Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. I join Senator Bradford and Senator Ormonde in congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, on his grasp of this portfolio. Since his appointment, he has demonstrated enthusiasm for and commitment to his job. The breadth of the Minister of State's address to the House was evidence of the wide-ranging nature of his portfolio. Last year, when I met the former French President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, he appeared to be criticising the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. In fact, however, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing was critical of the Minister of State for being so committed to the case for small nations, while, at the Convention on the Future of Europe, the former French President hoped to ensure those nations would remain small and would not have the same power as larger states. I congratulate the Minister of State on what he has done. I also wish to congratulate the Taoiseach and the Irish diplomatic team for the progress they achieved on the new constitutional treaty.

I wish to focus my remarks on the Lisbon Agenda. It was a tragic side-effect of the Madrid bombings that this European Council, which was originally to concentrate mainly on revitalising the Lisbon Agenda, had to divert much of its attention to other things. Some time was devoted to the original planned topic and some progress was made, but it is fair to say that the revitalisation of the Lisbon agenda did not take place. At the Forum for Europe last week, the Taoiseach said he found the need to re-inject momentum into the Lisbon strategy and he has done so very effectively.

I wish to spell out why this matter is so important and why I was so pleased that the Irish Presidency has adopted the Lisbon Agenda as one of its priorities — perhaps its main priority. The Lisbon Agenda has as its central objective that the EU will become by the year 2010 "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs, and greater social cohesion".

The importance of this declaration was that it provided an answer to a question that has been nagging at Europe ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, namely, what is Europe's place in the world? Is it, as some people continue to believe, as a type of second-level military power, designed to counter balance the United States on a global scale? Those who think so believe that international influence must be based firmly on military might and that everything, including trade, follows from that dominating fact.

One of the problems with that approach is that, almost by definition, it involves casting the United States in the role of an enemy or at the very least as a rival. That is a very barren approach to adopt, however. We need never regard the United States as an enemy, however much we might disagree with its policies, as we do on many occasions. Surely it is much better to address these differences through the offices of a friend, rather than as a rival with whom we could never compete on equal terms.

The main problem with the vision of Europe as a military power is that it is unnecessary. It is true that global influence follows from military might, but it is equally true that it can be brought about without the involvement of military power. Since the Second World War, the military power of Germany and Japan has been effectively neutralised, yet that fact has not prevented both countries from becoming major global influences on economic grounds alone.

The Lisbon Agenda was, first and foremost, a statement that the EU would compete on the world stage by economic and social means, rather than through military might. In particular, it was a statement of how Europe intended to compete with the world's only remaining superpower, the United States. The aim was to close the economic gap between the EU and the US, and for Europe then to take the lead in the new knowledge-based economy that is opening up before us. In Lisbon, the member states agreed, in the Minister of State's words, to "make our labour markets more flexible, stimulate innovation, encourage entrepreneurs, spend more on research and development and complete the Single Market".

According to the European Commission, success with this reform programme could increase the EU's underlying annual growth rate by up to 0.75% over the decade, which would bring it into line with the US by the target date of 2010. Whether all the member states fully realised it at the time, the Lisbon agenda represented a fundamental choice as to the future direction the EU could take, a choice of the economic rather than the military path. Given our own non-militarist background and tradition, it is particularly appropriate that Ireland should emerge as the champion of this agenda.

Unfortunately, as the Irish Presidency realised, agreeing the agenda was one thing but implementing it has proved a different matter. In its recent scorecard on the Lisbon Agenda, the Centre for European Reform summed it up as follows: "Even the most enthusiastic proponents of the Lisbon Agenda can only describe the EU's performance over the last 12 months as mediocre."

The economic gap between the EU and the US is widening, rather than narrowing. The hard fact now is that there is little prospect of closing that gap before the original target date of 2010. The worst case scenario is emerging as a real possibility: that by the end of the decade, the gap between Europe and America will be even wider than it was at the start. The failure of Europe as a whole to match up to the targets of the Lisbon agenda has led some people — we have seen it in this country — to question the whole process. This idea is strengthened by the pattern of patchy performance across the 15 member states. A number of countries, notably in Scandinavia, are doing well. Ireland is doing well in terms of employment and productivity but its performance is still well below par in terms of both innovation and social inclusion. Other member states, including a number of the biggest economic players, especially Italy, have made little or no progress on the reform programme.

This raises the question of whether the EU should abandon the Lisbon Agenda as a European project and instead allow each country to pursue its own destiny at the pace of its choice. The argument for doing so is strengthened because most of the actions required under the agenda must be taken at national rather than European level. Most of the agenda is outside the competence of the EU.

Such an approach would be a disaster, however well an individual state might do by ploughing its own course. Part of the thinking behind the Lisbon approach was the introduction of the concept of peer pressure, as each member state monitored the progress of its partners and encouraged those falling behind to maintain the overall European pace. This device was also aimed at bringing a European dimension to policy making that would help to offset and overcome the narrow political motivations which too often dominate at national level.

However, without the Lisbon Agenda, the Union would lack the vision that can bind it and all its citizens together in pursuit of a goal that everyone can relate to and share. Aspiring to realise and live up to such a vision is vital to the survival of the Union as an economic and political force. Turning our backs on that vision would be tantamount to turning our backs on the EU itself.

Despite the window dressing of the Council communiqué, and without wishing to undermine the modest progress made at the meeting, we have failed on this occasion to provide the Lisbon agenda with the reinvigoration it desperately needs. The Taoiseach was correct that momentum needs to be injected into it. My hope is that this failure will not put the Government off persevering with the project because the future of Europe depends on it.

I attended and spoke at the Forum on Europe last week. When we focus on something, we sometimes do not recognise the immediacy required in terms of achieving its objective. I was on the board of a hospital 20 years ago, which was contacted by the Department of Health regarding the Government's job creation programme. The board was asked how many jobs it could create in the hospital, even if they were not required. However, the objective was job creation. Many of the jobs that were created were not needed. Sustainable growth, therefore, is an important aspect of the Lisbon Agenda. If the EU is to succeed in terms of job creation, it must be sustainable and a way must be found to ensure the Union perseveres with innovation. Ireland has slipped up in this regard over recent years and investment in science and innovation in our education system needs to be reinvigorated. While momentum must be injected into the Lisbon Agenda, momentum must also be injected in this area. That is in our own hands and we can do it.