John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome his speech because, while the Bill is straightforward and brief, significant questions are associated with it. To his credit the Minister has this afternoon addressed some of those wider questions on the European project, its achievements and its direction. It is appropriate for us to consider enlargement, the adoption of the constitutional treaty and the entire EU project in the context of this Bill. The Bill is important and I welcome it. Ireland needs to ratify it for treaty purposes. I welcome the prospect of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. It will be of benefit, as has been the accession of the most recent member states. I and my party, the Progressive Democrats, have always been enthusiasts of the European project, although, in common with many, not uncritical of it. Our country's interests are best served by taking a full and constructive role in the EU and its institutions. In the past it has been too much of a one-way street. In the early days we looked to what the EU could give us without thinking about what we could give back or our responsibilities regarding the assistance we received. That has changed for the better. Ireland's historical orientation since we joined the EU has been to be full and constructive members. The Minister referred to the role of the late former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, in 1990. There have been examples where the country, in its Presidency, has played a key role in the enlargement of the Community and progressing accession of the new member states. There have been one or two logjams when, but for the role of Irish Governments and officials involved in the EU Presidencies, the project would not have proceeded with the speed it did. That must be recognised.

My party has always resolved to work to ensure Ireland is an active and enthusiastic contributor to the development of EU policies and democratic structures. The country has played its part with positive benefits both for us and the EU. Non-member states have observed the experience of Ireland and other states and have been keen to join up. Our recent economic success has been an inspiration to newer member states. I was in Estonia recently with members of the Committee on European Affairs and they were enthused and interested, as were the people of the Czech Republic, at how Ireland had benefited so much from the EU. I was in Tallinn, Estonia, on 9 September 2001 and it is extraordinary to see the transformation of that country in the short period since then. It is much more self-confident and open and the fabric of the country has improved in terms of housing and public buildings. It is obvious that money has gone into the country and it has been beneficial.

Apart from some of the benefits the Minister of State mentioned, enlargement benefits Ireland as a trading country and one of the most open economies in the world by providing a bigger market for our products. Enlargement has been about trade, among other matters such as democracy. Ireland has been at the centre of the European project since our accession in 1973, and especially since the fall of communism, which has been referred to. These events have precipitated the scenario where Romania and Bulgaria, 25 years later, are approaching accession to the EU. We have played a significant role in the enlargement process, as I stated earlier when I referred to what took place in 1990.

The recent Irish Presidency accepted ten new member states and we must remain open to enlargement. The benefits, such as trade, have accrued and stability, which has been referred to, has also been important. The EU was built from the ruins of Second World War Europe, from which Ireland was removed. From that catastrophe came the determination embodied in people such as Robert Schumann, Paul-Henri Spaak, Konrad Adenauer and Jean Monet to ensure it could not happen again. It is an extraordinary achievement that after centuries of conflict between European states we have come to the point of such stability.

The Minister has stated that the accession of neither country is in doubt and the question is when rather than if. He mentioned some of the red-flag issues, and it is encouraging to see that they are reducing. There is a perception that accession is a casual process and that membership is automatic but nothing could be further from the truth. Countries must overcome many hurdles before becoming members. There are criteria on democratic structures, respect for human rights and rule of law among others. There is also the question of the acquis communautaire, a large body of work to which the applicant countries must accede before they can become members. It is not a casual decision made by the leader of a country with the agreement of the people. The European Council will decide, based on the recommendation from the European Commission, which in turn will base its findings on the comprehensive monitoring reports of Bulgaria and Romania, whether the countries are ready for accession and when it should take place.

The question of workers has been raised and no decision has been made on Bulgarian and Romanian workers having access to this country on accession. There was a positive response in Estonia, the Czech Republic and elsewhere when Ireland decided to take workers from day one. Selfish interests were involved. The Irish economy needed workers. Senator Mooney was incorrect to indicate that we have been overrun by immigrants. The numbers are modest by European standards in proportionate terms. The speed with which it has happened has caused some difficulties. It would be ironic and wrong if, given our experience of building some of the great countries such as the US, we could not understand that when we are successful, people want to come here and contribute to our success. They should be embraced and their culture, religion and ethnicity should be accepted and accommodated in the country. That is the lesson from France. The problem was not that the workers came, but that there was no attempt to integrate them into the country and the ghettos were allowed to develop to the north of Paris and elsewhere.

I am glad Romania and Bulgaria are continuing their democratic and economic transformation and we have been alerted to the intention to focus on some important areas where further reform is required. That cannot be stressed enough. The EU has to deal comprehensively with citizens' concerns. That is the lesson from the constitutional treaty and enlargement and in that respect I agree with Senator Mooney, that in the past there has not been enough regard for the concerns of the citizens.

There are serious concerns regarding crime and contract killings in Bulgaria. There have been media reports of corruption among the judiciary, failure to sentence convicted criminals and alleged bribery at high levels. These are serious allegations. Then there is the question of the rights of people with disabilities. Senator Henry has spoken here about children in orphanages and I have a friend who has first-hand experience of these matters and I know it is an appalling situation. Irish agencies are doing their best to improve matters but improvements must be made in standards before accession can take place seamlessly and flawlessly. It is easy to list these issues and embed them in the minds of citizens but they cannot be disregarded.

The Commission has called on Bulgaria to take urgent action to obtain tangible results in investigating and prosecuting organised crime networks and has also called for a more efficient and systematic interpretation of laws in the fight against fraud and corruption. If Bulgaria fails to do these things the Commission may delay accepting Bulgaria as a full member which would send a very unfortunate message to people in that country.

The Government of Romania has had some positive results in fighting high level corruption and reforming the judiciary, though some problems remain regarding a computerised tax collection system, food safety and setting up agencies to pay and monitor EU farm subsidies, something that will resonate with us. Overall, commentators have said that institutional reform standards are comparable in Bulgaria and Romania but that the committed attitude of the Romanian Government is what makes the difference. From that point of view Romania has an advantage.

Both countries have some way to go. Along with the Soviet Union, Albania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Poland they were blighted because of post-war divisions, the Cold War and the flaws of communism. Membership of the EU has signalled the final throwing-off of the shackles of the past for other former eastern bloc states and the accession of Bulgaria will make complete the enlargement of the EU since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It is noticeable that Estonia has many young people at senior levels of the civil service and public administration which has transformed the country and brought great energy to the institutions of state which were moribund under the communist regime.

The Minister of State made reference to the relocation of labour and the perception that there will be a move eastwards to the lower labour-cost economies. The key to stopping this is productivity. This may not apply to traditional manufacturing industries which are difficult to stop from relocating. In high-tech industry we can offer high productivity. I met a senior executive from Intel a few years ago, by chance, while on holidays and I asked him why the company had not relocated to China or elsewhere. He said it was because the cost per unit is lower in Ireland than it would be in an economy with low-cost labour because productivity is so high here. This relates to competitiveness and is something on which the Government must focus.

In progressing from six member states to 25, the EU has shown itself capable of dealing with institutional pressures. I therefore hope we will soon welcome Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union and that they will contribute as much as I hope we have over the past 30 years.