Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Stability and Growth Pact, the Lisbon strategy, the UN and climate change were among the key matters discussed at the last European Council meeting. It was careless that no Irish Minister attended the subsequent meeting of the EU Finance Ministers to reform the Stability and Growth Pact.

I welcome the new rules allowing member states with significant infrastructural needs to borrow to fund infrastructural projects. We also believe that other aspects of the deal are questionable. Some member states are offering soft excuses for exceeding borrowing limits. It appears that enforcement procedures are being politicised but interest rates and the post meeting prospect of a rise are more problematic.

The Government has not addressed the real risk of interest rate increases. The level of indebtedness in the Irish economy has risen significantly in recent years. Consequently, possible future European Central Bank moves to increase rates could have a disproportionately high impact on Irish people, especially those in the eastern part of the country, mortgaged to the hilt for average homes. I ask that the Government clarify the merits of the new deal it signed up to in abstentia and to reassure borrowers they will not pay in the long term.

In respect of the Lisbon Agenda, there was agreement that the mixed results so far meant it was time for urgent action. The mid-term review by former Prime Minister, Wim Kok, suggests that the Lisbon Agenda be re-focused on growth and employment to counteract the dearth of progress made in the first five years of its remit. It appeared as if the Lisbon Agenda contained too much waffle and had objectives and targets that were simply impractical to achieve. The new start for the Lisbon Agenda is to be welcomed. From an Irish perspective, I am deeply concerned at the Government's ongoing inability to improve competitiveness and to enhance basic infrastructure which are both key aspects of the Lisbon strategy. Ireland has fallen from No. 4 to No. 30 in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report, due mainly to the Government's failure to control prices. Ireland is No. 14 out of 15 countries in terms of broadband penetration. Denmark, a country of similar size, has more than ten times as many broadband lines. There has been much talk and many promises but the impact and penetration of broadband is not there.

A central issue of great concern to me is that Ireland has prided itself so much on its IT sector as a means of improving our world ratings and our economic prospects, yet there has been no roll-out of the IT programme for Irish schools. No moneys have been allocated even though I understand provision has been made for this in the Vote. This was promised 18 months ago and there is still no sign of it. We expect our school children to compete internationally even though they are at a serious disadvantage. This is a consequence of lack of clarity from Government.

Other challenges to member states include an ageing population, unemployment and the need for family-friendly work environments, all of which have been addressed in the EPP document, Growth, Prosperity and Jobs in Europe, which was adopted last month. Critical to addressing these problems is reform, as the Taoiseach has pointed out. Only bold reform will ensure that the Lisbon strategy is progressed successfully in its second five years.

I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for obtaining a signal honour for the country and for himself as a result of his nomination to do a particular job by Kofi Annan recently. The council welcomed Secretary General Annan's report on its future. Reform of membership of the Security Council and speeding up the deliberation process are vital, as is the UN's capacity to react quickly to changing situations. The proposed reform of the Economic and Social Council and the replacing of the Commission on Human Rights are also vital aspects of the reform programme. It is perfectly obvious that the UN Security Council was designed and created after the Second World War for a world that no longer exists. Fifty years on it is time for change. There are now some very powerful, emerging nations with vast populations which are not represented on the Security Council. I hope the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will consider the attempt to create a structure within the UN reflecting the demographics and dealing with the problems of the modern world.

Three million people die of HIV-AIDS every year. The Taoiseach referred to these statistics in respect of Lesotho and other African states. Millions more are being lost to starvation, poverty and disease. Kofi Annan states that the UN goals to tackle these problems will be met in the next ten years only if all of us dramatically accelerate action on this front. Unfortunately, Ireland has decelerated action through the Government's U-turn on ODA. In congratulating the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on his reform role, I hope his presence there will create an opportunity to effect real change in this organisation because time is running out for millions all over the world on a daily basis. By the conclusion of this debate today, millions of children in Africa will have died.

Time is running out too in terms of climate change. Scientists are warning that sea levels could rise by 88 cms by the end of the century, threatening 100 million people on the planet. Even the infringement proceedings signalled in recent days prove how abjectly irresponsible is the Government's attitude to climate change and ensuring Ireland meets its international responsibilities. The Government is letting Ireland down in this regard, not just politically, but morally. The poorest parts of the world will suffer most from severe weather events such as longer, hotter droughts and rising oceans. Yet these are the people who have contributed least to the serious problems of global warming and global dimming. In terms of ozone depleting gasses, Ireland is the only member state not to file the most basic emission information. This should have been done in 2001. It is further proof that despite ratifying the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, the Government has continually and casually failed to deliver on these fundamentals.

The Bill to provide for the ratification of the EU constitution will be published in the near future. My main argument is that we must not fail to deliver a "Yes" vote at the next referendum on Europe. Agreeing the treaty was one thing but adopting it will be quite another. Getting the people to adopt the constitutional treaty will be the moment of truth for politicians. When Ireland votes at the next referendum on Europe, the question will be unequivocal: Are we for or against Europe? How Ireland answers depends critically on how we, the politicians, engage with the public and on how honestly and passionately we communicate the political argument for Europe in the intervening time. It is clear that the EU can no longer be sold to the electorate as an innocuous economic club which is owned by the governments of the member states. At this time of acute transition in the European Union, the economic argument is no longer the main argument. This is the argument that puts forward the notion of the one-way benefit and asks what is in it for me.

