union, either in the case of projects or products. The figure of 1.06% represents a negotiated compromise. Surely we cannot go below this minimal figure. Will that be our argument and bottom line next week?

We want to get as close as possible to the figure of 1.06%. Regrettably, what is on the table is a budgetary figure of 1.03% of EU GDP and we must negotiate on that basis. There will be a bilateral meeting tomorrow in London between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. There will also be a GAERC meeting on Monday in Brussels. We expect a new paper to be published next Tuesday or Wednesday. We will then go to the European Council meeting on Thursday or Friday. There will, therefore, be at least three more meetings before final agreement is reached and at least one other document will be put on the table. There are about 19 bilateral meetings planned between now and Sunday. These discussions will help to improve and fine tune the document. If at all possible we should find common ground to secure an agreement in the interests of the European Union which we believe needs a confidence boost at this time. We would like to secure an agreement provided it is fair.

I thank the Minister of State for attending. I apologise for my late arrival, which was due to business in the House.

The Minister of State spoke eloquently about the traditions of this country, of which we must always be conscious. One of the traditions is that when we are abroad, we represent the country and put aside our own political views on internal issues. This is the first opportunity I have had in the political theatre to tell the Minister of State that I thought his behaviour in Brussels was disgraceful.

What was this behaviour?

The Minister of State commented in Brussels on the leader of Fine Gael's policy on the Irish language. A debate on the Irish language must be mature in nature.

This is not the forum to raise this issue.

This is the only opportunity I have had to raise it. The Minister of State addressed an international audience, the members of which he embarrassed with a cheap shot against the leader of Fine Gael, at a forum in Brussels. My party will not take lectures from the Minister of State on its commitment to the Irish language. Deputy Kenny's commitment to the Irish language is strong and practical. He has put forward——

Chairman, this is-——

Please, Deputy Allen. Deputy Andrews is correct. We have to——

This is the only opportunity——

This is very bad.

The Deputy's point is very political.

It is political.

I am not sure that this is the correct forum in which to make it.

This the only opportunity I will get to make the point, which is that instead of making cheap political shots, all parties in this country should consider the opportunities we have to energise the Irish language and not become involved——

If the Deputy does not conclude, I will have to suspend the meeting.

I will conclude but I make the point that it was a cheap political shot, unbecoming of a Minister of State speaking in an international arena.

We must proceed.

That was a cheap political shot from Deputy Allen.

I will move on to the financial perspectives. Has the Minister of State undertaken any assessment of the implications of the reduction in the financial perspectives with regard to the planned enlargement to include Romania and Bulgaria in 2007? Is there a threat to the enlargement process and the enlargement date given to the two countries? I echo the Chairman's comments on enlargement. I examined the issue in detail at the committee's previous session and will not repeat the same points today because we are short of time. We must, however, begin listening to the people, rather than lecturing them on the way Europe is going. I will attend a meeting shortly at which we will reflect on the period of reflection on how the National Forum on Europe will-——

We will reflect on that.

I would like to hear the Minister's views on how the Government intends to use the remaining portion of the period of reflection to convince the people that enlargement is not in danger of putting the European Union off the rails. Recent events, such as the Irish Ferries dispute and other issues that are seen as directly related to European matters, are making Irish people reconsider Ireland's position within the Union. We must be sensitive to this and aware that great disquiet exists among the people. We should listen to people rather than lecturing them.

While I could go into greater detail, I am conscious of the time constraints. What is the Government doing with regard to the period of reflection, which is moving on?

I want to respond to Deputy Allen's initial outburst.

It was not an outburst.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. He should allow me to respond. The Fine Gael leader chose a political environment to make a statement about the Irish language in a year in which the European Union gave the language working status. We felt that there had been political consensus with regard to achieving that status. We were shocked, in the year in which it was achieved, that a party political leader would decide that this was an opportunity to downgrade the status of the language vis-à-vis the education system.

Excuse me——

I want to respond to the point made by Deputy Allen, which was unfair.

This is probably not the forum in which to do so.

This was the first political opportunity available to me. I made a statement in a purely political environment. If a ball is passed into a political environment-——

It is a disgrace.

——I will pass it back.

