Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I, too, welcome and fully support the Bill. I noted the Minister's upbeat, stirring and rhetorical remarks. He is positive towards Europe. Many of us who were previously Euro-sceptics have seen the significant benefits of EU membership for Irish citizens, producing a better quality of life and economy and general improvements for the country. That must be acknowledged and should be the context in which we examine the contents of this legislation in which we propose to ratify the accession treaty to begin the statutory process to allow Bulgaria and Romania access to the European Union.

EU membership has been enormously beneficial for Ireland. It provided Ireland for the first time in its history with a secure and diverse market which allowed an island nation, which had to export to survive, to get prices that reflected the real value of its products. It provided structural and social funding, which underwrote many of our training and education programmes. It gave women equality in the workplace and before the law. The recent difficulties on the Nice treaty and the proposed constitution reflect not dissatisfaction with Ireland's membership of the EU but concerns among our citizens that the European project lacked transparency and accountability in its decision making, that it was becoming over bureaucratic in its structures and was not providing sufficient information to the citizens. The present "period of reflection" is important, and the national forum on Europe, an Irish invention, is doing sterling work bringing the European issues to people throughout the country.

Romania and Bulgaria await entry to the EU in 2007 and today we, as member states, are taking the first statutory step towards ratification of that accession. There should be no delay in granting that accession next year as the logical extension to the ten member states that joined in 2004 when Ireland held the presidency of the EU. The period of reflection should continue and all member states should establish the equivalent of our national forum on Europe, so that when the European movement advances again, it has a well-informed membership whose fears have been allayed and who are confident that the democratic deficit has been redressed.

Concern has been expressed that the European Commission is trying to delay the entry on 1 January next year. Speaking in the European Parliament yesterday the president of the Party of European Socialists said:

Bulgaria and Romania should enter the European Union in 2007 and I am concerned by claims circulating in Brussels that Bulgaria might not make it. Bulgaria must not become the victim of a right-wing anti-enlargement backlash. It would be grossly unfair on the new Bulgarian Government, led by Sergei Stanichev, which has passed a remarkable 60 laws in the eight months that it has been in office. A rejection or delay for Bulgaria would merely fuel the vicious anti-EU, anti-foreigner, anti-minority campaigns led by the populist Attaka. Bulgaria is the Balkan success story achieving stability and economic growth in an unstable region, now largely in need of massive reconstruction. Both countries have made remarkable progress [Bulgaria and Romania] and both have more progress to make. They are both more likely to make that progress within the European Union than being pushed back out of it. So I expect the Commission to give the green light to both countries to become EU members from 1 January 2007. Any post-accession monitoring or safeguard clauses must be based on further evaluation in the coming months and be agreed at the Council meeting in December and in talks with Romania and Bulgaria. I say the European Union must say "come inside" to Bulgaria and Romania.

That reflects my views. Bulgaria has made significant progress in a short space of time, particularly with its new government, and it would be a shame if it were not allowed to join at the same time as Romania. This process is essentially an extension of the one that led to the accession of ten countries on 1 May 2004. The fifth enlargement process should be completed in 2007.

Commissioner Olli Rehn, to whom the Minister of State referred, completed his report on enlargement in 2006 and acknowledged that both Romania and Bulgaria had achieved quite a lot. He stated Romania has made progress in the fight against corruption and that reform of the judicial system is at an advanced stage. Non-governmental organisations acknowledge that much has been achieved in the area of child protection and rights for the disabled. Mr. Rehn also stated that while there are still problems in Bulgaria, it is clear that progress has been made in the area of human trafficking. As we have heard, both countries have problems with human trafficking. Mr. Rehn concluded as follows: "We all win as the citizens in the new Member States see their standards of living increasing."

When Bulgaria and Romania join the Union — I hope it will be in 2007 — the Union will have a population of approximately 484 million, 30 million more than it has now. It will also increase its membership to 27 and add two more official languages, namely, Bulgarian and Romanian. The Bulgarian language will be the first official language of the European Union to be written in Cyrillic script. This is another first for the Union.