The constitutional treaty agreed last summer signifies the European Union as a political and legal entity of its own. From now on, the argument is primarily political and even philosophical. It is now a question about the "why" of Europe. Low voter turn-out at the last European elections drew comments that Europe is lacking a brand. There may be some element of truth in this. What is needed to sell Europe is not a rebranding exercise, but something far deeper. That deeper component is raw politics such as examining, debating, defining, interpreting and reinterpreting what it is to be Irish and what it is to be European, particularly at this time of growth and transition in the EU.

The tradition of individual rights is one of the great realisations of European civilisation. There is a danger for Europe and the EU when the rights and demands of the individual state are ring-fenced without considering their connection with the needs and the good of the whole. Therefore, it is time to communicate what it is to be European in a way that involves responsibility as well as rights. It must relate the good of the individual state to the greater good of the larger group. If this is not done, we will begin to erode the political process at a crucial juncture. We must persuade people that the EU is about them and their lives. We must help people take ownership of the EU project. Our 455 million citizens must decide together the kind of future we want for ourselves and for our children.

Margot Wallström expressed it well in Dublin Castle recently when she said: "Europe is not just about business and the Single Market, it is also about helping each other to tackle social problems, human problems." Just as the European Union cannot survive if individual states become alienated from the whole, neither can it survive if the individual voter, the person, becomes alienated from what Europe is supposed to be. Our challenge and opportunity is to engage with the person. We must address them not just as voters, but as individuals, every one of them with their own story, their personal hopes, ambitions and fears. Our challenge and our opportunity is to give them a reason to think again about Europe, to debate the European ideal, to discuss their complex identity, their attachment to their country and their continent in a new and meaningful way. It will be necessary to overcome our history. Historically and geographically, Ireland never had that shared sense of Europe, with its shared memory of the Inquisition, Napoleon, fascism and two world wars. Almost from the time of the Dark Ages, Ireland as an island nation has been obsessively outward-looking. Despite our somewhat separate history, we share with Europe the fact that political happiness is a relatively new idea for both of us.

I urge the Taoiseach and his Government to bring the debate on the constitutional treaty to the people of Ireland as a matter of urgency. Ireland and Europe cannot afford a repeat of the first Nice treaty referendum, where large numbers of people rejected the treaty for the simple reason that there was not sufficient information and clarity about the issues. Romano Prodi was correct when he stated after the last European elections that there must be an immediate response to the disenchantment of our citizens.

France will shortly go to the polls on the constitution and the outcome is uncertain. Research indicates French voters are not anti-Europe per se but that they feel uninvolved by Europe and in the European process. We should not allow the same to happen here. We must convince people that Europe is their Continent, their Parliament and their Union and that we face a time of critical transition.

Every era of transition invents new forms — political, social, economic, technological and even philosophical. The map of Europe has changed radically in the last 30 years. What will it look like in 30 or 50 years' time? Will we as a Union have achieved and even exceeded the ambitions outlined in Lisbon? The Taoiseach and Government were congratulated, when handing over the EU Presidency on 1 May last year, on having successfully concluded the negotiation of the European constitution. How do we now handle the debate around the referendum? Do we want to be among the inventors of these new forms or mere observers? How we vote on the treaty will decide that.

Referenda on the constitution may fall in some countries. I know from discussions with my colleagues in the EPP that there will be difficulties in a number of states. Margaret Thatcher's "Fortress Europe" that would steamroll national identities is very much alive in the imagination of a particular section of British society. It is difficult to envisage Britain joining the euro, for example. There seems to be some innate difficulty in that regard. It may be that Britain will not be convinced to join the euro until other European economies perform exceptionally well, particularly France, Germany and Italy. If the British Government sees the growing strength of these economies, it may decide to join the euro on that basis. It is difficult to see it joining for any other reason.

It is up to countries like Ireland to take the lead and renew our commitment to the European ideal. The new Europe needs this constitutional treaty to be carried by the electorate if the Union is to function in an efficient and relevant way that can make a difference to the daily life of its citizens. We could limp along on our existing legal base but that is not enough. The constitutional treaty is necessary if the Union is to be as flexible, efficient, transparent and accessible to its citizens as it possibly can be.

The treaty brings Europe closer to the people in that it contains in one document the provisions of all existing treaties. In short, it indicates that for which the EU and the individual Governments are responsible. We must remember that we only give to the European constitution the authority we agree to give it. As a compromise between 25 countries, it is not and cannot be perfect. We will not all get what we want. However, it represents a critical balance of the rights and responsibilities of the different member states which constitute the European family. The people of Ireland and Europe are people of ideals. The Government should and must respond by providing citizens with adequate information to make their decision. Let us have this debate in full and open session as often as possible.

See this speech in context