The Minister of State is a disgrace.

If it is too hot for the Deputy to catch, that is his problem.

It is not too hot to catch. We want a mature debate on the Irish language.

It was an insult to the language, the nation and the Union. The Deputy knows this.

The Minister of State disgraced us in Brussels and should apologise.

It looks as if the earlier pantomime from the Chamber is coming into this committee. Could we get on with the business?

The Deputy is correct. It is that kind of a day. We will move on.

I had my mind made up long before today's events in the Dáil. The events in the Chamber are not overflowing into this forum. This is the first opportunity I have had to take issue with the Minister of State's behaviour abroad as the representative of this country.

Inter verbum sat sapienti. That is all I have to say on the matter.

I want to respond to the second part of Deputy Allen's contribution. I respect the point he makes on enlargement. We are all at one in that regard. The financial perspectives are not connected with the enlargement to include Bulgaria and Romania. On that issue, our request at the two meetings we attended this week — it will also be made at the bilateral meetings tomorrow and next week — is that we should provide €2 billion in CAP spending to both countries as an extra sum, rather than taking it from the existing CAP agreement.

With regard to the Government's activities during the period of reflection, we want to continue the debate on Europe and the European constitution, which we discuss regularly at European meetings and at various meetings in Ireland, including with this committee. I am confident that, in the next year, at least one other country, Belgium, will ratify——

My question concerned what the Government is doing within this country and what practical means are being taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs to communicate with and listen to the people.

I am coming to that. The period of reflection continues until next June. The Austrian Presidency will then report on how it views the situation at that time. The National Forum on Europe continues to debate the situation. There will be two Oireachtas debates on the issue and the White Paper has been published. We have submitted our report on the period of reflection. We are continuing discussions on the future of Europe and these will intensify during 2006.

It is my hope that all of us together, taking into account that we may have heated debate on a particular issue, will have a consensual commitment to ensuring that the debate continues and that, ultimately, we can find common agreement to ensure ratification of the European constitution, which is the critical mechanism for the future management of the Union. The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the Communicating Europe initiative. Additional funds have been made available in the Book of Estimates through yesterday's budget for the European Movement to ensure that we continue communicating the EU programme to all citizens throughout the country. We are leaving no stone unturned in terms of resources, participation or support.

We appreciate the tremendous commitment from this committee and MEPs. I pay special tribute to the MEPs of all parties for the tremendous leadership they have given and the contribution they are making.

I am still no wiser. My question may have been misunderstood. What practical efforts and initiatives are being taken by the Government to communicate directly with the people? I am a member of the National Forum on Europe, which meets occasionally at Dublin Castle. There is little link between the public and the National Forum on Europe or the European Movement. I ask the Government what leadership it is giving to and what direct line of communication it has with the people to deal with the issues that concern them, including the drift of jobs from west to east and other issues which we raised one month ago. I have heard no answers.

Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

I will always respond to my colleagues. Ireland is the only country to have a National Forum on Europe. We provide adequate resources to the forum, which meets at Dublin Castle and other venues throughout the country. Deputy Allen, I and other colleagues have attended meetings throughout the country, some successful and some small. There is no doubt that the success of a meeting depends on the topic, location and timing. The Government will continue to provide resources for the Communicating Europe initiative and will do the same for the European Movement. We have had debates in the Dáil and the Seanad and we will take every opportunity to communicate Europe. We are all in this together. The European Union is not the preserve of any group, individual or institution. We do our utmost to constantly communicate the European message.

Does the Minister of State want my opinion?

Yes, I would like to hear the Deputy's opinion.

The Minister of State has observed that the National Forum on Europe meets regularly in Dublin Castle. Although it tours the country, it fails to connect with people. On its visit to Cork, for example, a meeting was held in a local hotel. The attendance was not representative of the people of Cork and there was no practical link-in with citizens. That is the challenge faced by fora such as this in making a realistic link with people, talking and listening to them, rather than lecturing them about the benefits they receive. There are great fears and uncertainties among citizens and unless we listen to and communicate with them down to community level, we will fail.

