Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State for his statement, which sets out the main content of the European Council meeting. As I stated in another forum, it is very important that there be debate in plenary form in both Houses when a Council meeting occurs. It does not always follow that we have an opportunity to contribute to such debate.

My abiding memory of the most recent Council meeting was the walk-out by President Chirac when one of the Commissioners decided to speak in English rather than French. I regarded this as a rather petulant response by the leader of one of the biggest and most influential countries in the European Union. I often wonder whether someone such as François Mitterrand would have responded in such a way.

The Minister of State's assessment was upbeat but I do not share his optimism. I will explain why this is the case. There is currently profound instability in the European Union and it lacks the moral and political leadership to steer us through this very difficult time. That there is a period of reflection, which started in 2005 and will not end until at least 2007, demonstrates the dilemma at the heart of the European project. This emanates from the rejection of the constitution in both France and Holland.

Europe is being blamed for every ill that befalls nation states. Last weekend, on 1 April, an alleged joke on the part of the national broadcaster indicated that the Minister for Transport had just signed automatically a new law such that all drivers would have to drive on the right hand side of the road. This is an example of the narrow-minded way in which Europe is constantly blamed for all the ills that befall this society. When things go right for the Government, it is regarded as the achievement of the Government and when things go wrong, Brussels is blamed.

The lack of political and moral leadership in the European project must be addressed. I say this in the knowledge that the Government wants to move forward with the ratification of the constitution. It ensured that a great amount of political capital was invested in the convention and the final text of the constitution, of which we had a part in negotiating so successfully. However, while we must recognise the difficulties that exist at the heart of the European project, we should not over-exaggerate them.

There is currently a two-speed Europe — a western Europe and an eastern Europe and they are both very different. Last year a constituent of mine employed seven people in the area of web design in his communications business but all these jobs are now outsourced to Latvia and Poland. They were lost in Ireland because the constituent can run his business at a tenth of the cost by employing people from those countries. This is an example of the two-speed Europe.

The Stability and Growth Pact serves as another example in that one law applies to the big countries and another to Ireland and other small countries. We have seen too many examples of the Maastricht guidelines being broken routinely by the Italians, French and Germans while small countries such as Ireland were rapped across the knuckles for adhering to the guidelines and the Stability and Growth Pact. This contradiction must be addressed sooner rather than later. Totally different sets of standards apply in this area of key policy, to which we have all signed up as a result of our support for and implementation of the euro.

The European Union has particular problems associated with unemployment. The demonstrations in France over the past week or so highlight the great problem of youth unemployment, which also exists in Poland. This must be addressed and this is why I refer to a two-speed Europe. One side is doing very well and ensuring high levels of employment and growth while the other is languishing, thus having an effect on the Union.

President Barroso, in the course of his contribution at the meeting of the Council, summed up the matter very well by saying we cannot be open for business with the rest of the world and closed to each other. Commissioner McCreevy also struck the right note when he warned about the futility of building political "Maginot lines" around a member state's economy. We have seen examples of this. The current dispute between Italy and France in respect of the purchasing of an international energy company is an example of the new economic nationalism that has taken hold owing to a lack of political leadership on the part of some EU countries. The dispute between the French and Italians demonstrates the existence of a neonationalist economic identity which must be recognised. Unfortunately, nobody at Council level or at the Commission is sounding out the matter or saying we need to do more to ensure harmonisation.

I very much welcome the fact that, as a result of the Council meeting, we are seeing the start of a new single energy market in the European Union. The countries of the Union, Ireland in particular, are dependent on energy resources from outside the Union. Some 91% of Ireland's energy is imported and it is very dependent on oil and gas. We know these fuels will not be available indefinitely. We recently noted the dispute between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, as referred to by the Minister of State. It demonstrated our dependence on a supply of oil and gas which, if turned off tomorrow, would greatly dent Irish economic performance. It is therefore right and proper, not just in terms of the North-South interconnector, which we all support, that we have a single energy market in the European Union. I commend the Council on moving in this direction. If we are serious about ensuring future energy supply, we must address the issue of renewable energy and biofuels and move rapidly to become less dependent on oil and gas. I ask the Government to further the agenda of creating a new energy market in the Union because it will be crucial to the continuing growth of our economy.

I welcome the announcement on ETA by the Council. The Spanish Government is to be congratulated on its work in this area. The announcement by ETA of an unconditional, permanent ceasefire was considerably more advantageous than the announcement of the initial ceasefire by the IRA over ten years ago, and it is to be congratulated on this. Any measures the European Union can introduce in the Basque region to support and sustain the ceasefire, and the peace process I hope will flow from it, should be supported.

One of the positive results of the Council meeting concerns roaming charges. I commend the Government on raising this issue. We need to focus on practical measures that the ordinary citizens in Europe can see are being implemented by their politicians. If we can abolish roaming charges, as referred to by the telecommunications Commissioner last week, we will be taking a very practical, consumer-friendly step regarding an issue that many European citizens rightly highlight. I encourage the Government to continue its efforts to achieve this.

These are the kinds of practical issues on which we must concentrate because we do not have any plan B. According to my humble judgment, we do not have political leadership of sufficient weight in the European Union, nor do we have the Mitterrands or Kohls to bring us out of the morass we are in. I wish we did.