Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I congratulate the Taoiseach and the Minister for being part of this European Council agreement because if one looked back to the difficulties evident at the Luxembourg Council, reaching agreement at the subsequent Council on the EU budget and the Cohesion Funds for the accession countries appeared almost insurmountable.

My first question relates to the Taoiseach's statement that the agreement provides that from 2013, at the latest, Britain will fully participate in the financing of enlargement costs for countries that acceded to the EU after April 2004, except for CAP market expenditure. The subject of the British rebate has been discussed at length at the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The unanimous view at that committee was that the British rebate was negotiated at a time when Britain was a much poorer country than it is now and that there was no excuse at this stage for a British rebate of any kind. I appreciate agreement had to be reached. Will the Minister clarify what "except for CAP market expenditure" means? Is that the sole extent to which the British rebate will remain intact?

I refer to Cohesion Funds for the accession states. Ireland benefited significantly from the provision of such funds for a number of years and they helped us to become a successful economy. Many of the accession states such as Poland desperately need these supports to raise their standard of living up to ours and to develop their economies. I very much support the European project and I was appalled that had the British rebate been maintained, these member states would have been denied their just entitlements, which had been agreed when they acceded to the Union approximately a year ago. They were promised Cohesion Funds and supports. Will they receive what they were promised in the agreements?

The Iranian nuclear programme was also discussed at the European Council. The seals had not been broken at one of the Iranian nuclear testing sites at the time but every member state is concerned about Iran's position. A theory being put forward is that Iran is seeking security guarantees and economic assistance and it has no interest in developing nuclear weapons. Was the Iranian issue discussed in the broader context of the Middle East or was the discussion confinedto Iran's compliance with the demands of the IAEA?

See this speech in context