The National Forum on Europe has done a wonderful job. It does not lecture anybody but rather brings in eminent speakers and does a focused and structured job in communicating the European message. It is very focused on young people and has an excellent youth parliament. It has had great success with that venture this year and last, with great debate and discussion among the emerging young leaders at second and third level who participated in this democratic initiative. It does a great job and I pay tribute to it.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I agree the forum does an excellent job but there is truth in the assertion that we must find new ways of connecting with citizens on European issues.

I will deal, first, with the financial perspectives. The proposal brought forward by the British Government is a disgrace. It represents a complete abandonment of our commitment to the ten member states which joined more than a year ago. It abandons the solidarity principle that underpins the European Union. We are part of a union that is based on the idea that we share our power to make decisions and our resources to assist all member states to rise to high standards in social and economic performance. The British Government has produced a budget which could not be used to further integrate the European Union.

I will not ask the Minister of State to abandon the Common Agricultural Policy because I know he will not do so. It is a foolish debate at this time. What I want the Minister of State to do is to commit to ensuring there will be adequate resources in the budget, in this broad perspective which will last for seven to eight years, in order that there will be sufficient funds for the social policy agenda and the Structural and Cohesion Funds. This will ensure that not only those areas in "old Europe" that still need support will receive it but also that the ten new member states, in particular, can expect the commitments we made to them will be met. The financial packages offered were not drawn out of the clear blue sky; they were not guesstimates of what was needed, rather they were worked out figures as to what was required to assist the ten new member states. To turn around now and announce that €10 billion will be taken from those states is dishonest. I hope the Government will make itself clear on that point.

There are some 19 million unemployed in the European Union, while 90 million are either at risk of or living in poverty. To imagine the Union can address these issues without a strong budget is nonsense. It is extremely important that we have these perspectives; it would be a disaster if we do not achieve agreement on perspectives because we cannot return to the situation where we have this type of row every year. It is unacceptable and we cannot grow the Union on that basis. We must persist until an agreement is reached and it must be on the basis of solidarity.

The Minister of State has mentioned that the Austrian Government is bringing forward a report on the future of the European Union and that the Government has made a submission. I do not know whether this has already been done but it would be useful to have the Irish contribution, as well as the Austrian report, made available to committee members.

When the Minister of State deals with the issue of counter-terrorism at next week's meeting, will he raise the serous concerns of citizens throughout Europe about CIA flights and the use of European airports to illegally, contrary to international law, transfer prisoners into secret prisons? Will he seek a European response to this? It is almost impossible for European states to respond as individual states to the United States on this issue. It is necessary to have a Europe-wide inspection process in order that every state will have the freedom to ensure its airspace and airports are not being used illegally by the United States or any other state. This is extremely important if we are to build confidence in the European Union and its commitment to human rights.

The Chairman has indicated that time is an issue. However, it is the case that some speakers spent a lot of time talking about issues not related to the points raised by the Minister of State.

That is fair enough. However, the Minister of State must leave soon and I understand others wish to speak.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I want to raise one further critical point. In terms of better regulation, will the Minister of State undertake that he will concern himself not only with better regulation as far as business is concerned? Better regulation also means preventing a race to the bottom. I refer, in particular, to the disgraceful decision made by Irish Ferries. There must be regulation at EU level. We need the EU draft directive on the crewing of ferries to be brought back. We must also ensure the services directive currently on its way through the European Parliament is carried in such a way that it does not drive a race to the bottom. If we are serious about building the confidence of the people of Europe, we must ensure a race to the bottom is not driven by unscrupulous employers and weak regulation on the part of the European Union.

We want a budget for an effective and dynamic European Union, as we have stressed consistently. It should be as close as possible to the Luxembourg proposal which was well balanced, well pitched and reasonably fair. In the end, five countries could not accept what had been proposed at the time and we were unable to get agreement. However, we are fighting to ensure we maintain the position as best we can.