Let me list the main advantages of enlargement, which the Commission presented in its report of April of this year. The newcomers will accrue an increasing number of benefits from EU regional aid, which totalled €28 billion over the past 15 years and which is bound to soar thanks to the recently approved EU budget for 2007-13. This will be a major boost to the economies of both countries. The existing members of the Union will continue to benefit from the large surpluses in trade with the newcomers and the latter will easily finance the resulting current account gap by foreign direct investment.

The Minister of State referred to the increase in trade between Ireland and Romania in recent years. It amounted to less than €5 million in 1992 and to over €175 million last year. Trade with Bulgaria has multiplied more than eightfold since 1994 and there has been great emphasis on tourism in that country. I have no doubt that Irish tourists, property developers and home or villa purchasers will be heading to Bulgaria and Romania, just as they went to some of the ten countries that acceded to the Union in 2004.

By opening up opportunities for legal work in the pre-2004 member states, the 2004 enlargement has helped reduce the grey economy and black labour market. Legal workers are less prone to exploitation and poor labour standards, and they also pay taxes and make social security contributions.

The European Union requires the new member states to adopt its health, safety and other labour standards, thus improving working conditions for people in those countries and contributing to fair competition between companies. There is no evidence that enlargement has caused any serious social dumping. On the contrary, through enlargement, harmonised social standards are slowly but surely spreading across the Union.

Enlargement enables the EU to extend its police and justice co-operation to the new member states, thus making the fight against crime and terrorism more effective. The more EU members integrate their crime-fighting efforts with their neighbours, the better they can protect European citizens.

Security and justice are areas in which the European Union can clearly do more to protect its citizens than any one country alone. The Union has developed police, customs and judicial co-operation to tackle terrorism, organised crime, drugs, trafficking in human beings and illegal migration. These developments are now part of the common rules that all member states must apply.

Co-operation with Romania and Bulgaria in recent years and co-operation with Turkey, which is engaged in talks with the Union, has involved many educational institutions. There has been much participation in programmes such as the SOCRATES programme in universities and schools. Adult education institutions are involved in exchanges of policy and modes of practice through ERASMUS, COMENIUS and GRUNDTVIG. Such co-operation has been very beneficial to Irish teachers and students. There is a substantial level of exchange involving schools doing projects on the Internet, groups of three or four schools working together and teachers and pupils participating in exchange programmes. In this context, the European project has begun regarding Bulgaria and Romania. The teachers and students of these countries are already visiting Ireland and communicating with the Irish over the Internet, and they are also engaged in joint projects. These developments are very helpful in improving the relationships between the various member states.

People have questioned whether we look towards Berlin or Boston and sought to determine Ireland's commitment to social and economic values. Those of us who grew up in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s will know that in those decades, the Irish by and large looked to England or the United States and that had been the case for a century theretofore. However, that was not always the case. The Vikings, in addition to coming to Ireland, crossed the Danube and went as far as Turkey. The first contact with what is now the United States was by St. Brendan. In spite of his having done so, Ireland has generally looked towards Europe. It was known as the island of saints and scholars and it placed great emphasis on education and scholarship, which it transmitted to Europe during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. Those involved in the Flight of the Earls or the Wild Geese went to Europe for assistance, resulting in the Spanish Armada.

Looking to Europe was the trend until the famine in the middle of the 19th century. Why did the Irish turn their eyes from Europe at that time? They had no choice because famines beset much of the rest of Europe also. The Swedes, Danes, Poles and others were also fleeing their countries because of famines of varying severity. In very recent times there has been a very significant refocusing on Europe. Historically, Ireland has always looked east more than west and this must be taken into consideration in determining where our future lies.

Since 1972, the benefits of membership of the European Union have accrued to Ireland. When we consider the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, we bear in mind, perhaps while wearing rose-tinted glasses, what has been achieved by Ireland. We note the enormous transfer of €35 billion in CAP funding alone, not to mention social and infrastructural funds. All these moneys benefited Ireland greatly, including in terms of education and training. One should remember that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Ireland was a basket case in terms of employment and it had not made much progress in the areas I have mentioned. There was very little investment in the country at that stage but we emerged from that period with a bang in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This momentum was provided by infrastructure, training, education, funding and investment by companies seeking a stepping stone to Europe. These factors will have a bearing on the new accession states, poor eastern European countries formerly of the Soviet bloc, that have sent sons and daughters to this country, more so from Romania than Bulgaria. We should look at what is happening in a positive light. We had fears about migration in 2004 when ten new countries joined the EU and only Ireland, Sweden and Britain allowed free access to the workplace.

