Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I welcome this Bill and the fact that public opinion, as reflected in the Oireachtas, is still overwhelmingly positive, despite some of the fears expressed by the previous speaker. I am sure that fact is intimately connected with the success of our economy, which means we do not have too many grounds to be fearful.

This Bill which deals with EU enlargement to include Bulgaria and Romania, is a reflection of the enormous success of the European Union in overcoming the division of Europe in a peaceful and harmonious fashion. Notwithstanding certain problems, previous enlargements proved to be overwhelmingly positive experiences. It is quite wrong to say that, in the 1960s, the Europe of the six was a harmonious place. It could be argued that it endured the most bitter divisions of all, when disputes between General de Gaulle and the Commission led to an empty chair policy.

The Minister of State noted that the origins of this process date to 1990 and the Irish Presidency under the late Charles Haughey. I remember a debate at that time in which the French argued for a Europe of concentric circles, with a core membership and outer rings of countries associated to various degrees. I am glad that debate has been resolved in the way it has, namely, by the inclusion as full members with full rights of all the countries of central and eastern Europe, when they are eligible.

Senator Brian Hayes was correct to draw attention to the importance of redistribution but it is also important to note the effect of relatively small, in a global sense if not for the recipient countries, redistributive amounts, which were catalytic both for us and the Mediterranean countries, and which are now to be received by the countries of central and eastern Europe. I am pleased we have also given some bilateral assistance.

I hope it will be possible for Bulgaria and Romania to complete the preparations for accession by 1 January 2007. I have never been to Romania but have visited the capital of Bulgaria, Sofia, and was impressed. I would be very pleased to welcome both countries into the EU.

The Minister of State's speech made passing references to some of the outstanding problems. The issues of corruption, criminality and trafficking arose momentarily in an Irish context last year in connection with the fallout from the Northern Bank raid and the suggestion that some moneys might be laundered via Bulgaria. That underlined the point that for Bulgaria to deal effectively with such matters is of interest to the entire European Union and not just Bulgaria. The same is true of the call for agricultural procedures in Romania to be put in working order. As Romania is an agricultural exporter it is of interest to every agricultural country in Europe.

The Minister of State cited the impressive growth in trade between Ireland and Romania and Ireland and Bulgaria, which I am sure will be greatly built upon, as it has been with other countries of central and eastern Europe once they became full members. I also suspect both countries will become attractive for tourists. My father attended an international conference 30 years ago in Bulgaria and was very impressed with the Black Sea resorts. That will be good for us and will extend, mentally at any rate, the type of places to which we will be willing to go.

The Government is right to be cautious about when, and under what conditions, to implement the free movement of workers. These two countries have substantial populations. There is no doubt we took some risk in 2004, but our studies and European ones show it has been very beneficial to Ireland. I am not convinced, however, that we should push our luck too hard. I would not want to second-guess the Government as it is a matter for it and its various expert agencies to study closely what is the right decision for this country. I would not attempt to prescribe it.

The Minister of State raised the question of future enlargement. This must be done carefully and gradually as it has been to date. After all, it took the countries which first entered into relationships with the European Union in 1990 some 13 or 14 years before they could become full members. It is extremely important for the reasons stated by Senator Ormonde that countries only become full members when they are fully prepared, will not have a destabilising effect on the existing Union and will not undermine confidence in it.

With that very important caveat, I must say I have the vision of General de Gaulle that the eventual boundaries of the European Union should probably stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals and the Caucasus. That leaves a question in regard to what to do about Russia given that it stretches to the Pacific but I suppose I am thinking of countries such as Ukraine.

Despite fears expressed about the increasing unmanageability of the Union in the absence of the EU constitution, it seems to have operated so far reasonably smoothly and harmoniously. However, that cannot be taken for granted and the Government is correct to be committed to the constitution and to hope that conditions and circumstances, particularly in the two countries which rejected it, change to allow adoption of all or most of it.

I am glad the Finance Ministers changed their minds about Slovenia joining the eurozone, which I raised on the Order of Business. As it was 0.1% out on its inflation figure, it was not going to be eligible to join but the Finance Ministers have thought better of that attitude, which I welcome.