We seek changes we believe are necessary for securing a deal and meeting the needs and expectations of the enlarged European Union and all its citizens, including the new member states, in the seven year perspective. These changes will involve providing an adequate level of Cohesion Funds — we have stressed this point consistently; full respect for the CAP agreement which has already been reached; proper funding for rural development; a non-prescriptive review clause which will only take effect after 2013; and a much improved offer on the issue of a rebate in order that all member states pay their fair share of the costs of enlargement and no member state will be a beneficiary above and beyond that which it should receive in proportion to its size or contribution. Furthermore, we have received what we sought in regard to additional funding for competitiveness measures. We are reasonably pleased with this because the Lisbon Agenda is critical to the European and Irish economies.

Our paper on the national debate will be presented by the Taoiseach to the European Council next week. We do not have any problems in regard to those discussions. I believe a further paper will be produced, perhaps next May or June, before the final Austrian report is brought forward. I am confident there will be another document then that will take account of the progress made and how the situation is developing.

Proinsias De Rossa discussed the issue of Irish Ferries and I completely concur with him. We are in favour of the directive on manning ships and ferries within the European Union and would like it to be reintroduced by the Commission as quickly as possible. We have pressed for this and will continue to so do.

The EU Presidency's proposed text for the European Council conclusions on the services directive is not yet available. Given the current level of progress on the dossier, we expect the text will take the approach of having the European Council take note of progress thus far, while encouraging further work. While a major amount of technical work has already been carried out, much remains to be done. At this stage the main issues under discussion relate to the scope of the directive, the country of origin principle and labour law. While Ireland supports the directive, in principle, given the benefits it can bring to the economy, as well as to exporters, service providers and consumers, we have concerns we want addressed. As far as the scope of the directive is concerned, we seek the exclusion of taxation issues, a point on which we have been consistent at all times since we joined the European Union. We support the country of origin concept as the alternative, namely, harmonisation across the European Union, is unrealistic. As for labour law, we wish to preserve the application of our national system within Ireland with regard to pay, the national minimum wage and working conditions.

Proinsias De Rossa also asked a question on counter-terrorism. In the debate on the issue Ireland always stresses respect for human rights and the rule of law and will continue to so do.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Will this be a key issue at the meeting?

I will come to that point. It is not on the agenda for Monday's meeting. The United States Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, has already replied to the Presidency, as represented by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Straw. Essentially, she repeated her public statements. While the issue is now one of grave concern, essentially it is for bilateral discussion between individual member states and the United States, as well as domestic debate.

As for the Irish angle, I have nothing to add to the repeated and consistent statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Member states have different military and security relations with the United States and different concerns regarding specific allegations. We believe human rights are of critical importance and that the rights of each individual are critical. The matter is being addressed in bilateral discussions between the United States and various member states.

I apologise for being late.

I was delighted to hear the Minister of State's statement of principle on his approach to the discussions on the financial perspectives. Many months ago Deputy Andrews raised the issue of the British rebate which was introduced at a time when the United Kingdom's GDP was significantly lower than it is today. It is now a much wealthier society. All members would be disappointed if the issue was fudged at the expense of the accession countries. The priority must be to help the ten new member states in the same way that Ireland received help. I make this point to stiffen the Minister of State's resolve on the issue. It would be completely unacceptable if there was a trade-off in this regard.

I do not understand the point made by Deputy Allen and Proinsias De Rossa in respect of the need to communicate the European message. This is worthwhile when there is an issue which is of vital concern. However, the draft constitution is off the agenda in the short term because it has been rejected by two member states and might have been rejected by one or two others. Hence, we would make fools of ourselves if we toured the country flogging notions and ideas and talking about Europe when it was the last matter on people's minds. People are concerned with issues such as families, employment, household budgets, education and health, rather than the European concept. If a new convention is held and agreement is reached on a new draft constitution which is probably necessary, we should then communicate with the people. However, the notion that people in my constituency, around Dublin or elsewhere want to spend their days thinking about Europe is nonsensical. They want to think about their own lives. While they will discuss the issue if and when the European Union impinges on their lives, they do not wish to discuss it in the abstract. We do not all share Proinsias De Rossa's vision of a great and united Europe. I want Ireland to be an independent member state and do not want Irish taxpayers to pay for a propaganda department promoting his philosophy. We have had this debate in this joint committee previously. However, until something new is put on the table, I do not want Euro-pushers flogging what is essentially a dead horse in every community in Ireland.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Deputy Mulcahy is a member of Fianna Fáil, not Sinn Féin.