Interesting figures provided by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, show that 3% of the workforce consists of those from the ten new accession countries. This is slightly different to the figure of 2% provided by the Minister of State. Some 9% of the workforce is made up of non-nationals and two thirds of these are not from the new accession countries. The Minister stated that only 62,000 of the 135,000 who entered our workforce in 2004 are still here. Some 73,000 workers have returned home or gone elsewhere. The pattern of migratory activity is cyclical and perhaps these workers have moved to another EU state. The projected growth in the economy is 4.6% to 5%, which allows for an additional 60,000 workers. If ten countries have provided 62,000 workers over the past two years and the optimistic growth projection is 5%, providing for 60,000 workers annually, we should scarcely be afraid of two new countries with a combined population of 30 million. This is in contrast to the population of Poland which is 45 million.

Based on this analysis we should not be unduly worried about displacement in the workplace or a race to the bottom. Commissioner McCreevy's social directive has been amended, making it more difficult for firms from other countries to usurp the standards, values and conditions of the workplace in the host country. I wish to see the effect of the accession of ten new member states clearly identified before the autumn. The National Economic and Social Council is conducting a survey on the management of migration. It is important to separate myth from reality and it is important that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment can publish statistics on those coming here from accession countries. Are these people coming for a month as students? Why do they not stay longer if they are entitled to do so? Is it true that those from the accession countries make up between 2% and 3% of the workforce?

The downside of migration is trafficking, drugs, crime and the number of accidents on our roads. The number of those from Eastern Europe involved in serious accidents is disproportionately high. This must be examined and addressed. As an island nation we should be more protected from criminal activity, such as drugs, trafficking and the increased proliferation of weapons but the sea is no barrier to the arrival of such elements. Many weapons in this country are of Eastern European origin as well as some from Northern Ireland. Much of the trafficking of drugs, women and children to Ireland comes from accession countries and beyond.

There have been attempts to increase co-operation between the police forces but it has not been entirely successful and must be examined closely. When I was the Labour Party spokesperson on justice I saw a number of directives of this nature considered as well as legislation from Europe. The reality is that police forces do not operate in a sufficiently coherent and co-operative fashion. I refer to the "Prime Time Investigates" programme in which we saw some of the extent of the trafficking problem.

I welcome the two new countries that are close to joining. They are part of the fifth enlargement process. We have reached the stage where we cannot assume that any further enlargement proposal or treaty will be easily passed. Any new referendum will be treated with suspicion. The Treaty of Nice had a major effect on this country's psychology, and the proposed constitution withdrawn after being rejected by the Netherlands and France also had a substantial psychological impact. There is no sense whatsoever in putting a referendum to the people in the future unless one does so with a great deal of information on the provisions and substance of the text. All the political parties must line up to say that they support it, otherwise the people will not accept it.

From that perspective, the National Forum on Europe is extremely important, and work done under the chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes has been invaluable. There have been regional meetings around the country, with involvement on the part of youth and various pillars and organisations. The main point is that it has been brought to the people, something that must continue. If Europe is to be promoted as the way forward economically and socially — "sold" is perhaps the wrong word — it must be promoted with the people. It must be made clear that the democratic deficit is being eradicated and that the structures have the necessary element of democracy, with no decisions made that lack accountability or transparency.

That is the problem. Too many people took for granted the fact that decisions could be made quickly and short-cuts taken. That will not work, and in this country we have at least acknowledged that, since the Treaty of Nice in 2002 hit home very quickly. However, in other countries, where no attempt has been made to supply information to the ordinary citizen, I can imagine the problem that will occur, and the situation that arose in France and the Netherlands will be multiplied when there are further treaties or attempts to enlarge the Union in circumstances more controversial than the present.

I am delighted to support this legislation. As I said, I hope that the accession date determined is the earlier one of 2007 rather than 2008.

See this speech in context