We have an extremely broad intellectual church in our party.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I realise that.

Deputy Mulcahy is a fine member of it.

The British budgetary rebate is one of the main stumbling blocks to reaching a final agreement on the financial perspectives. At the European Council meeting held in June the Taoiseach strongly argued that future costs of all rebates should be kept within reasonable limits. He was extremely forceful in this respect. We recognise that excessive net contributions can arise and that compensation in some form may be necessary to address them. It is a priority for some member states to achieve an agreement that would alleviate the extent of their net contribution to the EU budget. At the same time, rebates must not become a disproportionate part of the budget. Our approach has been to accept the principle of targeted and limited rebates, ideally costing no more than the current value of the United Kingdom's rebate. We have consistently stated this at Council meetings.

We wish to avoid the risk that the funding allocated to rebates would be of such magnitude as to impose unfair liabilities on other member states, including new member states. We believe rebate mechanisms should be applied according to the principle of equity. Consequently, all member states should contribute to their financing, including beneficiaries. This is important, as if beneficiaries do not contribute, it almost constitutes a double contribution to them. Against this background, the general view was that the United Kingdom's offer this week was insufficient and that a much improved offer was required in order that it would be seen to pay its fair share of the cost of enlargement. We have joined the great majority of member states in expressing this view and have been consistent in that respect.

I accept much of what Deputy Mulcahy had to say about the individual desires of citizens. They do not like to be troubled about issues unless they impinge upon them. However, it is critically important that, as politicians, we recognise the key role of the European Union and consistently communicate its message to all our citizens as regularly as possible in order that they are never too far removed from the major decisions taken, or do not appreciate its importance for us.

At the risk of repeating ourselves, I concur with the remarks made by Proinsias De Rossa and Deputy Mulcahy about the financial perspectives. If the British Government gets its way in these talks, many citizens and many Members of the European Parliament from the ten accession countries will be extremely disillusioned. Its proposals are completely unacceptable. As a country which has benefited greatly from moneys from the European Union, many of these countries will look to Ireland to ensure we fight for them, support them and hold the line for them. Anyone involved in European matters knows people look to Ireland to see how it succeeded. While there was a variety of reasons, many believe our economy developed because we received massive amounts of money from the European Union. Unquestionably, while that helped and was fantastic, it was not the only reason. We must be seen to fight the fight on their behalf.

I do not understand the British position on the CAP and I voiced this sentiment in the debate on it in the European Parliament. The migration of rural communities to urban areas is a considerable problem around the world. Between 500,000 and 750,000 people move from rural areas to urban areas per week around the world. This is an unhealthy trend from environmental and other perspectives. We do not need to debate this because we know it is true. The British Government would like to see the CAP abolished but what kind of scheme would it introduce to keep people in rural communities? It is much healthier if people are kept in rural communities.

The British Government does not appear to have any vision with regard to this issue. It appears to be constantly fighting battles with regard to rural communities, with some of which I agree. The UK is not really rooted in rural communities, which comes across in debates on the CAP. We want to keep people in rural communities because it is good for both cities and rural communities. If the CAP is abolished, another scheme must be put in its place but nobody is suggesting one. The UK's proposals are an unhealthy direct attack on rural supports. It is important for us to fight these proposals because many countries will be watching us.

Deputy Eoin Ryan made a fair point, which has been raised previously in this committee. It does not necessarily relate to financial assistance but rather to the future implications for rural communities, of which the Minister of State is aware.

I read recently that the UK produces only 40% of its food, which, if true, is incredible. This is not the case in many other European countries and it would be healthier if the proportion was much higher.

The committee increasingly holds hearings on agricultural issues because of grave concerns about the developments outlined by Deputy Eoin Ryan. This concern must be registered when the Minister of State attends meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Many Deputies from urban areas sit on this committee but it is increasingly spending a considerable amount of time discussing agricultural issues, which the Minister of State must take into consideration.

I agree and pay tribute to Deputy Eoin Ryan for the very focused way in which he presented his contribution today. It is a great credit to all our representatives, many of whom come from urban areas, that they have a considerable understanding of the importance of rural Ireland, rural development and rural Europe. Ireland has consistently stressed the critical importance of the CAP in maintaining rural societies all over Europe. Europe is a broad mass of rural areas and there is constant migration from rural to urban areas, which poses challenges. We must maintain a balance and this is the reason why the CAP must continue uninterrupted into 2013 and beyond. As Deputy Eoin Ryan noted, nobody has proposed any alternatives to this critically important common policy pillar. It has been a policy pillar of the EU since its beginning. It is the only policy pillar that has stood the test of time and is sustaining rural Europe and it must sustain it in the future.

I pay tribute to Deputy Eoin Ryan, Proinsias de Rossa, MEP, and all their colleagues in the European Parliament for the tremendous leadership they have shown, the tremendous commitment they have to the EU and the way they have represented Ireland. They are outstanding political ambassadors for Ireland and complement the outstanding diplomatic representation we receive from our ambassadors in the member states. We deeply value it and are grateful to our MEPs and ambassadors for their work.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I disagree with the Minister of State's assertion that the budget perspectives do not affect enlargement. If enlargement proceeds for Bulgaria and Romania as planned, they will join the EU by 2008. These budget perspectives run until 2013 so the money that is provided for in the broad budget over the next seven years will have an impact on those members. It also has an impact on the assistance we can give them before they join the EU to help them reach the standards we expect of them on entry.

When the Minister of State discusses better regulation, he should discuss it in the context of ensuring that business can carry out its work effectively and efficiently without undue red tape and that better regulation will prevent the race to the bottom. Otherwise, the commitment to Europe will be destroyed.

The Minister of State has refused to commit to raising the issue of the CIA on the agenda and I do not expect he will make such a commitment today. It is important from the perspective of citizens' confidence in Europe that Europe is seen to act at a European level, rather than simply at a bilateral level between member states and the US.

I am aware the Minister of State does not deal directly with the services directive. He has spoken about the scope of the directive and excluding taxation but could he insist that social and public services be excluded? There is some indication that derogations are present in general terms but the majority of MEPs, including myself, believe they are not clear or specific enough to ensure that these services will not be hit by a race to the bottom as a result of the application of the services directive.

Could the Minister of State examine the question of ensuring that both labour law in the member states and the EU regarding the posting of workers and collective agreements in member states are respected? Not all labour relations are governed by law. The minimum wage is governed by law in Ireland but not in Sweden. Other areas, such as working time, are not governed effectively by law in other member states. It is important to include labour law and collective bargaining to ensure the services directive does not lead to companies attempting to outdo each other with regard to the cheapness of labour and the undercutting of social conditions.

I hope I did not mislead the committee on financial perspectives vis-à-vis Bulgaria and Romania. These include resources for these countries. Pre-accession funding is also available as these countries will become EU members in 2008. I wanted to make the point that the €2 billion worth of CAP funding for these two countries is being taken out of the gross figure for the CAP at the moment. The proper and fair route to take is to put this amount into the original global gross fund, rather than reduce the CAP by €2 billion, to protect the interests of the two countries and their farmers.

I reiterate the Government's opposition to the race to the bottom. Collective agreements are critically important and should be recognised and respected. The Swedish issue has been referred to the European Court of Justice. We are considering our position vis-à-vis the seriousness of this issue and whether we will make a submission to the court. I certainly will have the other issues raised by Mr. De Rossa considered. CIA flights are not on the agenda, which is decided by the Presidency. I will communicate——

Proinsias De Rossa

Business is always a good vehicle.

It was discussed at the last Council. From that, it was expected bilateral talks would take place between the various member states. I will convey where appropriate the sentiments Mr. De Rossa has expressed on the different issues. We will bring on board his feelings and thoughts in any conclusions we make.

As I stated in my opening remarks or in response to the first question, Bulgaria and Romania are due to become full member states on 1 January 2007. They certainly will be member states by 2008. We do not see any difficulty in this respect. All going well, they will be in the European Union by 2007. By 2008 we will have 27 member states. I see no reason this would not be the position.

I will wrap it up there. Minister, it has been a worthwhile discussion.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.32 p.m. and adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 December 2005.

Barr
Roinn